ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Ramadi Tom: "The Crusaders get my dandruff up, Fazul. They are such idiots. American Pharoah? Really? In a momentary reprieve from there degravity, they give a horse that can run like the wind an excellent name, but spell it wrong? Perhaps the moon landing really was staged after all!"

Making fun of the sexual habits of terrorists is a good idea, and your reply has potential, but all you get is a participation trophy. Did you ever watch the TV show "Jeopardy?" This thread is intended to be kind of like that - - the form of the answer matters. There needs to be a "pet peeve" from the terrorist's perspective, or at least something that the terrorist finds annoying. Maybe you could recast the reply to something like: Khalid: "Why must it be so lonely fighting in the desert, Mustafa? Osama took more than his share of wives to Pakistan, the cowardly American drone strike has killed my favorite goat, and my adult sheep run from me. But praise to the prophet, I still have a friendly lamb. Here he comes now. Lamb: "Daaa--aa---aa-----aad?"

As currently structured, the Bills lack top-end talent at the most expensive position, which is QB. If you cap individual salaries at some level, the teams with top end QBs would benefit more than us, because they could keep those QBs and divert some of the money that would otherwise go to those QBs to salaries for players at other positions. Even if it wasn't anti-American, why would you want to put the Bills at a bigger competitive disadvantage to the teams that already have top end QBs? Common, man!

Abdul: "Obama can only serve 2 terms? May an infected camel defecate on your sister"

Achmed: "It off-pisses me that we are no longer allowed to take selfies in front of HQ." I'm sure there are others.

Fair enough. My general point of view is that we have to guard against giving up civil liberties in the name of seeking more security. That's how you eventually wind up with things like the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Not a good trade-off if the increased security winds up being illusory. Debatable if it's a good trade-off even if the increased security is real but the avoided danger would not have been fatal to the nation. OTOH, there's clearly a place for N$A monitoring of the activities of foreigners in the name of national security, and I don't have any easy answers for how to handle the issues that arise when data on American citizens who are minding their own business gets scooped up in the process of trying to identify and protect against foreign hackers, some of whom are agents of foreign governments. I follow this thread in part because I want to be more informed about how to evaluate the civil liberties/security trade-offs that we face as a nation. I suspect that the country is strong enough so that if we initially err on the side of too little security, we can go blow the *!%@ out of our enemies if need be. But if we err on the side of giving up too many civil liberties, we risk never getting them back, especially if the government encroachment on those liberties occurs in secret. If that's bias, then I'm biased. How do you feel about the current balance between civil liberties and security, and where the biggest dangers lie?

TBD moderators will edit down posts if you quote too much of a copyrighted source, so I picked a few that seemed most pertinent to this thread (which focuses mainly on N$A collection of data on US citizens). I did however, bold the word "international" in one paragraph to emphasize that in this instance, the data collection on US citizens was an indirect consequence of N$A activity. The link allowed you and others to read the entire article if you wished.

I'm dubious about the legality of this and whether it will be around very long, but FWIW (haven't tried it): https://bgr.com/2015/06/05/free-streaming-tv-ccloud-tv-dvr-features/

Even for TRBJ, "central bulge mass" correlates with "hole mass:" Doesn't mean he can find the hole, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/hunting-for-hackers-nsa-secretly-expands-internet-spying-at-us-border.html?rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=Multimedia&_r=0

Since we're pondering highway mysteries of the universe - - there's a "Chicken Dinner Road" in Idaho that I once drove. Why wasn't it named after breakfast or lunch instead?

Start with #1 below, and work your way up to #5 if necessary: 1. Tell him his next-door neighbor (in your direction) mentioned to you that he/she (or better yet his/her young child) has mild asthma, and wishes he would smoke in the back yard rather than out front, but he/she was too nice to confront him about it. Do this on a day when the wind actually would blow less smoke in that neighbor's direction if the guy smoked in his back yard rather than out front. Close by telling him you think he should be able to smoke wherever he wants. 2. Tell him you are tentatively planning a trip with uncertain dates, and need somebody to watch your dog/cat/snake/whatever. Ask him what his schedule looks like, but don't actually ask him to do anything. Give him the impression that is likely to happen the next time you talk to him. Because your travel plans were only tentative, you never need to actually go anywhere, but the future trip is always on the horizon. 3. Every time you see him, invite him to "your" local kooky religious sect's services. This may require some research to find out what kooky sect is close enough to make the invitation seem credible. He ain't gonna go, so you never need to set foot in the place. But after a fairly short time, he is likely to avoid you. 4. Tell him you are having a plumbing problem at your house, and ask if you can use his bathroom. "Forget" to flush. Repeat daily for as long as necessary. 5. Only go outside at night.

Republic Wireless Moto X smartphone - - engineered to switch calls seamlessly between WiFi when available to Sprint cell towers when WiFi is not available $11.82/month all in including all taxes unlimited talk and and unlimited text unlimited data, but on my nominal $10/month plan, data is only accessible via Wi-Fi (Data via cell towers is available with a more expensive monthly plan - - no charge to switch plans up to twice per month - - I'm fine with data by only WiFi so I never switch monthly plans) no roaming charges customer service only available online (can never talk to a customer service rep), but haven't ever needed it WiFi is available in more and more places these days - - if you can live with data access that's WiFi only then you can't beat this plan for the price! Some fairly recently announced future changes on the way (including access to an as yet unspecified non-Sprint network): http://www.cnet.com/news/republic-wireless-to-credit-customers-for-unused-data/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Wireless

Just when I thought the story couldn't get any more weird:

So what did Ko Simpson do with the buck?

A summer time challenge to develop stronger will power? Eat all the ice cream you want but give up anything that smells like fish.

"There's no 'I' in Team, and no 'QB' in Championship."

Some options: 1. Tell her you also admire George Foreman and Newhart, and you want to name all your male children Kyle. Your first born son could then go through life introducing his little brothers by saying - - "Hi, this is Kyle and my other brother Kyle." Then negotiate down to naming just one son Kyle. 2. Give her a legitimate, non-football reason to like the name Kyle. Do some googling on the inter web tubes for admirable people named Kyle. If she likes NASCAR (yeah, that's likely) then sing the praises of Kyle Petty. Or find somebody else on this list that she likes: http://www.famousbirthdays.com/names/kyle.html Might not want to mention Kyle Brovllofski from South Park, though. 3. Show her this link about the origins of the name: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kyle Good luck! P.S. Maybe she just doesn't think "Kyle" is manly enough for her alpha-male's offspring? If she's seen this George Carlin clip, maybe you need to show her some Bills' highlight videos (or just name the kid "Nicky, Vinnie or Tony"): WARNING - - it's George Carlin, so it's NSFW (F-bombs)

My brother Darryl's on the fence.

If the guy's a friend of yours, make sure he knows about the "government pension offset" and "windfall elimination" provisions that can reduce Social Security retirement payments to someone who also gets a government pension other than Social Security. Not sure if either applies to him, but these provisions can come as a surprise to people who expect to get both a government pension and Social Security retirement income. http://www.wiserwomen.org/index.php?id=256&page=Government_Pension_Offset_&_Windfall_Elimination_Provision http://moneyover55.about.com/od/socialsecuritybenefits/a/Windfall-Elimination-Provision-How-It-Affects-Certain-Government-Employees.htm

Be careful what you wish for. 1. Go here to see the 2011 CBA at the NFLPA's website: https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf 2. Read Article 7 (entitled "Rookie Compensation And Rookie Compensation Pool") at pages 21-35; 3. See especially section 1(i) at page 24 (entitled "Undrafted Rookie Reservation") - - placing limits on signing bonus paid to an undrafted rookie; 4. See especially section 2(g) at page 26 (allowing a team to pay a rookie an amount above the required minimum for a drafted or undrafted player, but only if the team can do so without exceeding the team's total rookie compensation pool amount for that year); 5. Read Article 14 (entitled "Enforcement Of The Salary Cap And Rookie Compensation Pool"), section 1 at page 112 - - prohibiting undisclosed terms. I'm certainly no expert on rookie contracts, but based on skimming Article 7 of CBA, it looks like the problem is that the Bills, like every other NFL team, have a defined amount of total money that can be paid to all rookies combined, and the drafted rookies are guaranteed certain minimum amounts based on exactly when they were picked. Then there is some additional money thrown in (but not a lot) to allow undrafted rookies to be signed. That gives a grand total for rookie contracts that the Bills can't exceed. As best I can tell based on a quick reading, there is nothing to prevent the Bills from, just as an example, signing Darby (our pick #50) to the "slotted" contract that the CBA requires the Bills to offer him, cutting Darby the next day, and then using what used to be Darby's portion of this year's rookie allocation pool to sign Collins to a 3 year contract with the same annual salary that Darby would have gotten for the first 3 years (so long as Collins got a signing bonus of no more than $75,000). The CBA says you forfeit Darby's portion of the rookie pool if you don't sign him first, so you would have to sign Darby, then cut Darby, then sign Collins. I know that sounds bizarre, and I could easily have missed something because the CBA is about as turgid as it gets and I only read Article 7 once. I think what I described would technically be within the CBA rookie compensation and salary cap rules. If the Bills want Collins bad enough, I think they could sign and then cut any number of drafted rookies to free up money already allocated to the Bills total rookie compensation pool, so that they could then turn around and give the money to Collins (assuming I am reading Article 7 of the CBA correctly). Truth is stranger than fiction. Edit #1: The $75,000 maximum signing bonus for undrafted rookies is per club, not per player. If the Bills have already signed other undrafted rookies, presumably most of that $75k has already been used up. Edit #2. OOPS. Never mind. I will leave the post up because some might be interested in how the CBA treats rookie contracts, but I missed something the first time through. It looks like the money contracted to be paid to a drafted rookie counts against the team's total amount that can be paid to rookies this year, even if they cut a drafted rookie the day after signing him and never actually pay the drafted rookie anything but his signing bonus. Article 7, section 2(b) at page 25 states "All amounts of Rookie Salary contracted for in each and every year of a Club’s Rookie Contracts shall count against the Total Rookie Compensation Pool and the Club’s Total Rookie Allocation whether or not such amounts are earned by the player . . "

Depends a lot on how good you are at managing your own money, and your expected longevity. Personally, I'd lean towards the limp sum, but FWIW: http://wealthmanagement.com/data-amp-tools/six-ways-pension-annuities-almost-always-beat-lump-sum You also might find this helpful when evaluating your options: http://betterexplained.com/articles/the-rule-of-72/

A Texas wildcatter - - guy had a pinkie ring in the shape of a roulette wheel that had a diamond that rolled around in it.

"Follow me - - Follow me to freedom !!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uASRgF2fwwY

Thanks for clearing that up.