snafu

This is what the dude who lives under an overpass mutters to himself.

Third rule is: don't talk to commies. Every Ramones fan knows that.

Infrared camera?

That car just kept chugging along. Didn't brake, didn't flash its high beams, maybe (doesn't seem likely) blew its horn, didn't veer from its course by a millimeter. Yes, the person shouldn't have been there, but a driver can't just plow through the random human (or any other object) in the roadway without doing ANYTHING. And if you still need a human to monitor the driverless system, then just let the human drive. Having someone wait,wait,wait until it is too late to take some evasive measures = a delay that makes an accident more likely, not less.

Maybe that fact would make the movie more entertaining? Or, make a movie about the stupidest animals. There are too many documentaries about which animals are intelligent.

Would you support a movie about Puffins?

Funny, I hear 'computer voice' every time I read a post of yours, M-5 Multitronic. Figures you'd chime in. The bug isn't in the programming they did, it is in the programming they didn't do. Drivers -- automated or human -- have a responsibility to drive with reasonable care. Plowing ahead if someone isn't in a crosswalk isn't driving with reasonable care (provided that's what happened).

Refuses to learn the playbook. Has no idea what to do when someone audibles.

Im not working out bugs, even if nominated. Let all the dead pedestrians sue Uber, not me. However, I will volunteer to make sure the Chinese BJ machine is installed. That and a wet bar. And I will ensure that a robot monkey is behind the wheel, just for looks.

Did you type that in 'computer voice'? Yeah, and there are the same number of pedestrians in NYC (vs. Phoenix), too. How many cars with drivers exist on the planet vs. driverless cars? What's the ratio of cars with drivers killing pedestrians vs. driverless cars killing pedestrians? Looks like they haven't worked out all the bugs.

At this point if Muellers got nothing, he can't just end it. People would freak out. Mueller would need to slowly roll out the news, or explain himself pretty clearly. If Muellers got something then he should end it because at this point it looks like he's timing charges to coincide with the midterm elections. And if he's doing that on purpose, it would be pretty ironic.

I usually follow casually along and pick one "not him" guy without any basis in fact. This year my "not him" guy is Rosen. I don't totally trust the process, by the way. But since I'm not employed by the Bills and they're not going to listen to me, I will watch the process unfold. If they don't trade up a second time and take a QB at 12 then this will really feel like the Kolb/EJ year.

I'm just asking for a friend, but is this coke problem something that smoking pot can cure?

Two things: --There had to be some facts to start to draw the picture. I get your response about twisting facts to make the picture ugly, but there had to be something to lead them in that direction. --I see the proof that private third parties were allowed to go belly up to the Intel trough, and Rogers shut it down, but maybe I missed any proof that after Rogers shut it down, the outsiders were being fed Intel by the insiders. I get the Ohr/Fusion link, but that's not proof. I get the FISA/Page/spying/collusion angle -- and the leaks that went along with it. But that's not proof of spoon feeding anyone either.

The process, I agree, was rotten, and I'm glad that there's some light being shined upon what appears to be abuses. There's no justification which would make abusive domestic spying, or political spying acceptable. But there's no need to cobble B.S. from raw intelligence if the intelligence info was actual and factual. Just use the facts if the facts are there. Otherwise, don't even go near the FISA intel to make up B.S. What's the point in opening up that can of worms? Seems sloppy. They were better off just writing fiction from their imaginations than exposing the abuses which seem to have become inherent in the system.

I'm trying to understand this quote from the big picture article you linked: "Chris Steele would be the laundry for the intelligence information pulled from the U.S. system. Unauthorized FISA-702(16)(17) results were passed on to Christopher Steele, likely by Nellie Ohr. Steele would then wash the intelligence product, repackage it into what became known as his “Dossier”, and pass it back to the FBI ‘small group’ as evidence for use in their counterintelligence operation which began in July 2016 [ intentionally without congressional oversight {Go Deep}]. Evidence of this laundry process is found in a significant “search query” result that was actually a mistake. The faulty intelligence mistake was the travel history of Michael Cohen, a long-time Trump lawyer. The FISA search turned up a Michael Cohen traveling to Prague. It was the wrong Michael Cohen. However, that mistaken result was passed on to Chris Steele and it made its way into the dossier. Absent of a FISA search, there’s no other way Christopher Steele could identify a random “Michael Cohen” traveling to Prague." So the FBI was supposedly feeding ill-got FISA search inquiry info to Steele so he could make his report and it could be used to spy on the Trump campaign. But all of the Steele assertions are B.S.? So what the hell type of information did the FBI pull out of electronic surveillance which could have been so dramatically wrong? Did they give him bad info, or did Steele twist it into B.S.?

Pearl brought his new idea a few days ago. Jury is back ... bad thing.

Is that lying to the FBI? Who doesn't do that these days?

John Oates lives in an ice house in Antarctica.

Honestly, I don't want my President saying "not fair" (even if it might seem that way). It is what petulant 5 year olds do. It's annoying when the kid does it, and more so when a septuagenarian does it.

People are more passionate over there.

Like a football player in a mosh pit.

Hillary Clinton didn't want to hear chants of "lock her up" and "crooked Hillary" of six straight months, and then watch Trump do the opposite of everything she stood for after he beat her. This theory is just about the stupidest thing ever said on this board. Ever. And that's an extremely high hurdle. Two o'clock theory.

I like that first half. Bulls should play well in the second. This can be a tight finish.

Oprah does everything heavily.