Or maybe it's this. I don't know what the heck this is (it came up as a search result for "1990 Nissan Altima" — I was taking wild guesses), but it almost looks like a better match than the Taurus. I'm just not sure if it ever sold in the U.S., since no other pictures seem to show the same car.

As someone else already suggested, it looks an awful lot like the first-gen Taurus. I definitely think the car in the picture has four doors, and the lines are straight and horizontal. The more I look at it, the more I think I'm right.

You guys are way too tough on TG USA. Last week's episode was actually quite good. And they've been improving greatly from episode to episode: you can see they're starting to be more comfortable with each other.

@Otacon91: You will know things are bad when there are laws governing what we can think or do in our private lives, or laws that establish what is moral and what isn't.

@radarskiy: I agree. The parents don't really have a case against the guy, unless they have a really good lawyer with mad Photoshop skillz.

@Gators15: I'm not entirely sure of the meaning of iStockPhoto's terms, but it would seem to me as if he is creating pornography, to some extent. However, considering that he is doing it for the sole purpose of using it in court, it might not be infringing on the ToS. But, I might also be wrong.

@MajorGroove: Yes, I really don't think the parents have a case here. As you said, as long as the modified photos are destroyed, they have no effect, i.e. causing "personal injury," on the children.

@MajorGroove: I don't see why not. If you don't like it, buy Android.

This situation is very conflicting for me. On one hand, what he did is somewhat screwed up. Spending hours modifying pictures of children to make it look as if they're involved in sexual acts is not alright. He probably could have gotten his point across in other ways, as the article suggests.

@The Squid: Yeah, I think that's the bigger question here.

@Gators15: iStockPhoto prohibits the use of their images for "pornographic, obscene, or libelous works."

@MajorGroove: The seller of the stock photos most likely has a license agreement which the buyer must accept. That agreement usually prohibits the use of the photos for pornographic purposes. Therefore, Boland is in the wrong in that respect.

@EyeHeartPie: How/why would someone dig up photos of adults from their childhood for a job? Not only were these photos only presented/distributed in court, but they do not have the names of the children associated with them.

@thirdchild: Are you insinuating that only blonde women drink coffee?

So, in this way, you don't need a special device that's uncomfortable to wear for every TV viewer?

If you enjoy these types of videos, there's a channel on YouTube full of HD videos of various beautiful scenery set to very good music.

I have the kind of mailwoman that never comes to the door to deliver a package. Instead, she just leaves a slip in the mailbox that says she couldn't find anyone home (even when I am watching her from my window; she never gets out of her little car), thus forcing me to make a trip to the post office if I want any of…

@Settings: But you could make that argument about anything that happens on the Internet. After all, the Internet (including all its blogs, online newspapers, and other sources of news) is part of technology.

Although I enjoyed reading this article, I've come to terms that I see myself differently in the mirror than in photos.

@SeventyTimes7: You should get a paycheck.