WhoTom

I'm not certain. ?

The Uncertainty Principle says that you can know a particle's exact position or its exact velocity, but not both at the same time. For this example, I choose position. Werner Heisenberg was once pulled over for speeding. The cop asked, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg responded, "No, but I know precisely where I am."

If a man speaks in the forest and there's no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong? (Credit: Tom and Ray from Car Talk. And their answer was "Yes.")

Water molecules stick together (that's the principle behind surface tension), so by your definition, a water molecule is wet because it's touching another water molecule. Therefore, water is wet. And since water can be a solid, the same logic applies to the chemist's definition. QED

Another one:

Note to self: stop storing "makeshift fireworks" with the candles.

When I was first prescribed bifocals, I went with progressive lenses. The glasses were kind of small (because that's how I liked my distance glasses) and I had the same problem most of you are describing. So I returned them and decided to just keep using my distance glasses and buy a pair of prescription reading glasses. (My eyes are different prescriptions, so off-the-shelf reading glasses don't work.) I found it to be a hassle swapping glasses all the time, so I decided to try another pair of progressive lenses. This time I went with a larger lens - circular - and that made a huge difference. And I also hate tilting my head depending on what I'm looking at, so instead, I slide the glasses up a bit for reading, down low for distance, and mid-range for computer work. The progressive nature of the lenses gives me sort of a trifocal effect without actually buying trifocals. That's good, because neither distance glasses nor reading glasses work well when I'm on the computer, which is most of the day.

Seems appropriate to add that.

I've noticed that the frequency of that phenomenon (reality mimicking The Onion) has increased over the last couple of years.

OP is right. Bills suck. Always have, always will. Might as well go find a new team. You first.

New owners. New GM. New coaches. New era. Let's move on.

Don't go to a nude beach on your honeymoon.

- Bills wins 5.5 - over - Allen starts 12 - under - McCoy rushing yards 1,150 - over - Leading receiver yards 750 - under - Leading receiver catches 65 - under - Total INTs 15 - over* - Player with most INTs 4.5 - over* - Player with most sacks 8.5 - under* - 1st win week 4 - under - 1st 2019 draft pick number 6 - over - Bills Pro Bowlers 1.5 - over *I'm assuming you mean defense on these, not a QB throwing INTs or getting sacked. This would have been interesting as a poll so you could see the totals easier.

Sally field is still in her prime:

Effin' right I do!

Don't fry bacon in the nude.

Did he say the school would pay for it?

A month in the laboratory can save you an hour in the library.

A slim chance, if the D can dominate.

Round numbers: 15/25 (60%) 225 yds (15 yds/comp) 1 TD 1 INT 3 sacks Offense puts up 17 points.

Worst case, it's a career-ending injury and he only gets $14M+. Jeez, he may have to bag groceries to make ends meet.

A WR is a DB who can't tackle? I thought a DB is a WR who can't catch. ?

What I'd like to see: Play-action pass to catch the D off guard. What I expect to see: Hand-off to Shady up the middle for no gain. I'm waiting for his prediction about Paxton Lynch on 3rd and long.

This thread might be of interest: