ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Everybody in the group I was with made appreciative comments, but nobody really clapped because we all just thought it was a big opening for a longer show. It took a while to realize what happened, especially with one barge (out of 4) continuing with the planned 15-20 minute show. As far as I know from seeing news reports on TV, nobody got hurt.

I was on vacation on a 9th floor outdoor terrace about 10 blocks from the Bay waiting for the show to start. Three different areas of the horizon simultaneously exploded in a mass of colors. It lasted maybe 15 seconds, and each of the three was the most intense fireworks burst I've ever seen. The videos I've seen on TV later don't come close to doing it justice. I'm thinkin' - - man, this show is gonna be great! Then just a lot of car alarms from the concussive effect of the simultaneous blasts. The one or two at a time launches that followed from the one barge that worked properly were incredibly puny in comparison. I think I enjoyed the screw-up more than I would have enjoyed the planned display. They should do it like that every year.

If the data is good enough for Manoj Kaplinghat, it's good enough for me. At least until Koytus Craponmyshoe or Otis Sistrunk disputes it. Seriously, this passes for proof?

At least we agree on something.

There are places I like better than Buffalo, but sometimes it's nice to be around people who happily make lemonade when life serves them lemons. OTOH, I am currently surrounded by people who have no idea what a "snot-freezer" is. To each his own, but on balance, I think I'll just visit now and then.

No Such Agency

So you're Benjamin Button?

Some of the info here might be helpful when you are making your decision: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2003-to-2007-infiniti-g35-2.htm Click the embedded "Full Review" hyperlink for more details.

I'm not suggesting that filing a parent lawsuit was a good decision, but I'm open-minded about whether long-term exposure to low levels of electromagnetic radiation can have serious health effects. I suspect there's a lot we still don't know about it with any certainty. At one time quite a few years ago, there were studies that found exposure to cell phone radiation safe, but the studies were sponsored by companies with a vested interest in that result. I don't know the current state of such research - - but I do know that most research that tries to predict the health effects of long-term exposure to low levels of most anything is typically filled with lots of assumptions. Remember when the tobacco companies claimed that there was no scientific proof that smoking could cause cancer? FWIW, this link shows that the parents' concern may not be totally looney-tunes: http://www.waysideacademy.com/about-us/in-the-news/34-second-school-unplugs-wi-fi-over-health-concerns Similar concerns by a hospital: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/994377/toronto-hospital-is-first-to-recognize-symptoms-from-wireless-radiation I'm not sure how much a kid's total daily dose of electromagnetic radiation increases if his school installs WiFi (probably not much, given all the other sources of it), but I can understand the parents' concern.

1. Are any of your own or your neighbor's tenants' cars missing from their usual parking spots? If so, the truck may belong to someone who is traveling with them. 2. Any signs of alien abduction or spontaneous combustion?

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=393230&obref=obinsite

Don't really consider myself a "geek" but here are a few suggestions based on my own troubleshooting attempts: 1. Run a google search listing your computer brand, operating system, and symptoms - - there is some chance that this will get you to a computer help forum where someone has asked for and received a solution for the same problem. Try several ways of listing the symptoms in your search terms if necessary. 2. http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=35407 3. Do a google search on "Hijack This" and read a few of the search "hits" to learn how that program might be useful in getting true geek assistance. Good luck!

Interesting article - - thanks for posting it. It debunks the claim that the EPA is using unmanned drones to conduct aerial surveillance, but actually confirms that the EPA uses small manned aircraft to do the same thing. If the use of an umanned drone would be an invasion of privacy, why does the use of a small manned aircraft make it OK? We live in a world where the public availability of ever greater technological capabilities constantly erodes each person's right to privacy, simply because people become accustomed to ever greater ease of intrusions on what used to be private. Combine that with a greater governmental need to protect against our terrorist enemies, and protecting individual privacy rights becomes a losing battle. Our children are growing up in a world that is increasingly numb to invasions of privacy. It's sad. But maybe I'm in the distinct minority on privacy issues. I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, but once attended a neighborhood watch meeting where a local police officer reported that the police had recently installed covert surveillance cameras on a street in a nearby shopping district. Out of some 20 neighbors at the meeting, I was the only one who seemed to be the slightest bit concerned about privacy issues. All I can figure is that a neighborhood watch meeting tends to attract people who are the most concerned about their own personal safety, and therefore are most likely to act like sheep. End of mini-rant.

If the FAA requires the drones to fly fairly low to avoid interference with air traffic, I wonder if they would be within shotgun range? My guess is the EPA is gonna find out. I've read that some realtors have been warned by the FAA to fly the camera drones they use to take aerial photos of high end city properties at lower altititudes, but I don't remember the height limitation. Might be a higher altitude limit out in cow country. Deer rifle with a scope if they hover in place? Remember Ruby Ridge!

It's-about-tourism-$$-or-at-least-that's-the-cover-story The link includes a picture of the sub.

Buddy's strategy will pay big dividends when the opponents' OL coach tells his guys to make sure they double team Williams!

Seems like he should try to avoid that for now, at least with his left foot.

Although I don't find the analysis particularly sharp, this law journal article provides an overview of some of the legal theories that might come into play in concussion-related NFL litigation (including implied assumption of risk): http://erepository.law.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=student_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhws%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Ddell-usuk%26channel%3Dus-psp%26ibd%3D0081004%26q%3D%2522Seton%2BHall%2BJ.%2Bof%2BSports%2B%2526%2BEnt.%2BL.%2522%26Submit%3DGoogle%2BSearch#search=%22Seton%20Hall%20J.%20Sports%20%26%20Ent.%20L.%22

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82990b67/article/terrell-owens-hires-new-agent-to-get-back-in-nfl?campaign=Twitter_atl_hanzus

Can we genetically modify Merriman so that he can do this just before going on IR this year?

I don't want to be alarmist, but there have been unconfirmed reports that after making first contact with the underwater aliens, the military started rounding up hundreds of civilians and herding them into the sea. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it: Just-an-Internet-rumor-or-a-sign-of-things-to-come----You-decide

Despite reports to the contrary, it appears Bo knows diddley:

The Egyptian pyramids may have been built by ancient alien construction engineers, but these current visitors appear more interested in our water resources: Turns-out-the-underwater-aliens-are-intergalactic-plumbers But do they come in peace? You decide.

Hey Mike: Some people think that "marrying" content and distribution maximizes the value of both. There's an explanation of that here (using Rogers' recent agreement to purchase a partial ownership interest in MLSE as the main example): http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.com/p/mlse-buy.html While that doesn't directly answer your main question, it might give you some insight into why a telecommunications company like Rogers is generally interested in owning sports "content." As for the "corporate ownership rule" - - it is widely misunderstood. Publicly traded corporations with hundreds or thousands of shareholders can't own an NFL franchise, nor can non-profit corporations regardless of size (except for Green Bay). But closely held for-profit corporations with a small number of shareholders can own an NFL franchise. Here's one: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 When Ralph passes, there might be a way for the "Rogers Control Trust" to structure a purchase offer for the Bills that would comply with current NFL ownership rules. It depends on, among other things, how many people are beneficiaries of that trust. If you are interested in how that might work, see post # 164 in this archived thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/130317-did-ralph-already-grant-toronto-an-option-to-buy/page__st__160 Finally, if you still have the link identifying or mentioning the 18 or so owners you mentioned, would you mind posting it? I'm curious about the details. Thanks.

Minneapolis city council approves city's contribution to cost of new stadium: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19157285/city-council-approval-clears-way-for-vikings-stadium