ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

The brown tree snakes are fighting back with Operation Spank The Monkey - - they coated nude photos of Katy Perry with venom, slithered them to the Air Force base, and left them at the barracks.

I knew my smartphone could spy on me, but my TV, too? I gotta get more tinfoil: 1. http://www.fiercebigdata.com/story/lg-caught-red-handed-spying-viewers-smart-tvs/2013-11-25 2. http://www.fiercebigdata.com/story/google-beta-testing-tracking-mobile-users-everywhere-they-go-even-when-not/2013-11-13?utm_campaign=AddThis&utm_medium=AddThis&utm_source=twitter#.UpTmr4AoyZ4.twitter

After the Oakland loss to Dallas, we now know that if there is a 2-way tie between Oakland and the Bills, Oakland will win the tiebreaker based on conference record. By what you call the "reverse engineering" method upthread, it goes like this: Oakland is already 0-4 against the NFC, while Buffalo has already beat NFC team Carolina. So no matter what the Bills do in their remaining 2 NFC games, Buffalo will finish with a better record against the NFC than the Raiders. That means that the only way the Bills and Raiders can possibly finish the season with the same overall record for all 16 games is if the Raiders finish with a better record in the 12 games against AFC opponents than the Bills. You may find this analysis overly complicated, but it allows you to know the outcome of some potential two-way ties long before the season ends.

What's your source? I had never heard this before and found it surprising, so I decided to check it out and found this article published in the last month: http://sportslawnews...lfing-expenses/ If you read the whole article, the deduction in Canada is for 50% of the cost, not 100% of the cost. I also found this 1996 Interpretation Bulletin published by the Canada Revenue Agency: http://sbinfocanada....r/it518r-e.html The "private box" and "hospitality suite" that can be deducted sound a lot like "luxury box" and "club seating" to me. But they are only 50% deductible, so unless you have a better source, I think you are half right.

The Bills and their owner, like any other NFL team, are bound by the terms of the NFL Constitution & Bylaws. It can be amended from time to time by vote of the owners, but the 2006 version is the most recent that I have been able to find. You can read it here (if you have a few days): http://static.nfl.co...ers/pdf/co_.pdf Figuring out what it says is made slightly easier by the fact that it has a table of contents at the beginning, and like any other pdf document, you can use a search box that will jump you to particular words used anywhere in the document. The NFL Constitution & Bylaws are relevant to several issues being discussed in this thread. First, there was no need for Wilson to "stake a claim" to the Toronto market by playing games there. The NFL Constitution defines the Home Territory for each team and makes Toronto part of the Bills' "Home Territory" without Wilson lifting a finger. I don't have time to reproduce the language in this post (I'm traveling soon for Thanksgiving), but it is spelled out in Article IV - "Territorial Rights." You can read exactly what it says starting at page 12 (it's page 14 in the pdf search box because the pdf search box assigns page numbers to the table of contents but the internal document page numbering doesn't). Second, because Toronto is already included within the existing "Home Territory" of the Bills, I think it is unlikely that any owner of the Bills would need to pay a relocation fee even if he eventually started playing all of the team's games in Toronto. The Giants didn't need to pay a relocation fee when they moved their stadium across a state border from NY to NJ - - why should the Bills have to pay a relocation fee just because they cross an international border rather than a state border? You may consider them to be the "Buffalo" Bills. The NFL Constitution defines them, in effect, as the "Anywhere Within 75 Miles of The Buffalo City Limits" Bills. Third, as Buftex pointed out, the other NFL owners have to approve any new owners of the Bills. See Article III, section 3.5, entitled "Transfer of Membership," starting at document page 6 (pdf page 8). Wilson and his heirs can't sell the team to anybody without approval of the other owners. Finally, the way the NFL Constitution & Bylaws defines "Home Territory" gives the Toronto folks a powerful incentive to bid higher for the Bills than they might for any other NFL team. If the Toronto people buy say the Jags or Rams and want to move them to Toronto, there would be a relocation fee, and the Bills would need to be compensated for another team moving into the Bills' existing "Home Territory." The Toronto people arguably avoid those expenses entirely if they buy the Bills and eventually build them a new stadium anywhere in the Toronto area that is within 75 miles (as the crow flies) of the nearest point of the Buffalo city limits. Gotta run - - hope everybody has a nice Thanksgiving.

Huy Fong is the name of the Taiwanese freighter that the company founder left Viet Nam on: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/sriracha-hot-sauce-catches-fire-with-only-one-rooster

Other: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-can-remember-exactly-where-he-was-what-he,34647/?ref=auto

Humor's subjective - - not everybody finds the same stuff funny. Take me for example. I find it hilarious that somebody who has written 3860 posts on an Internet message board (for a team that hasn't been to the playoffs in like 13 years) is complaining about having wasted an entire 60 seconds. Lighten up!

Shoot Billy Buffalo from a moving train and I'm with ya.

I don't agree. Here's why: I agree that if the Bills win out, they will finish at 9-7 overall, and 7-5 in common games. I agree that the Jets are currently 4-3 in common games, so if the Jets lose any two of their remaining 5 five games against common opponents, they will also finish 7-5 in common games. But that doesn't contradict my analysis above. If we win out, and the Jets lose 2 of their remaining 5 games against common opponents, there cannot be a tie in overall records if the Jets also lose to Raiders. That would give the Jets a total of three more losses in their remaining games, so they would finish at 8-8, a game behind the Bills, who finish 9-7 if they win out. There would be no tie that needed to be broken. The Jets remaining schedule contains 5 common opponents and one game against the Raiders. Nothing else. So if we win out, AND the Jets lose to the Raiders, then it's impossible for the Jets to finish in a 9-7 tie with us if they also lose two of their other remaining games. If the Jets lose to the Raiders and lose only one of their other 5 remaining games, the Jets could finish in a 9-7 tie with us. But then they would be 8-4 in common games, while we would be 7-5 in common games. There's just no way around the fact that after splitting head-to-head with the Jets, there are only two kinds of games on the schedule. If we have a better record in the 2 non-common games than the Jets, the ONLY way we can wind up with the same overall record as the Jets is if the Jets have a better record in their other games (all of which are against common opponents). If we beat JAX and the Jets lose to the Raiders, there is no scenario in which the Bills and Jets can end the season with the same overall record without the Jets having a better record against common opponents. If you disagree you are welcome to try to give me one concrete example to the contrary (i.e., any combination of future results that includes (1) we beat JAX (2) Raiders beat Jets (3) Jets and Bills end season in a two-way tie with the same overall record, and (4) common opponents tie-break is reached and Bills survive it. The math says it can't be done. Note that common opponents tie-break is not reached if Jets and Bills have different AFC East division records.

I would check on Ralph's health so that I would have a better idea if I would be able to keep the job until the end of the week.

Just for grins I took a look at the Dolphins record in non-common games, and found some good news. The Dolphins have already beaten both the Colts and the Chargers, so they are 2-0 in non-common games. But the Bills have already lost the only non-common game they have played so far (to KC). So if we wind up in a two way tie with the same overall record as the Phish, the ONLY way we can lose that tie-break is if the Phish wind up with a better AFC East division record than us (so far they are 0-2 against the AFC East), because: 1. We can do no worse than a split with Miami head-to-head; and 2. We are already GUARANTEED to win any two-way common games tie-breaker with the Phish if we reach the third tie-breaker (because we already know that no matter what we do against the Jags, our record in non-common games will be worse than 2-0).

Yeah it does - - the analysis is kind of like the one for NFC opponents if we wind up in a two way tie with a team from some other AFC division. In that scenario, if we didn't play the other AFC team head-to-head, conference games are the next tie-breaker, so we are better off if our losses are in NFC games rather than in AFC games. Similarly, in a two way tie with a division rival, we are better off if our losses are in non-common games as opposed to common games. Let's hope the Jets crater and no tie-break is required.

If we beat JAX, it's mathematically impossible for us to win the common games tie-breaker with the Jets. Best we could hope for is that Jets beat the Raiders. In that scenario, Bills and Jets would have identical records against common opponents, and the fourth tie-breaker would be used (assuming that both teams also had the same AFC East record so that second tie-breaker doesn't determine the outcome).

If we wind up in a two way divisional tie for 2nd place with the Jets, the tie-breaking hierarchy is: 1. head-to-head 2. AFC East divisional record 3. common games We already split head to head with the Jets, so in any tiebreak scenario where we wind up with the same divisional record as the Jets, we will reach the third tiebreaker, which is games against common opponents. But if you think about it, our record against non-common opponents determines whether our record against common opponents is better than the Jets, the same as the Jets or worse than the Jets (because the analysis starts with the assumption that our overall record for all 16 games is the same as the Jets - - that's the whole reason why tiebreakers come into play). So look at the non-common opponents for us and the Jets - - there are only 2 - -they are: Jets: lost to TN, still have to play Raiders on 12/8 Bills: lost to KC, still have to play JAX on 12/15 If the Jets beat the Raiders and we lose to JAX, the Jets will be 1-1 against non-common opponents, while the Bills will be 0-2 against non-common opponents. In that scenario, the Bills will have a better record against common opponents than the Jets. That's not my opinion, that's just math (because we are assuming that Bills and Jets end the season with the same overall record). Stated differently, if (1) the Jets have a better record against non-common opponents than the Bills, but (2) the Bills and Jets have the same overall 16 game record, then by definition (3) the Bills WILL have a better record against common opponents than the Jets. If the playoff calculator doesn't show the Bills wining a two-way tiebreaker with the Jets where (1) both teams have the same AFC East division record, (2) Jets beat Raiders, and (3) Bills lose to JAX, then the playoff calculator is programmed wrong. It may not be intuitive, but if we beat JAX and the Jets lose to the Raiders, then the only way we can possibly win a two way tie with the Jets is to have a better AFC East record.

I'm gonna have to convince my significant other that she's allergic to chocolate.

They don't have picnic tables in Ohio? Or he was just too mentally challenged to find one?

The beer has a chance for a great offbeat marketing campaign - - article doesn't say what brand it was, but how about: "Victoria Bitter - - Your mates would kill for it" "Victoria Bitter - - Better keep it under lock and key" "Victoria Bitter - - When you're just dying for a beer" "Victoria Bitter - - Gotta hide if you steal one" and about a million others.

More marital oddness in India: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-12/coimbatore/30508616_1_sivakumar-family-court-coimbatore There's a sitcom in there somewhere.

There once were two dumb f*#ks in Winnellie Whose involvement was seen on the tellie They beat their mate to a pulp Cause he denied them a gulp Then they lit up his swelling beer belly

Arm!

Did you beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario at Starfleet Academy?

She says she didn't want to WEAR 666. So just turn it upside down, and WEAR 999. Problem solved.

I agree: http://www.americanbear.org/FUR.htm We would need to check his ID to be sure, though.

Behold the wonder of the Interweb tubes - - according to the American Bear Association (who knew?): http://www.americanbear.org/FUR.htm