ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Let's say we sign the guy. With Wang already gone, Levitre probably leaving and Wood out of the lineup hurt much of the time, what long term hope is there for our Tuel?

Looking at the green splotch on the color-coded map, WTF do they call it in New Mexico? The light green splotch catches the eye, but there's a nearby dark green county where over 80% call it something else. Is that Roswell, NM?

I'll see your Bob Marley, and raise you the "Whalers:" #!

If the Bills wind up with Manziel, and Johnny Football gets five years of star football QB pay without getting five years of head trauma in the process, that's win/win.

Well sure, but for those who don't know Jack, there's a problem.

Well I suppose if we go wildcat and split Johnny Football out wide maybe he could catch something. I don't know if he has good hands but he's pretty quick and e-lucid.

So now you're in Congress?

It wasn't an attack chopper, it was "search and rescue" because you disappeared from the "Democrat's Convention" thread.

I thought this was gonna be from the Onion.

From September 16, 2011:

Actually, you and I might agree that anyone dating Nancy Pelosi should wear a condom, but if all you do is jump to conclusions and hurl insults, you'll never know, because I'm likely to respond in kind. BTW, that doesn't mean "kindly."

No need, he's not dating your sister. Roll Tide.

In the truth is stranger than fiction category, William Sanderson, the character actor pictured in my avatar, played: 1. Larry in TV's Bob Newhart Show, where he was famous for the catchphrase: "Hi. I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl... This is my other brother Darryl." 2. J. F. Sebastian, a genetic designer with Methuselah Syndrome, who made his own Toy-friends in the classic sci-fi movie Blade Runner. As far as I know, Larry never claimed to have genetically engineered any of his Darryl brothers. Roll Tide.

My youngest brother Darryl wants to know if any of this will prevent him from spreading his seed (he's got a hot date).

Dang, wish I had thought of that! Who put you up to this? Roll Tide.

Hey GG, Up-thread, you accused me of posting "drivel" and "crap." When I asked you why I should believe that you know what you're talking about on the Duke Energy tax deduction issue, you refused to answer, and specifically stated in "The Drones Are Coming" thread that you were refusing to answer because I'm a troll. As I mentioned above, I don't know a lot about corporate tax accounting. But you know what? An Internet search engine is a powerful tool. It's like having the Library of Congress in your basement. So let's review what you've posted in this thread, and then take a look around the web to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Maybe we can figure out who's really posting "crap." Maybe it's me, for suggesting that there was at least a possibility that Duke Energy's tax deduction wasn't legitimate. So can corporations deduct worthless debts as a business expense? Let's try a google search, and see what we can find: http://www.lmgtfy.co...rty as bad debt Turns out there's a federal law ("section 166") that says, in most situations, they can: http://codes.lp.find...26/A/1/B/VI/166 So far, it looks like you do know a thing or two about corporate tax accounting. Problem is, there's more than a couple things you need to know. If you read the rest of the statute from the same link, you find this little gem: So let's take a look at section 271 of the law, and see if there's a different rule for worthless debts of "political parties and similar organizations:" http://law.justia.co....1.0.5.196.html Duke Energy isn't a bank. So in the article linked in the OP, the Duke Energy official who said that Duke Energy could deduct the amount owed to it here as a business expense was a lazy or clueless windbag. Nobody else - - just the Duke Energy guy. Twern't that hard to look up. Roll Tide.

I believe you. But upon reflection, if the world truly is "full of misinformation" then statistically the odds are I'm being misled here, but not aware of it. You're saying Incarcerated Bob is often wrong, but according to you that's likely to be misinformation, so I guess the bottom line is I should believe what Incarcerated Bob says.

Every once in a while I do a Google search on Toronto and the NFL just to see what turns up. Hadn't done one in a quite a while, so today's turned up the article below. Although it's from December, 2012, it was never mentioned in this thread, and I don't recall seeing it elsewhere on TSW (maybe I just missed it). Wonder what the unspecified "Rogers "person" meant back when the deal was first made when he referred to the Bills in Toronto series as "a five-year life insurance policy" on Ralph Wilson? It's kind of ambiguous, but one possible interpretation is that Rogers expects to somehow get paid when Ralph passes. That's what happens when you buy a life insurance policy. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/whats-the-point-for-the-bills Things obviously didn't turn out the way the Rogers corporate people hoped with respect to ticket sales and fan turnout, and Ted Rogers is dead, yet they renewed, despite knowing about the 7 year lease extension in Buffalo? Makes me wonder what their "game plan" is now, and why.

In a sensitive Turkmenistan mission: http://www.theonion.com/articles/231-cia-agents-killed-in-overt-ops-mission,31553/

From 9/15/10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec

My middle brother Darryl thinks that you should relinquish the rights to "You're an idiot" and trademark "Get off my lawn" instead. He explained why, but I couldn't follow it. He's a bit of a moron (runs in the family), so hey, what does he know? He's probably wrong. Roll Tide! The technology here appeals to my geek side, and I was curious about just how autonomous these things can be, so I did a little searching. I found a link to the DARPA "crowd-sourced" Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ("UAV") competition that encouraged "hobbyists and citizen scientists" to compete for a $100,000 prize. DARPA wanted a small, cheap surveillance UAV that could be carried in a rucksack and covertly flown remotely beyond the ground pilot's line-of-sight, perched, and returned, but with some autonomous flight capabilities: http://www.uavforge.net/ That's mildly interesting, but it's clearly the minor leagues of autonomous drone development. Reading the observer's field evaluation reports reminds me of the old films that show people trying to fly in crazy contraptions - - lots of crashes. Here's an overview of the results in a Wired article: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/darpa-uavforge/ But I also found some pretty high-tech stuff elsewhere. There is a series of 3 YouTube videos that show some pretty astounding computer-controlled drone maneuvers performed in a Univ. of Penn. research lab. We could quibble about whether the videos show truly "autonomous" drone flights (are they using some sort of motion capture technology?), but they demonstrate the ability to rapidly control drone flight in amazingly tight spaces (at least in a controlled environment). I'll grant you that weaponizing the platform and making it do similar manuevers in my backyard looks like it's a ways off, but keep in mind that the first of these videos is almost 3 years old, and this is just the unclassified stuff. My oldest brother Darryl thinks that the drones are executing computer-controlled flight commands, rather than flight commands sent by a "human ground pilot" based on what the "ground pilot" sees. I think there's a limit on how many videos I can post in one day, so here's the first one from May, 2010 (other two will follow) - - the more recent ones are even more impressive:

Thanks for posting that link - - it also has hyperlinks to several other interesting articles, including but not limited to this one: http://www.technewsd...ml?cmpid=492405 It appears I was too harsh on We Come In Peace - - my bad. Check out this video. It deals mainly with civilian drones controlled by a "pilot" on the ground, and the interviewer seems to refer to drones operated by ground "pilots" as autonomous just because they contain some auto-correcting flight-leveling features. But around the 2:38 to 3:15 marks, an interviewed civilian "pilot" talks about what sounds like truly autonomous civilian drones that he saw actually used in a DARPA-sponsored drone competition. Since he only mentioned it briefly, it's hard to tell exactly what he meant by "autonomous" - - he might have been referring to flying the drone without goggles rather than a truly autonomous, totally pre-programmed flight plan. But that's not what he actually said. http://www.technewsd...more-video.html In any event, no reason to think the police have anything autonomous yet, but it's just a matter of time. And who knows what the military already secretly has.

The Terminator had to shed his clothes to travel through time - - maybe analytical abilities must be left at home to travel through interstellar space, or simply aren't a prerequisite for civilizations to leave their home systems. Then again, maybe drones are a potential threat to his plans to enslave the human race. Come in peace my a$$!

Oh yeah? Calling me an idiot is an affront to all of the true idiots in this world, like my middle brother Darryl. Take that!

coward