ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Interesting article - - thanks for posting it. It debunks the claim that the EPA is using unmanned drones to conduct aerial surveillance, but actually confirms that the EPA uses small manned aircraft to do the same thing. If the use of an umanned drone would be an invasion of privacy, why does the use of a small manned aircraft make it OK? We live in a world where the public availability of ever greater technological capabilities constantly erodes each person's right to privacy, simply because people become accustomed to ever greater ease of intrusions on what used to be private. Combine that with a greater governmental need to protect against our terrorist enemies, and protecting individual privacy rights becomes a losing battle. Our children are growing up in a world that is increasingly numb to invasions of privacy. It's sad. But maybe I'm in the distinct minority on privacy issues. I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, but once attended a neighborhood watch meeting where a local police officer reported that the police had recently installed covert surveillance cameras on a street in a nearby shopping district. Out of some 20 neighbors at the meeting, I was the only one who seemed to be the slightest bit concerned about privacy issues. All I can figure is that a neighborhood watch meeting tends to attract people who are the most concerned about their own personal safety, and therefore are most likely to act like sheep. End of mini-rant.

If the FAA requires the drones to fly fairly low to avoid interference with air traffic, I wonder if they would be within shotgun range? My guess is the EPA is gonna find out. I've read that some realtors have been warned by the FAA to fly the camera drones they use to take aerial photos of high end city properties at lower altititudes, but I don't remember the height limitation. Might be a higher altitude limit out in cow country. Deer rifle with a scope if they hover in place? Remember Ruby Ridge!

It's-about-tourism-$$-or-at-least-that's-the-cover-story The link includes a picture of the sub.

Buddy's strategy will pay big dividends when the opponents' OL coach tells his guys to make sure they double team Williams!

Seems like he should try to avoid that for now, at least with his left foot.

Although I don't find the analysis particularly sharp, this law journal article provides an overview of some of the legal theories that might come into play in concussion-related NFL litigation (including implied assumption of risk): http://erepository.law.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=student_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhws%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Ddell-usuk%26channel%3Dus-psp%26ibd%3D0081004%26q%3D%2522Seton%2BHall%2BJ.%2Bof%2BSports%2B%2526%2BEnt.%2BL.%2522%26Submit%3DGoogle%2BSearch#search=%22Seton%20Hall%20J.%20Sports%20%26%20Ent.%20L.%22

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82990b67/article/terrell-owens-hires-new-agent-to-get-back-in-nfl?campaign=Twitter_atl_hanzus

Can we genetically modify Merriman so that he can do this just before going on IR this year?

I don't want to be alarmist, but there have been unconfirmed reports that after making first contact with the underwater aliens, the military started rounding up hundreds of civilians and herding them into the sea. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it: Just-an-Internet-rumor-or-a-sign-of-things-to-come----You-decide

Despite reports to the contrary, it appears Bo knows diddley:

The Egyptian pyramids may have been built by ancient alien construction engineers, but these current visitors appear more interested in our water resources: Turns-out-the-underwater-aliens-are-intergalactic-plumbers But do they come in peace? You decide.

Hey Mike: Some people think that "marrying" content and distribution maximizes the value of both. There's an explanation of that here (using Rogers' recent agreement to purchase a partial ownership interest in MLSE as the main example): http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.com/p/mlse-buy.html While that doesn't directly answer your main question, it might give you some insight into why a telecommunications company like Rogers is generally interested in owning sports "content." As for the "corporate ownership rule" - - it is widely misunderstood. Publicly traded corporations with hundreds or thousands of shareholders can't own an NFL franchise, nor can non-profit corporations regardless of size (except for Green Bay). But closely held for-profit corporations with a small number of shareholders can own an NFL franchise. Here's one: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 When Ralph passes, there might be a way for the "Rogers Control Trust" to structure a purchase offer for the Bills that would comply with current NFL ownership rules. It depends on, among other things, how many people are beneficiaries of that trust. If you are interested in how that might work, see post # 164 in this archived thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/130317-did-ralph-already-grant-toronto-an-option-to-buy/page__st__160 Finally, if you still have the link identifying or mentioning the 18 or so owners you mentioned, would you mind posting it? I'm curious about the details. Thanks.

Minneapolis city council approves city's contribution to cost of new stadium: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19157285/city-council-approval-clears-way-for-vikings-stadium

WWII. Harvard. Pre-DARPA. Pigeon-guided American anti-ship ordinance. Absolutely true.

That's only true if Ralph leaves his ownership interest in the team to his wife - - which Ralph has publicly said he will not do. He could always change his mind about that, but I have seen no indication that his plans have changed in that regard. Have you?

Now that Magic Johnson is a part owner of the Dodgers, maybe there's an opening for "spokesman for the virus."

http://autos.aol.com/article/teen-dies-while-texting-the-dangers-of-texting/?ncid=txtlnkusauto00000020 She had a killer sense of humor - - Haha.

I agree. Everybody loves a football star who is humble. If Powell is an upgrade over Moorman but not grateful for the opportunity to make a good living playing a game, we should cut him!

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article378891.ece

Scarlett Johansson

I'm inclined to believe that Goodell was telling the truth, which is a complete defense to any defamation suit. But who knows? It does seem odd that Vilma would file this suit if he knows that Goodell's statements were truthful. FWIW: http://www.answers.c...ander-and-libel I haven't looked to see if any court has decided whether an NFL player or other pro athlete is considered a "celebrity before the public," but my guess is that Vilma is sufficiently in the news on a regular basis to be a public figure for purposes of a defamation suit. So if Vilma filed suit against a newspaper, broadcast network or other member of the media, he would probably have to show that falsehoods were made maliciously (i.e., in this context, with at least "reckless disregard for the truth"). But Vilma didn't file suit against a reporter or media company - - he filed suit against the commissioner of a professional sports league. I haven't researched it, but it seems to me like the reasons for granting extra protections to the press - - protecting the free flow of speech and opinions by reporters and their employers - - don't apply to a defamation suit against the commissioner of a sports league. So even though Vilma may very well be a celebrity or public figure, it's not clear to me whether or not he would have to prove that Goodell acted maliciously to win a defamation suit against Goodell. Vilma's suit is significantly different from your company vs. collection agency example because the plaintiff, Vilma, is probably a public figure. But Vilma's suit is also significantly different from the Sullivan vs. NY Times case because the defendant, Goodell, is not a reporter or media company. I wonder if Goodell has any way to claim that the NFL's ownership of NFL Network (a TV broadcaster) entitles him to the extra legal protections given to members of the media in defamation suits by celebrities or other public figures? Seems like a stretch, but I don't know how much of Goodell's job duties involve NFL Network business. If he has a separate job title or routine job duties with NFL Network, he might be in a better position to make that argument. It will be interesting to see if the courts require Vilma to prove that Goodell acted with malice.

Don't underestimate Bryan Anger's value to the Jags: After-all-he-pronounces-his-first-name-just-like-Moorman-does

Turns out there's a lot I don't know about asteroid deflection planning: From http://www.space.com/9571-tiny-asteroid-buzzed-earth-fast-spinning-rock.html

Thought this article was fairly interesting with respect to how often asteroids zip by the earth at distances less than the average distance to the moon (i.e., less than 238,000 miles): http://news.yahoo.com/bus-size-asteroid-zips-close-earth-184131023.html Might be old news to people who follow this stuff, but I never realized just how "near" some of these near-earth asteroids routinely orbit. Makes me curious about the longest known time period it takes for an asteroid to complete one full orbit. Anybody know what that time is? If it's longer than man has been in space, you have to wonder if there are non-trivial earth impact probabilities that we just don't know about yet. Edit: Did a little more digging, and found a story about a 150 foot wide asteroid that wasn't discovered until 2010, and has an 88 year orbit: http://www.space.com/9205-potentially-hazardous-asteroid-earth-4-million-miles.html

These sites might be of some use: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/iac/index.jsp http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/GeoRegion.jsp Good luck!