ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

I've read the first 125 posts in this thread and watched the video several times. Everybody is assuming that the totality of the interaction between these drivers is shown on the video. That seems unlikely. It takes time to go from driving along minding your own business, to video recording somebody behind you. Maybe she honestly thought that nobody should be going faster in the rainy conditions than she was driving, regardless of the speed limit, and got frustrated watching other drivers zoom by her, and decided to play traffic cop by forcing everyone to slow down to the speed of a commercial truck in the right hand lane. For all we know, she held him up for miles BEFORE he started tailgating. The video STARTS with him already on her bumper - - we just don't know how long she kept him back there to start with, although it's likely that whenever he started to tailgate it was only THEN that she decided to start making the video and KEPT him back there so that she could record the type of aggressive behavior he had by then started to show. You can also be certain that IF she was driving badly in any fashion BEFORE she decided to video things, her behavior changed when she turned the video camera on. You can't assume that she was driving the same way BEFORE she turned the camera on as she was AFTER she turned the camera on. We also don't know if she flipped him off as he passed her on the right the first time, which might explain why a guy trying to pass her for a while goes by on the right, only to wind up farther back again. He only flipped her off the SECOND time he was side-by-side with her in the right hand lane. If she did nothing to goad him, and he's a hothead, how come he didn't flip her off the first time he went by? Maybe the reason the "redneck" wasn't perfectly centered in the frame as he was flipping her off (even though every other shot is centered), is because by then they were both flipping the bird at each other. I think there might be a lot more to the interaction than what the camera showed. We also don't know if both drivers got past the first commercial truck because the commercial truck decided to slow down. I have personally been in the right lane minding my own business on a freeway at a steady speed, when a car in the left lane shadowed me to stop a third car from being able to get by. When I realized what was happening, I slowed down to avoid being involved in their dispute. For all we know, that's what the right lane commercial trucker did in this video. Main point being, there's a lot we don't know. I'm especially suspicious because of the fact that the "redneck" didn't flip her off the first time he went by her.

1. Hold tryouts among season ticket holders for best pre-meditated TD celebration. The next time Stevie Johnson scores a TD, push the winner out on the field, and have a security guard handcuff Stevie and escort him back to the bench while the winning season ticket holder goes nuts on the field. 2. Have a contest for who can make the best "in-your-face" home video of our AFC East rivals getting whipped. Plane crashes for the Jets, dolphins ensnared in nets, whatever. One winner for each AFC East rival gets his video displayed on the big screen at half time of the home game against that team. 3. Extra prize for the best Patriots-related anti-video. Winner gets to ride in a military jet during the fly-over at the next year's home opener, and parachute onto the field. 4. Figure out how to hold an auction from fans' cell phones at half-time of the home opener this year, with bidding displayed on the big screen as the auction progresses. Winner gets to shoot Billy Buffalo at mid-field just before the second half kick-off and end the playoff curse that started around the time that Billy Buffalo showed up. All proceeds to benefit Indian reservations of tribes that used to be able to hunt buffalo. I would also like to know where to send the half-assed, sarcastic suggestions, 'cause I've got a few.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10695272/northwestern-wildcats-union-representatives-head-congress

Lots of speculation in this "article" about Canada's announced plan to bid for the 2026 World Cup, including speculation about building an 80,000 seat stadium in Toronto: http://soccerly.com/article/Kubani/the-real-goal-for-toronto-world-cup-2026 What I can't figure out, is whether the artist's conception of that new Toronto stadium shown in the following link is some soccer fan's wet dream, or part of some sort of extremely preliminary draft of something created by the Canadian Soccer Association in hopes of garnering governmental support for a future formal 2026 World Cup bid: http://imgur.com/a/5ZfCR The stadium cost estimates seem ridiculously low, so I'm leaning toward the wet dream theory. The AP has confirmed, however, that the Canadian Soccer Association does indeed plan to bid on the 2026 World Cup, which would apparently require more large stadium capacity than Canada currently has: http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/canada-plans-bid-host-2026-world-cup So even if the current artist's conception of the 80,000 seat Toronto stadium is a soccer fan's wet dream, there may be some serious future discussion about including a proposed big Toronto stadium in an eventual formal 2026 World Cup bid. Worth watching.

What happens next? Here's something I didn't know until fairly recently - - when a new owner buys a sports team (including but not limited to the Bills), he gets to reduce his reported profits, for income tax purposes, by something known as the roster depletion allowance (the "RDA.") It's a non-cash expense that potentially allows the new owner to claim paper losses for the first 15 years even if the business is cash flow positive. If you are familiar with real estate investing, it works much like depreciation for apartment building owners, except that the sports team owner can write off the entire purchase price of his franchise over just 15 years. So if John Doe buys the Bills for say $900 million, he gets to claim ($900M/15) = $60 million as a roster depreciation allowance expense every year for 15 years. That is above and beyond his deduction of the team's total annual salary as a business expense that also reduces his taxable profits (just like any other business can deduct the salary of its employees as a business expense). Note that Ralph hasn't been able to claim any RDA expenses for many years, because he owned the team for so long. The Bills are analogous to a fully depreciated apartment building in Ralph's hands - - in that they no longer generated any depreciation expense for income tax purposes. But once that apartment building or the Bills are sold, the new owner can start claiming depreciation expenses based on the new purchase price. So don't shed too many tears when the new owner claims he can't make a sufficient profit in Buffalo because he had to borrow some money for part of the team's purchase price or to make stadium improvements. Given the above assumption of a $900 million purchase price, the new owner could potentially put up to $60 million a year in his pocket for 15 years, and pay absolutely zero income taxes during that time. Explanations of how the RDA works - - as a taxpayer, read 'em and weep: http://www.chicagonow.com/white-sox-observer/2012/06/the-hustler-bill-veeck-and-roster-depreciation-allowance/ http://business.time.com/2012/03/09/why-1-5-billion-for-the-dodgers-might-turn-out-to-be-a-bargain/

Hey, obtuse is right up Darryl's alley. Darryl says sometimes the law is an a$$, but he also says here's a few things you might want to think about: 1. If you look at this from the County's perspective, the County wants to do whatever it can to make sure that it doesn't spend big $ to remodel the existing stadium only to have some new owner try to move the Bills a short time later. It was probably the County's intent to "to hinder if not outright prevent the bills from moving for 7 years." While Ralph agreed to those terms, he may have simply viewed it as the cost of getting the County/state to pay for stadium improvements, rather than really having a goal of locking some future owner of the team to the Buffalo area for 7 years. 2. If you're the County, you want to make sure that the COUNTY has the right to complain in court if the team tries to move in less than 7 years. While the County might like it if Ralph's estate planning included efforts to keep the Bills in Buffalo, it's not clear to Darryl how the County would have standing to complain in court if those provisions weren't followed. And Ralph may have felt that his estate planning arrangements were none of the County's business - - he certainly didn't seem to like to talk about it publicly (not criticizing, just observing). 3. It may seem convoluted because it's a "belts and suspenders" approach. That's always gonna seem more complicated than belts alone or suspenders alone. When you add in the legal jargon communication barrier, because "belts" are one legal concept with $5 words, and "suspenders" are a different legal concept with different $5 words, it gets "convoluted" pretty fast. 4. Think about what you would ask for in Court if you were the County and the Bills were threatening to move. Darryl thinks it's obvious that what the County really wants is a court order preventing the team from moving. That would be a much better solution for the County than letting the Bills move but requiring them to reimburse the County for what it spent on stadium improvements. But good lawyers (and even some bad ones) plan for foreseeable contingencies. If it turns out you can't get the injunction for some reason, you would still like to get back the money that you spent on stadium improvements. So you add in the liquidated damages provision, too. Belts AND suspenders (and pulleys and hover craft and kites and blimps and anything else the County can think of to hold up trousers and protect a 9 figure investment). 5. If you want a better understanding of how liquidated damages work in the context of a NY lease, read this: http://www.rosenbergestis.com/In-the-News/LJN-The-Enforceability-of-Liquidated-Damages-060112.pdf 6. If you're interested in how a liquidated damages provision can be used in the context of a NY employment contract, read this: http://www.dglaw.com/images_user/newsalerts/Litigation_LiquidatedDamagesClauses.pdf 7. This was a pretty convoluted post, but I can't help it if Darryl is wordy. Like he says, sometimes the law is an a$$. But he's a moron.

Yeah, and neither one's very bright (runs in the family) - - but they are Bills fans.

My oldest brother Darryl might be able to shed a little light on a few things discussed in this thread. He says: 1. Regarding the lease language that states - - "the Parties acknowledge and agree that there exists no adequate and complete remedy at law to enforce this Agreement against the Bills . . ." If the County eventually finds itself in a position where it wants to get an injunction to keep the Bills from moving, one of the things it has to prove in court is that it has no adequate "legal" remedy. A party that wins a court case can get various types of remedies from the court - - all are categorized as either "legal" or "equitable." To oversimplify, an award of money is a "legal" remedy, while a court order called an injunction that prohibits the Bills from moving is one example of an "equitable" remedy. There is a generally applicable rule that to prove you are entitled to get an injunction, you have to show that you can't be made entirely whole by an award of money instead. That's why the County demanded a term in the lease stating that all parties to the lease agree that the County has "no adequate remedy at law" (or words to that effect) if the Bills breach the lease and move. The County wants that language in the lease so that they can try to keep the Bills from arguing in any future court proceeding that the County can be made entirely whole by an award of money damages. The lease language is actually intended to HELP the County get a future injunction if the Bills try to move. 2. While most terms that parties voluntarily agree upon in a written contract or lease are enforceable, there are some terms that courts won't enforce even if all parties voluntarily agreed to them. Agreements on an amount of "liquidated damages" can fall in this category of unenforceable terms if the parties pick an amount that is unreasonable given the facts known to the parties at the time the agreement was first made. If the $400 million is too large an amount for the damages that the County might really be expected to suffer if the Bills broke the lease and moved, the courts would find it to be an unenforceable "penalty." In that scenario, rather than entering a $400 million judgment against the Bills in favor of the County merely because the parties agreed on that number in advance, the courts would require the County to prove the amount of financial damage, if any, that the Bills caused the County to suffer by breaking the lease and moving. Then again, Darryl's a bit of a moron, and you've never met him - - so I'd be skeptical.

Then again, maybe not: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/488/488.US.445.87-764.html

Maybe I'm underestimating the speed required to get answers that can be used to make in-game decisions, but I don't think we're talking about the level of complexity required to forecast the weather, model nuclear explosions, or model molecular dynamics: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122159-what-can-you-do-with-a-supercomputer/2

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2014/3/17/5509330/phillies-possibly-acquire-supercomputer-to-become-awesome I don't think the Bill will shop for their analytics dept. hardware that way, 'cause Buddy Nix isn't in charge of it..

That's the point - - a Cray seems like serious overkill for both jobs. It's like somebody put Buddy Nix in charge of the analytics department.

Maybe the umps should get one, too, so they can more quickly determine when the count reaches 3 strikes or 4 balls. There's something to be said for getting the right tool for the job.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/an-mlb-team-spent-at-least-500000-for-a-supercomputer/ A $500k Cray supercomputer? To analyze baseball stats to make in-game decisions? I got no problem with computer-aided in-game decision making, but a Cray? Really? Are they gonna be playing in an alternate universe where things happen orders of magnitude faster than on earth? Is Buddy Nix moonlighting for some MLB team?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H4wBtiMMnQ

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/16/mlse-plans-to-spend-big-bucks-to-upgrade-bmo-field The definition of intertwined is forthcoming? WTF does that mean?

http://scratchingpost.thespec.com/2014/03/milton-making-sense-of-mlses-moves.html http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/03/07/mlse_city_pushing_to_move_argos_to_bmo_field.html

How bad did you have to screw up to get this job?

Privacy intrusions in the name of commercial data collection are a related problem, but information is power not only for the data collectors, but for consumers as well: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-to-defend-your-privacy-online/ And if you don't think commercial data collection is a potential problem: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/shocked-to-learn-how-data-brokers-are-watching-you/

OK, maybe you've got a point - - I WOULD consider hiring T.J. Graham for part time work during the offseason with an option to bring him on full time later. He couldn't catch a cold, so he oughta be reliable.

I suppose you could use them as human shields . . . but then who's gonna work the late shift at my Martian Mighty Taco?

Tell that to the bereaved survivors of the Nahua and the Murunahua tribes in Peru: http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/articles/3106-uncontacted-tribes-the-threats

Wanna invest?

Wouldn't it be ironic if the "master plan" was for Ralph to pay Parker under the table to shepherd young Pro-Bowl caliber players off the roster so that Ralph didn't have to pay them Pro-Bowl caliber salaries? But that couldn't be the case, 'cause then the Bills would just make bigger profits in a small market, Parker would take the heat from fans, and Ralph ain't cheap, right? . . . . . right?

First off, Suttle's a Canadian. Second, his area of expertise is marine virology in the world's oceans, so OF COURSE he's gonna be more concerned about rising sea levels. But Pithovirus Sibericum was found in melting permafrost, not in the ocean. C'mon man - - think a little. http://www.cifar.ca/curtis-a-suttle So he's not only Canadian, he's an "expert" about something "little is known about." Yeah, and I'm an expert on how to make burritos on Mars. If I was concerned about viral effects on sperm whales or puffer fish, maybe I'd listen to Suttle.