MattPie

Upthread, the story is two women (friends) when home with Kane and his friend. Friend #1 and Kane's Friend went off into another part of the house, and left Kane and Friend #2 alone, when the alleged rape happened. At least that seems to be from the more legitimate reports.

From the context above, it sounds like the franchise owns the rights to develop the site of the Civic Arena (the Igloo). If you look on the map, that's a significant hunk of downtown real estate, which in PIttsburgh actually has real value. :)

I don't understand why you wouldn't just melt some coffee ice cream. :)

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, the family friendly outdoor movie at a local park yesterday. For those that haven't seen it, it's the heart-warming tale of seven brothers whom, after starting a fight during a barn-raising and being run out of town, return and forcibly abduct six women with the intent to marry them back at their family mountain compound. After causing an avalanche to thwart the perusing townsfolk, of course. I remember watching the movie repeatedly when I was a kid, but it didn't strike me how strange it was at the time.

Mayor of East Aurora, in my case :) The license application has to happen a certain time before the wedding in NY (either 24 hours or 3 days, I forget). That's a waiting period like for buying a handgun. Make sure you've had a chance to sober up.

Maybe we should submit it to Mythbusters.

I've always thought of marriage as two *people* that wanted to get hitched. In practice, it was always man and woman, but I can't think of a particular time that I thought it *had* to be a man and woman. I may concede your point if the government switched entirely to issuing ONLY civil union licenses and banished the word "marriage" from the process. I suspect though, that wouldn't be good enough for the religious conservatives who would then rail at the government for being too secular and gnash teeth that they couldn't get "married" in the eyes of the law. It's pretty simple: the government can't create rules that say "these two consenting adults can do one thing, these other two cannot do that same thing". I suppose incestuous marriage flies in the face of that, but too bad. :)

The legal rights of being married are significant enough that you need to keep track of it, I'd say. If you don't want the extra rights, no one is stopping you from getting married however you choose just not in the eyes of the government. Don't expect the government perks, like tax benefits, simplified estate management, etc. though.

I'm working at home today, so it feels like Friday. What's the problem? Tomorrow when I wake up I'll be pissed that I have to work.

If that was written in there, the Republicans in Congress would try to score points that Obama is circumventing the constitution again. Just the like the Democrats would in the opposite situation. It'd be interesting to see if there's a "war clause" in other treaties or if this is something the Right made up to get people angry about the deal. I find it a little hard to believe that any country would sign a treaty that essentially says, "we accept that we'll be attacked if we don't follow the rules". And, if the Iranians are as scheming as everyone seems to think, they'd manipulate that into drawing the US into a conflict at a time of their choosing or showing the US up by breaking the rules and not ending up in a conflict. There's no winning solution to a war clause for the USA.

Iran doing whatever it wants under sanctions vs. a fairly rigid inspection scheme. I tend to say we're better off. I'm not sure there's a better deal out there, but it's good to remember the US is the only player. The other X countries involved in the deal are moving forward.

McCoy, or whomever is running, as the Bills probably won't beat anyone in the air.

It's unfortunate that all the economic systems require people to respect each other, and that's in short supply in the USA as a whole. Maybe capitalism is a little better when there isn't any respect, where the other cultures you mention can get away with more socialism as fundamentally the power that be have a tougher time pitting groups against each other.

:w00t:

There's three Timmy Ho's within walking distance of the house, that had to be a factor.

Doubly so in the Sabres case, as they don't have a stock of high-end RW. I'm still not sure about the trade, but a top-3 RW is going to be an issue in the next few years.

For some reason, last week I got into a Metallica mood and listened to the first four albums for the first time in probably a decade. I'm not a big fan of Justice, but Blackened has been in my head since.

Hands-on experience breaking stuff and fixing it will take your kid far if he's good. Look at me, I'm living proof! :) If I can make a recommendation, I see more and more Linux stuff in the office, so throwing a copy of some Linux system (like CentOS since it's enterprise-y) would be a great learning experience. If he's going to get into any sort of IT or development work, odds are he'll brush up against Linux at some point and being "the guy who knows some Linux" is a valuable tag to have.

FWIW, a clean install of either will probably be fine. Upgrade installs (and rolling back) is always fraught with peril unless the roll back is using images taken before the upgrade.

ATL, please set aside the earlier conversation since I don't want it to color what I'm about to write. I'm writing this next part in hopes that it'll make folks think. It's not about you, I'm just going to use your words to hopefully illustrate a point. Go back and read the second paragraph, and look at it from the standpoint that you're a minority and we're not talking about one thread on a sports board, but your entire life. I'm somewhat talking out my ass here since I'm a middle-age white guy, but those words sound like something a young ethnic man might say. Whenever you're out, it feels like anything you do or say is being judged (even subconsciously) by a majority who don't see things your way. Even when you feel like you're making good points, there's a set of people who just dismiss it because of who is saying. Or attack it because their not prepared to admit that the way the majority experiences the world isn't the same as how a minority experiences the world. And this applies to any two groups that argue. Except Bruins fans, those ###### are inhuman. The first paragraph, you talk about trying to stay calm and level-headed, but passions sweep you away and before you know it it sounds abrasive and accusatory. Those passions creep in because you know there are people that are going to challenge you and will not seem to listen to the logic you're using. Now I'm not saying this condones talking about violence, or that there aren't some perceptions that aren't true as is the case with some of the subjects above. It's tough, but we all should try to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before we tell them how wrong they are.

I'll state it clearly then: if an armed, trained, officer cannot defend himself with his gun, how do we really feel the public is going to do in this gun-filled utopia you seem to be wishing for? I'll give you a hint: the majority are going to be as careful using their guns as they are using cars, which is to say, completely negligent. A couple years ago, I saw two guys get into a fist fight over a gas pump. Maybe if they both had guns that fight doesn't happen, and maybe if they both have guns they start blasting away. Last year, I was riding to work on my bike and there was a pickup in the left lane that had been driving like a jackass a few miles before, and I was behind him. Once the traffic opens up, he speeds up, as do I, and he moves over and as I pass him he's shaking his fist at me and screaming something with his head out the window (that I didn't hear, of course). Maybe if that guy has a gun, I'm dead. I'm certainly not going to be able to effectively defend myself at 70MPH shooting left handed. I chose to high-tail it out of there a bit over the ton. Guns raise the stakes in any situation to unacceptable levels.

No, that's exactly the point. The only alternative is the entire population has to be constantly on alert that anyone they see might try to shoot them in the back. That sounds more like a third-world country than I'm comfortable with.

I kinda understand the logic, but the deputy is still dead, and the witness either shoots the assailant (denying them due process rights if killed), or misses and hits something (or someone) else. The witness is then open to getting sued for wrongful death. I wonder how many witnesses are really going to start shooting knowing that if anything goes wrong (and even if it goes "right"), they're going to be in a world of legal trouble.

Minn State Fair: that's really distasteful. It's unfortunate that the majority of the Black Lives Matter folks will be painted with the same brush as those . And I don't say this to be trite, but how do you rectify a Sheriff deputy, presumably armed and well trained, couldn't defend himself with the Gun-rights folks stance that "as long as I have a gun, I can defend myself"?

It helps to put a mental filter in place that any time someone talks points for a player that you automatically subtract 20%. Then the numbers make sense. "Tyler Ennis should score 70 56 points with good line mates."