Weird News Stories part2

[Raithe]

Bus Pass Elvis Beats Lib Dems in Local Council by-election

 

 

 

A pensioner dressed as Elvis has beaten the Liberal Democrats in a local council by-election.

 

David Laurence Bishop, who goes by the name of Lord Biro, stood as a candidate for the Bus Pass Elvis Party.

He received 67 votes in the by-election in Clifton North, Nottingham with Lib Dem candidate Tony Marshall coming last with 56. Labour won with 1,174 votes.

Taking the news in jest, a national Lib Dem spokesman said: "We are all shook up by the result."

 

Mr Bishop, who has stood for election as a councillor in Nottingham at least six times, said he was "shocked" by the result.

"I thought there was a chance I could beat the Lib Dems because they are not very popular in this area," he said.

"I was hoping I would beat UKIP because it was the first time they had stood, but I didn't."

 

As part of his manifesto Mr Bishop had pledged to tighten laws on hand gun ownership and legalise brothels with a 30% discount for OAPs.

He also said he wanted to scrap the high speed HS2 train because it would destroy Nottingham's greenbelt and pledged to stop any more tram routes being constructed in the city.

In the last 15 years Mr Bishop has stood for eight different parties, including the Elvis Loves Pets Party, Grumpy Old Elvis Party and the Elvis Turns Green Party.

 

He said being a pensioner himself, he always tries to fight for older members of the community, which inspired the name for his party.

"If Elvis was still alive he would be on his bus pass, and most of the original fans are pensioners now so I thought it was a good name," added Mr Bishop.

"I always think I'm going to do well when I stand but I never do. But there is always a chance."

 

Mr Bishop said he had not yet thought about standing for next year's general election but may consider running for Skegness and Boston in Lincolnshire.

"I have always fantasised about finishing my career on the seaside - it sounds sort of romantic."

Labour's Pat Ferguson won the seat with a majority of 154 over her Conservative rival. UKIP received 536 votes in third place.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Raithe

[Gfted1]

For sale on eBay: One lightly used Soviet “Bear” bomber, low mileage.

[Mor]

Hi, it's me again

 

This Insane New App Will Allow You To Read Novels In Under 90 Minutes

Any idea if this involved some new trick, like the memorization trick (that everyone with "prefect" memory seem to use) or just the usual work to adapt your pattern recognition part of the brain(i know not very scientific:) ) for this?

[Lexx]

This is real?!

 

Also can we agree that sweet spot news is usually more then an article title and much less then the whole article copy&pasta

 

Looks like most of these laws are targeted against brothels. Like the "not more than 2 ****" or "keeping a house where unmarried people have sex" etc.

[Mor]

I probably right, many of them seem like they are a result of outcry over public case or old leftovers. At leas I hope so, looking at the "necrophilia is legal" law...

Edited March 8, 2014 by Mor

[Valsuelm]

I probably right, many of them seem like they are a result of outcry over public case or old leftovers. At leas I hope so, looking at the "necrophilia is legal" law...

 

Necrophilia is probably legal in a lot of states. Unless something is expressly made illegal, it's legal, and I doubt every state legislature has gotten around to passing laws about necrophilia. Though of course the case could be made that it's rape as the dead cannot consent, though they also can't say no.

 

I'd like to see citations of that poster. I'd wager a number of it's claims are misleading or even false.

 

As a related aside that isn't on the poster. A few weeks ago a couple guys in upstate New York got caught on camera making it with a cow and were subsequently arrested. So apparently interspecial love is illegal in New York, or maybe it's just human bovine love, or maybe it was because there was 2 guys and 1 cow, I don't know. Such an intolerant society we live in!

Edited March 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Raithe]

BBC - Hackers hit MtGox

 

 

Hackers have taken over some of the web accounts of Mark Karpeles - boss of the troubled MtGox Bitcoin exchange.

The attack on Mr Karpeles seems to have been motivated by growing frustration over the actions of MtGox.

 

Last month MtGox stopped trading and filed for bankruptcy after finding out that $465m (£279m) in bitcoins had been lost via a security bug.

Many have called on the exchange to release more information about what happened to the lost bitcoins.

The attacks were mounted on the personal blog and Reddit account of Mr Karpeles and left the hackers in charge of both social media accounts.

The attackers used their access to grab detailed information about trading activity at MtGox. They then shared their findings by posting a 716MB file containing much of what they had found.

 

The material posted included an Excel spreadsheet of more than one million trades, entries from MtGox's business ledger and information about its back-office administration software.

"It's time that MtGox got the Bitcoin community's wrath instead of [the] Bitcoin community getting Goxed," wrote the hackers in a message accompanying the data dump. The word "Goxed" has been used to describe the sudden interruptions in trading MtGox imposed when it was going through technical problems before its final closure.

 

It was not yet clear whether the information dumps were real or shed new light on what had happened at the exchange, said Forbes staff writer Andy Greenberg.

 

He pointed out that although $465m in bitcoins (approximately 744,000 coins) had supposedly gone astray from MtGox, no activity suggesting they had been traded had been seen in the blockchain - the central list of buying and selling that underpins the entire Bitcoin network.

[Humanoid]

Canadian adult TV channels in trouble for not showing enough locally produced smut. Won't somebody think of the Canadian porn stars?

 

For some reason I end up posting exclusively Canadian news in these threads.

[ShadySands]

U.S. Senate intelligence chief accuses CIA of spying on Senate

 

A bitter dispute between the CIA and the U.S. Senate committee that oversees it burst into the open on Tuesday when a top senator accused the agency of spying on Congress and possibly breaking the law.

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein delivered a scathing critique of the CIA's handling of her intelligence committee's investigation into a Bush-era interrogation and detention program that began after the September 11, 2001, attacks but was only made public in 2006.

 

"I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the Constitution," Feinstein said in a highly critical speech on the Senate floor by a traditionally strong ally of U.S. intelligence agencies.

 

Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the CIA searched the panel's computers to find out how staff obtained an internal agency review that was more critical of the interrogation program than the official CIA report.

 

She said the Central Intelligence Agency's search may have also violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and an executive order that prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance.

[ShadySands]

Rachel Canning, 'spoiled' N.J. teen, goes home to parents

 

The 18-year-old high school senior has finally reunited with her family. The Lincoln Park teen had tried suing her parents after they refused to put up with her wayward lifestyle. The Cannings are now asking for privacy.

[Raithe]

Heh, one on the joys of Google from last year

 

US News = 15 Ways Google Monitors You

 

 

 

An editor at a major news magazine (not U.S. News) told me recently that Google can monitor people only when they sign in to a Google platform – Gmail or Google+, for example. Not so, I replied. Google can and does monitor people – perhaps upwards of 90 percent of Internet users worldwide – whether they use a Google product or not, and most people have no idea they're being monitored.

 

To make my point, I pursued a hunch. I expanded the header of the last email the editor had sent me. The header you normally see contains just four fields: From, To, Date, and Subject. But most email systems allow you to see much more. When you expand a header, you see many lines of technical information, including the names of the various computer servers through which the email passed on its way to you.

 

Sure enough, the editor's email had been routed through a Google server. How and why this routing was put in place, I don't know, but it appears that all outgoing emails from the magazine's staff run through Google, a company that has been known to scan email content. If you've ever received targeted ads that seem related to recent emails you've sent, you were probably scanned. The company can hardly deny that it scans; Buzz, the failed social network Google launched in 2010, was built entirely around information in Gmail messages that revealed who was friends with whom.

 

Just how extensive are Google's tracking activities? When I started cataloging them, I was amazed. Here is a partial list of tracking methods Google is known to use. I'd wager that the list of tracking methods we don't know about is much longer.

 

The search engine. Every search you conduct using Google's ubiquitous search engine – for medical or mental health information, an update on your favorite mayoral candidate, the schedule of your church's potluck dinner, how to handle kids' tantrums, the cure for halitosis or the latest sex toys – allows the company to track your interests and, over time, build a detailed dossier that describes virtually every aspect of your character, food preferences, religious beliefs, medical problems, sexual inclinations, parenting challenges, political leanings and so on. In other words, when you use Google's search engine, Google's gotcha.

Even if the company doesn't know your name, it can still track your searches by reading codes, such as your IP address, that are unique to your computer or current location. Through cross-referencing, the company can eventually find your name, address, and telephone number, too. When you use the search engine or most any other Google product, Google also installs an identifier cookie on your computer that makes you easier to track. And get this: Google reads and stores every letter you type into its search bar as you are typing (think: m-a-r-i-j-u-a), so even if your good judgment suddenly kicks in and you don't hit "enter," the company still records what it thinks you were looking for.

 

Google uses your search history to send you personalized ads. That's how it survives, after all. About 97 percent of the company's revenues are from advertising. Google justifies this business model, which could be viewed as fundamentally deceptive, by insisting that it's providing a unique and valuable service: sending vendors your way who precisely fit your current needs and interests.

 

Email. When you use Gmail, Google's email service, the company scans the content of your emails and the email addresses of your correspondents. Google's Gmail system also scans your incoming emails, even the ones coming from Yahoo and Hotmail. If you feel safe because you've deleted emails you regretted sending, think again. Google never erases its own copies, even copies of the drafts you decided not to send – even copies of incomplete messages you didn't save as drafts. And then there are those Google servers, which route the emails of thousands of companies that apparently don't mind running the risk that their emails will be scanned. So whether you use Gmail itself, write to someone who uses Gmail, or, in many cases, simply email, Google's gotcha.

 

Google+. If you use Google+, you are voluntarily telling Google a great deal about your personal life, including, at times, current and intimate details. Yes, the same is true with Facebook, but when it comes to dossiers, Facebook is a toddler at play compared with Google.

 

Chrome. This is Google's browser, introduced in 2008 to compete with Internet Explorer, Safari, Firefoxand other browsers. Why did Google bother to introduce yet another free browser into a somewhat crowded market? Because with Chrome, Google can track every website you visit directly – that is, without first passing through its search engine. The search engine on its own left a significant gap in the company's knowledge about you; it only revealed areas in which you needed more information. Chrome allows Google to track your activities in areas of your life that are so well established that you don't need to research them – the regular contact you have with your bank or employer, for example. Google might never have been able to track those kinds of activities without the help of Chrome.

Even in so-called "incognito" mode, Google has programmed ways to track you. If, for example, you use Chrome to put a link to one of your favorite websites on your desktop, when you click directly on that link, the window that opens is not in incognito mode. Gotcha.

 

Firefox. What? How can Google track you when you're using a competing browser maintained by a non-profit organization? It can do so because before Firefox takes you to your destination, it first checks to see whether that website is on Google's blacklist, an ever-changing list of about 600,000 websites that Google's bots have identified – sometimes mistakenly – as dangerous. No government agency or industry association ever gave Google the authority to maintain such a list, but it exists, and Firefox uses it. Thus, Google is alerted when you visit websites through Firefox. Even more disturbing is the fact that Mozilla, the organization that maintains Firefox, receives 85 percent of its $163 million in annual income from… that's right, Google. In return, Firefox makes Google its default search engine.

 

 

Safari. In 2012, Google was fined $22.5 million by the Federal Trade Commission for illegally tracking users of Apple's iPhone, iPad and Macintosh computers by essentially hacking Apple's Safari browser. The big fine solved the problem, right? Not at all, because Safari, like Firefox and other browsers, uses Google's blacklist to check the safety of websites.

 

Android. And why did Google develop its own mobile operating system, in this instance competing primarily with operating systems developed by Research in Motion (for Palm devices) and Apple (for the iPhone)? Because operating systems are even more deeply embedded into computing devices than browsers. Everything you type, touch, and swipe runs through the operating system, which gives Google full access to your digital activities. When you're online, Android can upload whatever Google tells it to, and when you're offline (which, these days, is hardly ever for mobile devices), Android can store whatever Google tells it to store for later uploading.

 

YouTube. Google, Inc. bought YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion, almost certainly because YouTube unveiled yet another set of insights into consumer preferences. When you spend hours on YouTube skipping from right-wing manifestos to horror movie trailers to Lady Ga Ga videos, Google's gotcha.

 

Google Analytics. More than half the world's most popular websites use Google Analytics to collect data about who is visiting their pages. Visitors have no idea that Google Analytics is even present, but Google is tracking every one of them. To put this another way, if you visit, well, most any website – that's right, Google's gotcha.

 

Google AdSense. In an attempt to monetize their web pages, millions of website owners now sprinkle small ads provided by Google throughout their legitimate content. The ads are, in theory (but often not in practice), related to whatever news story, food recipe or celebrity bio you're reading, making it somewhat likely that you will eventually click on one of them. Okay, I know what you're thinking: When you click on one of those ads, Google's gotcha, right? Not so. Google's gotcha the moment you load a page containing an AdSense ad. When you click on an ad, the company just gets more detailed info.

 

Google AdWords. As if those little ads weren't enough, Google also now allows website owners to embed targeted Google ads into words scattered throughout their textual content. When you load a page that contains any of those words, Google's gotcha, and when you click on any of those words, Google's got more.

 

Widgets. They're everywhere and multiplying like tribbles: tiny icons that allow you to notify your friends on Facebook or your colleagues on LinkedIn that the web page you're on is worth visiting. When you click on the G+ widget… that's right.

 

Google Street View. Google vehicles have now traveled millions of miles in 48 countries to take pictures of homes and businesses – visual information that's easy to cross-reference with the dossiers of home and business owners.

 

For a long time, though, the real treasure trove for Google was not in the photos but in the information its Street View teams were skimming from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks: passwords, emails, browsing histories, financial information and more. After the Federal Communications Commission discovered in 2010 that Google had been collecting information this way for at least three years in more than 30 countries, it secured a promise from company officials to discontinue the practice and fined Google $25,000 (yes, that's all) for impeding its investigation. More recently, the attorneys general of 38 states settled a lawsuit against Google for its Street View snooping for $7 million.

 

Google Maps. They're embedded on about a million websites. And when Google is present on a web page, it can track people who visit that page.

 

Google Glass. Due out in time for Christmas 2013, this is a mobile computer mounted on the frames of eyeglasses which will follow your verbal commands and help you make sense of what you see by, say, displaying reviews of a restaurant that's within your field of vision. In other words, Glass will give Google access to what you say, what others around you are saying, and what you see.

 

As for the future, think science fiction. The company's recent ingestion of the startup company Behavio will soon give it the power to track your location 24 hours a day, as well as to predict where you will be and who will meet you there – hours, days, or even weeks into the future. And then there are those little DNA projects: Google's recent takeover of key search and storage operations for the Sequence Read Archive, a massive public repository of DNA data, as well as its funding of at least two Silicon Valley companies that provide DNA mapping services for consumers. When DNA profiles become part of people's dossiers, Google will have crossed a potentially frightening threshold: it will know far more about people than they know themselves – what diseases people are likely to get (think of the marketing opportunities), what their racial origins are, which dads have been cuckolded. The possibilities are endlessly outrageous.

 

If you think I'm overstating Google's intrusions or misrepresenting Google's motives, think again about the revenue model. Virtually all of Google's income is from targeted advertising. Every major company expenditure, therefore (think YouTube), almost certainly has to feed the beast. In the consulting work I've done from time to time, I've more than once had the breathtaking experience of sitting in on high-level planning sessions. Revenue concerns come first. Top executives don't sit around saying, "Golly, what's the next cool product we can develop." Instead, in Google-land, the conversation is probably more like: "We now know A, B, and C about people. How can we find out about D?" A question like that would prompt answers such as: "Simple – let's buy YouTube" or "No problem – let's develop a browser" or "Let's call in the product people and see what they've got that can help us."

 

Is all this tracking legal? Here is what a Google executive might say: "We are protected by our Terms of Service agreement, which in turn incorporates our Privacy Policy – legally binding contracts that are easy to access on our website. We realize that almost no one has ever read these documents, but, hey, no one ever reads their mortgage documents or credit card contracts either, and they're certainly valid. Our agreement states that when you use any of our products or services – even if you're not aware you are using them – you agree to let us track you. It's that simple."

 

In other words – silly you – you gave Google permission to track you simply by engaging in activities that allowed it to track you.

The terms of service agreement also says that the information you give the company "and those we work with" (who's that, exactly?) can be used for almost any purpose. And the privacy policy states that Google can share your dossier with just about any individual or agency based on the company's "good faith belief" that doing so is required by law or, incredibly, that doing so will "protect…the rights, property or safety of Google."

 

In other words, piss us off and we can release a dossier about you as thick as a phone book (figuratively speaking). Could such a contract be valid – one that is all at once so invisible to users and so maddeningly all-encompassing or even threatening? This is for judges and regulators to decide in coming years.

 

In the mean time, I guess Google's ... well, you know.

 

 

 

[Keyrock]

Awww yeah, Florida's back in da house, bitches!

 

Police Release Composite Drawing of Serial Urinator

 

 

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - The Gainesville Police Department has released a composite drawing of the man suspected of urinating on women.

 

In late February and early March, four incidents were reported of a man who was approaching women from behind and urinating on them. Since the media coverage of those reports, at least three more victims have come forward to report the same crime, according to police.

 

One of the victims was able to give enough information to help police create a sketch of the urinator.

 

The urinating bandit is described as a black man between the ages of 25 and 30, about 6 feet tall with a medium to chunky build. During the last urination situation, the man was wearing a dark hoodie sweatshirt and baggy jeans.

 

Originally three cases were reported, then more women started coming forward after hearing other victims' stories. Police said they now have six victims who were urinated on by the man.

Holy ****, he looks like a muppet!  Also, "urinating bandit". 

Edited March 18, 2014 by Keyrock

[Raithe]

Oh for the fun and games to follow..

 

Guardian - US Tech Gians Knew of NSA Data Collection

 

 

 

 

The senior lawyer for the National Security Agency stated unequivocally on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s widespread collection of data, contradicting months of angry denials from the firms.

 

Rajesh De, the NSA general counsel, said all communications content and associated metadata harvested by the NSA under a 2008 surveillance law occurred with the knowledge of the companies – both for the internet collection program known as Prism and for the so-called “upstream” collection of communications moving across the internet.

 

Asked during a Wednesday hearing of the US government’s institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the Fisa Amendments Act, occurred with the “full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained,” De replied: “Yes.”

 

When the Guardian and the Washington Post broke the Prism story in June, thanks to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, nearly all the companies listed as participating in the program – Yahoo, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL – claimed they did not know  about a surveillance practice described as giving NSA vast access to their customers’ data. Some, like Apple, said they had “never heard” the term Prism.

De explained: “Prism was an internal government term that as the result of leaks became the public term,” De said. “Collection under this program was a compulsory legal process, that any recipient company would receive.”

 

After the hearing, De said that the same knowledge, and associated legal processes, also apply when the NSA harvests communications data not from companies directly but in transit across the internet, under Section 702 authority.

 

The disclosure of Prism resulted in a cataclysm in technology circles, with tech giants launching extensive PR campaigns to reassure their customers of data security and successfully pressing the Obama administration to allow them greater leeway to disclose the volume and type of data requests served to them by the government.

Last week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said he had called US president Barack Obama to voice concern about “the damage the government is creating for all our future.” There was no immediate response from the tech companies to De’s comments on Wednesday.

 

It is unclear what sort of legal process the government serves on a company to compel communications content and metadata access under Prism or through upstream collection. Documents leaked from Snowden indicate that the NSA possesses unmediated access to the company data. The secret Fisa court overseeing US surveillance for the purposes of producing foreign intelligence issues annual authorisations blessing NSA’s targeting and associated procedures under Section 702.

Passed in 2008, Section 702 retroactively gave cover of law to a post-9/11 effort permitting the NSA to collect phone, email, internet and other communications content when one party to the communication is reasonably believed to be a non-American outside the United States. The NSA stores Prism data for five years and communications taken directly from the internet for two years.

 

While Section 702 forbids the intentional targeting of Americans or people inside the United States – a practice known as “reverse targeting” – significant amounts of Americans’ phone calls and emails are swept up in the process of collection.

 

In 2011, according to a now-declassified Fisa court ruling, the NSA was found to have collected tens of thousands of emails between Americans, which a judge on the court considered a violation of the US constitution and which the NSA says it is technologically incapable of fixing.

 

Renewed in December 2012 over the objections of senate intelligence committee members Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, Section 702 also permits NSA analysts to search through the collected communications for identifying information about Americans, an amendment to so-called “minimisation” rules revealed by the Guardian in August and termed the “backdoor search loophole” by Wyden.

 

De and his administration colleagues, testifying before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, strongly rejected suggestions by the panel that a court authorise searches for Americans’ information inside the 702 databases. “If you have to go back to court every time you look at the information in your custody, you can imagine that would be quite burdensome,” deputy assistant attorney general Brad Wiegmann told the board.

 

De argued that once the Fisa court permits the collection annually, analysts ought to be free to comb through it, and stated that there were sufficient privacy safeguards for Americans after collection and querying had occurred. “That information is at the government’s disposal to review in the first instance,” De said.

De also stated that the NSA is not permitted to search for Americans’ data from communications taken directly off the internet, citing greater risks to privacy.

Neither De nor any other US official discussed data taken from the internet under different legal authorities. Different documents Snowden disclosed, published by the Washington Post, indicated that NSA takes data as it transits between Yahoo and Google data centers, an activity reportedly conducted not under Section 702 but under a seminal executive order known as 12333.

 

The NSA’s Wednesday comments contradicting the tech companies about the firms’ knowledge of Prism risk entrenching tensions with the firms NSA relies on for an effort that Robert Litt, general counsel for the director of national intelligence, told the board was “one of the most valuable collection tools that we have.”

“All 702 collection is pursuant to court directives, so they have to know,” De reiterated to the Guardian

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://gawker.com/god-hates-****-preacher-fred-phelps-is-dead-1548012022

[ShadySands]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/77-facts-that-sound-like-huge-lies-but-are-completely-true

[Keyrock]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/77-facts-that-sound-like-huge-lies-but-are-completely-true

I knew like 11 or 12 of those.

[Gfted1]

I don't get #64.

[Keyrock]

I don't get #64.

Every time you fold a piece of paper over its thickness doubles, so we're dealing with an exponential here.  You would be doubling the thickness 42 times, so if you start with a thickness of 1 then it would go 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 > 32 > 64 > 128...  You do that 42 times and you wind up with a ridiculously huge number.  I'm not great with exponents, so I could be off here, but I think it would wind up being <thickness of paper> X 2 to the 41st power

Edited March 20, 2014 by Keyrock

[213374U]

eh n/m

Edited March 20, 2014 by 213374U

[Woldan]

#41 Humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas.

 

 

 

[Amentep]

 

I don't get #64.

Every time you fold a piece of paper over its thickness doubles, so we're dealing with an exponential here.  You would be doubling the thickness 42 times, so if you start with a thickness of 1 then it would go 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 > 32 > 64 > 128...  You do that 42 times and you wind up with a ridiculously huge number.  I'm not great with exponents, so I could be off here, but I think it would wind up being X 2 to the 41st power

 

 

Standard weight paper is .1mm, .1 mm x (2^42) = 439,804,651,110.4 mm = 439,804,651 m = 439,804 km

Distance to the moon is 405,696 km

[Humanoid]

The government of Mongolia has published a list of prohibited words, and phrases banned from use in Mongolian websites. These are a mix of Mongolian, Russian and English words, and while some are what you might expect, others are somewhat more bemusing. Highlights given include such mundane words or phrases as 'bad', 'huts', 'clumsy' and 'bad breath' (not sure why a separate entry is required if 'bad' is already banned in its own right); some mild expletives or insults such as 'idiot', 'jerk' and 'goshdarnit', some baffling non-words such as 'douchewaffle'; and erm, 'feminine hygiene accessory'.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Humanoid

[Keyrock]

I don't think I've ever used the term 'douchewaffle' before, but now I just might have to start using it. 

[Valsuelm]

Chances are high there's some mistranslation going in one direction or the other in regards to some of the words that definitely are not profanity, either that or the words sound/appear like a profane Mongolian word.

 

The authors of those articles give way too much credit to the Urban Dictionary and must not get out too much. There's not a word on that list I wasn't familiar with decades ago, long before the Urban Dictionary and it's legion of prepubescent and college aged entry suppliers. Just about all of the words are words you'll find bantered about a Jr. High lunch table in your average school in the U.S. for half a century or more. I could have supplied a more robust list of profanity than that myself, my 13 year old self of yesteryore even more.

[Malcador]

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20140321__Police_lobby_to_remain_exempt_from_law_against_prostitution.html

 

Undercover police in Honolulu say they need to be able to have sex with hookers.