ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

"If Isaiah Hodgins ever takes my roster spot, I can always fall back on the River Dance tour."

"Do. Or do not. There is no try."

If you are currently employed, think about asking your credit card companies to increase your credit limits on your personal credit cards. Hopefully you won't need to access personal credit to keep the business afloat, but lack of startup capital to cover costs before the business gets established kills some startups. You can always decide later whether you want to use your personal credit cards if that becomes the last resort for additional $$.

Treatment options depend on the location and severity of the tear. From https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/musculoskeletal-and-rheumatology/2018/september/meniscus-tears-why-you-should-not-let-them-go-untreated : "In the case of meniscus tears, some people think the injury will heal over time on its own. But the truth is that there are different types of meniscus tears — and some tears won’t heal without treatment. If your tear is on the outer one-third of the meniscus, it may heal on its own or be repaired surgically. This is because this area has rich blood supply and blood cells can regenerate meniscus tissue — or help it heal after surgical repair. But if the tear is in the inner two-thirds, which lack blood flow, the tear cannot be repaired and may need to be trimmed or removed surgically." The full link gives considerably more details.

Won't go blind ! ! !

Has she trademarked anything in China?

From the same nfl.com website at: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf _____________________________________________________________________ "Rule 14 Penalty Enforcement (Governing all cases not otherwise specifically provided for)Section 1 General Rules Article 1: Refusal of Penalties. Unless expressly prohibited, the penalty for any foul may be declined by the offended team, and play proceeds as though no foul had been committed. The yardage distance for any penalty may be declined, even though the penalty is accepted. Note: If the defensive team commits a foul during an unsuccessful Try, the offensive team may decline the distance penalty, and the down is replayed from the previous spot. Exception:(a) If there is a Double Foul, enforcement is pursuant to Section 5 below. (emphasis added) ________________________________________________________________________ Here's a more complete excerpt of what "Section 5" says: _______________________________________________________ "Section 5 Fouls by Both Teams (Double Fouls) Article 1:Double Foul Without Change of Possession. If there is a Double Foul (3-12-2-c) during a down in which there is not a change of possession, the penalties are offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it is a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the line to gain is the same as for the down in which the fouls occurred. Exception:If one or more fouls by one team includes a 15-yard penalty, and the penalty for the foul or fouls committed by the other team is for a five-yard penalty without an automatic First Down, a loss of down, or a 10-second runoff (15 yards versus five yards), the 15-yard penalty is enforced from the previous spot, and the five-yard penalty is disregarded. Five vs. 15 enforcement cannot be declined by the team that committed the minor foul, except as described in (ii) below. See 4-8-2-c-Exc. 2 and 14-4-9-Exc. (a) and (b) for dead ball fouls at the end of a half. (i) If one of the fouls is a Dead Ball Foul for delay of game for spiking the ball and the opponent’s foul is a Live Ball Foul, the team that committed the delay of game foul, in addition to Article 1 and Exception (a), will have the option to decline the foul committed by its opponent and be assessed the penalty for delay from the dead-ball spot. (ii) If both fouls are Dead Ball Fouls or are treated as such (14-4-9), the penalties are offset, and the ball is next put in play at the succeeding spot." _____________________________________________________________ Double fouls are explicitly stated to be an exception to the general rule that "the penalty for any foul may be declined by the offended team." The Bills therefore had no option to decline the Offside penalty against AZ on the double foul play in question.

From what appears to be an official nfl website, at: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf "Section 5 Fouls by Both Teams (Double Fouls) Article 1:Double Foul Without Change of Possession. If there is a Double Foul (3-12-2-c) during a down in which there is not a change of possession, the penalties are offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it is a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the line to gain is the same as for the down in which the fouls occurred." Personally, I think the rule should be changed to allow a team to decline a penalty in this situation, but that does not appear to currently be an option.

I would absolutely stand by any of the products discussed here: https://www.consumerreports.org/home-office/how-to-choose-a-standing-desk/

Ron White, George Carlin and Stephen Wright. Only three, because you can't fix stupid: Warning - - Language not suitable for work "I had the right to remain silent - - - I just didn't have the ability."

Is it Serena Williams?

1. Nations on earth have come up with treaties that, as between themselves, establish and govern their self-proclaimed rights and obligations with respect to their activities on Mars and elsewhere off this planet. They have apparently decided that if an American company is performing acts on another planet, America is responsible for such conduct, and that the nation of America can be held accountable if an American company violates any treaty obligations of the American nation. 2. So what? Why do earthly nations have a right to create legal obligations that govern activities on another planet? It's just a power grab by existing earthly nations that have no jurisdiction to establish the rights of people who, when they eventually go to live on Mars, will be Martians (not Americans, or Canadians or Russians, etc.). And if you claim they are still Americans, etc, what of people who will eventually be born on Mars, which apparently cannot be an American, Canadian or Russian, etc. territory under the existing earthly space law treaties? Certainly people born on Mars in the future can be considered Martians. Why shouldn't people born on Mars have the right to determine their own laws? No taxation without representation and all that good Revolutionary War stuff. 3. If the American colonies could claim independence from England and form their own new, sovereign nation back in 1776, why can't Martians claim independence from Earth in 2776 and form their own nation(s) with their own government(s)? Their rallying cry for the Martian War of Independence could be "Make Mars Great Again." 4. Think about it. How would you feel if Plutonians showed up on earth, and upon descending from their spaceship, informed you that the nations on Pluto had decided among themselves eons ago that you had no American rights, or Canadian rights, or Russian rights, etc. because the sovereign nations on Pluto had agreed among themselves how to regulate conduct on Earth, and how to determine which Plutonian nations would be responsible for any violations of the treaty that all Plutonian nations had agreed upon among themselves? 5. Elon Musk won't be around to see new sovereign nations formed on Mars, but his future descendants very well might be.

Maybe Eric Moulds recommended a pizza place?

He thinks I'm uglier than I used to be, but he hasn't been to the eye doctor in a while.

According to my brother Darryl, Tre White is already in the middle of this mess, and can't just walk away. He's a named defendant in the case. You get that the lawyer who made the first offer to buy the house sued not just the current owners of the house, but also sued Tre White individually for tortious interference with contract, right? The article at the link in the original post contains a copy of the summons and complaint in the case. Scroll down and read the "First Claim For Relief" at page 11 of the 28 page document. We don't know whether or not Tre White was aware of the fully executed (i.e., fully signed) contract between the plaintiff and the current owners of the house when he made his own, later offer. I don't know Orchard Park practice, but in many parts of the country, the listing agent will add "Sale Pending" or "Under Contract" to a yard sign to let other potential buyers know that although they are welcome to submit a back-up offer (which could be accepted if the already pending sale fell through for some reason), an existing contract for sale was already in place. Even without changing the yard sign, it is certainly possible that the listing agent told Tre White or Tre White's agent about the pre-existing, fully signed contract before Tre or Tre's agent submitted Tre's own, later purchase offer. If Tre somehow didn't know about the pre-existing, fully signed purchase offer from the first buyer, he will win the lawsuit brought against him. Even if he did know about that pre-existing contract, he might still win the suit, but we would need to know more facts to evaluate his chances. There's nothing wrong with submitting a back-up offer, and my guess is that the current owners or their listing agent are much more likely to be culpable here than Tre, but until more facts come out, that's all it is - - just a guess.

Regardless of whether or not I'm a real estate lawyer lad, here's an article about a fairly recent similar New York appellate decision dealing with specific performance of a property sale dispute. Specific performance was not granted in the case, because there was never a true "meeting of the minds." In Orchard Park, there may have been a "meeting of the minds." While it's true that, as a practical matter, the current owner might be able to throw enough money at the plaintiffs to get them to dismiss the suit so that the owner can sell the house to Tre for a higher price, the decision about whether to accept cash rather than completing the existing purchase contract is not up to either the current owner or Tre White. https://fhnylaw.com/second-department-determines-that-potential-real-estate-buyer-is-not-entitled-to-specific-performance-because-there-was-no-enforcable-contract/

I can't speak for "most fans," but I am not disappointed with the team's "'overall" performance at all. We are currently 5-2, and leading the division. Maybe others expected better, but if you had asked me just before the season started if I would be satisfied with leading the division after 7 games with a 5-2 record, I would have said yes. Would you have said no?

Well, the situation did absolutely require a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.

The Bills and the NFL previously opposed an attempt to federally trademark a version of a Bills Mafia logo (called the "MAFIA and Buffalo Design"), which resulted in the application to register that trademark being abandoned in early 2016. Click the link to see the history of the opposition proceeding, which includes a copy of the written opposition filed on behalf of the Bills and the NFL: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91225627&pty=OPP&eno=1

Thanks for the source, but I'm still skeptical. According to this article in Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/ai-100-meter-dash/ the fastest sprinters in the world, not wearing football gear, hit a top end speed of about 27 mph. I couldn't find anything about how many steps it takes them to get to either 20 mph, or to their very top end speed. I also remember seeing espn highlights where they superimpose a ball carrier's speed on a video of him running, usually on long TD runs.. I've seen several of those that the ESPN announcer claims were the fastest in a given week's games, and I think they generally topped out at somewhere around 21 or 22 mph. So I don't have a link to prove it, but I still think nobody in football gear hits 20 mph in 4 steps. I agree, though, that if Henry can actually do that, he's pretty amazing.

Large powerful organizations have to be careful about using trademarks, even unregistered ones, that are already being used by smaller, less powerful folks. The first user of the trademark is called the "senior user," while the party that has only more recently begun using the trademark is known as the "junior user." Don't believe me? Here's proof: From the 1995 opinion of a federal judge in the Southern District of NY, found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/895/616/1570620/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ "Before proceeding to discuss the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court notes that the current matter is unlike the ordinary case in which a senior user, having generated considerable public awareness and recognition around its own trademark, complains that consumers will be led to believe that, as a result of a junior user's confusingly similar mark or trade dress, the senior user is the source of the junior user's goods. The variety of confusion thus described, also known as "forward confusion", represents the classical case where the junior user is said to trade on the good will built by the plaintiff in its own mark. Here, however, Sunenblick claims that defendants' use of the MCA/UPTOWN RECORDS trademark is likely to result in "reverse confusion", i.e., the phenomenon in which the junior user's advertising so greatly overshadows that of the senior user that consumers come to the mistaken conclusion that the junior user is in fact the source of the senior user's goods. 2 McCarthy, supra, at § 23.1(E). This Circuit has held that proof of a likelihood of reverse confusion supports a claim for infringement under the Lanham Act. See Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 490-91 (2d Cir.1988) ("[w]ere reverse confusion not a sufficient basis to obtain Lanham Act protection, a larger company could, with impunity, infringe the senior mark of a smaller one")." _____________________________________________________________________________________ A full analysis of all the considerations relevant to this issue are well beyond the scope of this post, but as the potential "junior user," the Buffalo Bills football team has to be wary of "reverse confusion" trademark infringement claims if it does not strike some sort of deal with a smaller, far less powerful, "senior user." At least, that's what my "other brother" Darryl says.

Interesting article about the computer simulation research of a guy who hypothesizes that life can arise from certain combinations of chemicals combined with energy inputs: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life?utm_source=pocket-newtab Before y'all get carried away with the idea that this is some kind of proof that we now know how life originated, consider this excerpt: ___________________________ Eugene Shakhnovich, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard who supervised England’s undergraduate research, sharply emphasized the divide between his former student’s work and questions in biology. “He started his scientific career in my lab and I really know how capable he is,” Shakhnovich said, but “Jeremy’s work represents potentially interesting exercises in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics of simple abstract systems.” Any claims that it has to do with biology or the origins of life, he added, are “pure and shameless speculations.” ___________________________ The research "prodigy" ran a computer simulation that predicts that you can get unexpected structure by applying energy to a soup containing a combination of chemicals. Yawn. Call me when somebody applies energy inputs to a soup of chemicals and creates actual life from non-life in a laboratory.

Henry is fast, but I don't think anybody gets to 21 mph by their 4th step.

https://www.soda.com/video/watch/buffalo-bills/