ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

I thought this was gonna be from the Onion.

From September 16, 2011:

Actually, you and I might agree that anyone dating Nancy Pelosi should wear a condom, but if all you do is jump to conclusions and hurl insults, you'll never know, because I'm likely to respond in kind. BTW, that doesn't mean "kindly."

No need, he's not dating your sister. Roll Tide.

In the truth is stranger than fiction category, William Sanderson, the character actor pictured in my avatar, played: 1. Larry in TV's Bob Newhart Show, where he was famous for the catchphrase: "Hi. I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl... This is my other brother Darryl." 2. J. F. Sebastian, a genetic designer with Methuselah Syndrome, who made his own Toy-friends in the classic sci-fi movie Blade Runner. As far as I know, Larry never claimed to have genetically engineered any of his Darryl brothers. Roll Tide.

My youngest brother Darryl wants to know if any of this will prevent him from spreading his seed (he's got a hot date).

Dang, wish I had thought of that! Who put you up to this? Roll Tide.

Hey GG, Up-thread, you accused me of posting "drivel" and "crap." When I asked you why I should believe that you know what you're talking about on the Duke Energy tax deduction issue, you refused to answer, and specifically stated in "The Drones Are Coming" thread that you were refusing to answer because I'm a troll. As I mentioned above, I don't know a lot about corporate tax accounting. But you know what? An Internet search engine is a powerful tool. It's like having the Library of Congress in your basement. So let's review what you've posted in this thread, and then take a look around the web to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Maybe we can figure out who's really posting "crap." Maybe it's me, for suggesting that there was at least a possibility that Duke Energy's tax deduction wasn't legitimate. So can corporations deduct worthless debts as a business expense? Let's try a google search, and see what we can find: http://www.lmgtfy.co...rty as bad debt Turns out there's a federal law ("section 166") that says, in most situations, they can: http://codes.lp.find...26/A/1/B/VI/166 So far, it looks like you do know a thing or two about corporate tax accounting. Problem is, there's more than a couple things you need to know. If you read the rest of the statute from the same link, you find this little gem: So let's take a look at section 271 of the law, and see if there's a different rule for worthless debts of "political parties and similar organizations:" http://law.justia.co....1.0.5.196.html Duke Energy isn't a bank. So in the article linked in the OP, the Duke Energy official who said that Duke Energy could deduct the amount owed to it here as a business expense was a lazy or clueless windbag. Nobody else - - just the Duke Energy guy. Twern't that hard to look up. Roll Tide.

I believe you. But upon reflection, if the world truly is "full of misinformation" then statistically the odds are I'm being misled here, but not aware of it. You're saying Incarcerated Bob is often wrong, but according to you that's likely to be misinformation, so I guess the bottom line is I should believe what Incarcerated Bob says.

Every once in a while I do a Google search on Toronto and the NFL just to see what turns up. Hadn't done one in a quite a while, so today's turned up the article below. Although it's from December, 2012, it was never mentioned in this thread, and I don't recall seeing it elsewhere on TSW (maybe I just missed it). Wonder what the unspecified "Rogers "person" meant back when the deal was first made when he referred to the Bills in Toronto series as "a five-year life insurance policy" on Ralph Wilson? It's kind of ambiguous, but one possible interpretation is that Rogers expects to somehow get paid when Ralph passes. That's what happens when you buy a life insurance policy. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/whats-the-point-for-the-bills Things obviously didn't turn out the way the Rogers corporate people hoped with respect to ticket sales and fan turnout, and Ted Rogers is dead, yet they renewed, despite knowing about the 7 year lease extension in Buffalo? Makes me wonder what their "game plan" is now, and why.

In a sensitive Turkmenistan mission: http://www.theonion.com/articles/231-cia-agents-killed-in-overt-ops-mission,31553/

From 9/15/10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec

My middle brother Darryl thinks that you should relinquish the rights to "You're an idiot" and trademark "Get off my lawn" instead. He explained why, but I couldn't follow it. He's a bit of a moron (runs in the family), so hey, what does he know? He's probably wrong. Roll Tide! The technology here appeals to my geek side, and I was curious about just how autonomous these things can be, so I did a little searching. I found a link to the DARPA "crowd-sourced" Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ("UAV") competition that encouraged "hobbyists and citizen scientists" to compete for a $100,000 prize. DARPA wanted a small, cheap surveillance UAV that could be carried in a rucksack and covertly flown remotely beyond the ground pilot's line-of-sight, perched, and returned, but with some autonomous flight capabilities: http://www.uavforge.net/ That's mildly interesting, but it's clearly the minor leagues of autonomous drone development. Reading the observer's field evaluation reports reminds me of the old films that show people trying to fly in crazy contraptions - - lots of crashes. Here's an overview of the results in a Wired article: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/darpa-uavforge/ But I also found some pretty high-tech stuff elsewhere. There is a series of 3 YouTube videos that show some pretty astounding computer-controlled drone maneuvers performed in a Univ. of Penn. research lab. We could quibble about whether the videos show truly "autonomous" drone flights (are they using some sort of motion capture technology?), but they demonstrate the ability to rapidly control drone flight in amazingly tight spaces (at least in a controlled environment). I'll grant you that weaponizing the platform and making it do similar manuevers in my backyard looks like it's a ways off, but keep in mind that the first of these videos is almost 3 years old, and this is just the unclassified stuff. My oldest brother Darryl thinks that the drones are executing computer-controlled flight commands, rather than flight commands sent by a "human ground pilot" based on what the "ground pilot" sees. I think there's a limit on how many videos I can post in one day, so here's the first one from May, 2010 (other two will follow) - - the more recent ones are even more impressive:

Thanks for posting that link - - it also has hyperlinks to several other interesting articles, including but not limited to this one: http://www.technewsd...ml?cmpid=492405 It appears I was too harsh on We Come In Peace - - my bad. Check out this video. It deals mainly with civilian drones controlled by a "pilot" on the ground, and the interviewer seems to refer to drones operated by ground "pilots" as autonomous just because they contain some auto-correcting flight-leveling features. But around the 2:38 to 3:15 marks, an interviewed civilian "pilot" talks about what sounds like truly autonomous civilian drones that he saw actually used in a DARPA-sponsored drone competition. Since he only mentioned it briefly, it's hard to tell exactly what he meant by "autonomous" - - he might have been referring to flying the drone without goggles rather than a truly autonomous, totally pre-programmed flight plan. But that's not what he actually said. http://www.technewsd...more-video.html In any event, no reason to think the police have anything autonomous yet, but it's just a matter of time. And who knows what the military already secretly has.

The Terminator had to shed his clothes to travel through time - - maybe analytical abilities must be left at home to travel through interstellar space, or simply aren't a prerequisite for civilizations to leave their home systems. Then again, maybe drones are a potential threat to his plans to enslave the human race. Come in peace my a$$!

Oh yeah? Calling me an idiot is an affront to all of the true idiots in this world, like my middle brother Darryl. Take that!

coward

Yes, as long as the drone is under police rather than military control. Like any other type of weapon or surveillance equipment, it could be wrongfully used. But if used by the police within Constitutional limits, I have no problem with it. The potential problem is that like some other forms of new technology, it allows the police to easily break constitutional limits on their actions if they yield to the temptation to do that. If some scumbag is holding a member of my family hostage and threatening to kill him/her, and the police can take the scumbag out with a drone so that that they don't endanger their own lives, I'm all for it. Does that surprise you? BTW, I'm still waiting for your answer here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/156135-taxpayers-contribute-millions-of-dollars-to-democrats-convention/page__st__20?do=findComment&comment=2742962

That's funny, but the fact of the matter is, I have frequently posted that I have three brothers named Darryl. Kind of cuts against GG's argument that I claim to be an "expert" on every topic that I choose to start a thread about.

Angle of impact, nothing more. But If you choose to kill a US citizen on US soil rather than arrest him (when the suspect poses no imminent danger to anyone), there's a rather large problem regardless of where the bullet comes from. As for me supposedly claiming to be "the expert on all topics" I start, if that's true, it should be pretty easy to find one where I've asked somebody to believe me because of my education, experience or expertise. I can't recall ever doing that (as opposed to providing links to news stories or articles written by others, supplemented by my own thoughts unrelated to my education, experience or expertise), but I suppose it's possible. Good luck finding one. Have I mentioned that I have three brothers named Darryl?

http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/RoseBowl_ITN_080912.php

Not that there's anything wrong with that - - wonder what Bernie Frank thought of him?

http://www.cnn.com/2...-cia/index.html http://www.theatlant...-us-soil/62800/ Update: Video of attorney general of the US going to great lengths to try to avoid answering Congressional question about constitutionality of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil: http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50142293n Sen. Rand Paul will discuss this issue on CNN at 7 pm ET tonight (3/6).

Why not honor WNY's heritage? I'd go with: No Goal, Wide Right or the less common McKinley Shotdead. Or you could mix 'n match (especially if it's twins) - - something like: Love Steel Bethlehem Canal Albright Way Sky Knox Peace Falls Niagara Bridge I actually kind of like Sky Knox, but I have issues.

Thanks. That made your position clear about why you believe that Duke Energy can now deduct the host committee's owed but unpaid debt on Duke Energy's corporate income tax returns - - the only part I disagree with is the legitimacy of Duke Energy's income tax deduction. I'm still not sure why I should believe that you know what you're talking about. You didn't claim to be a bigshot tax lawyer when prompted, but see a legal issue here. Most hammers see nails (and most surgeons cure everything by cutting), so maybe you're a "smallshot" business lawyer that knows a thing or two about tax issues?"