Docwagon

Holy shitballs, this book is good. http://www.amazon.com/The-Worst-Hard-Time-Survived/dp/0618773479 The book is a narrative of multiple families and individuals who lived through the Dust Bowl. (For those unfamiliar with US history, the Dust Bowl was a catastrophic consequence of tearing up the native grass species on the lower Great Plains region of America, resulting in massive dust storms that stripped the top soil and carried it far enough away that it dusted ships at sea. They ruined the land by removing all indigenous species so that they could plant millions of acres of wheat, and then when wheat prices plummeted due to the end of WWI and Russia resuming grain exports to Europe followed shortly thereafter by the stock market crash and the beginning of the Great Depression, and the fields sat empty. A lot of non-fiction is interesting in that you are learning, but not particularly compelling (ie, dry). This book has a ton of historical information, as well as information on how the economy and markets worked in turn of the century America, but is presented inside the true stories of these families and communities. There are lessons for the future inside this history of the past, including what happens when the wealth gap tips beyond what a given society will tolerate, from rigging backruptcy auctions to dragging judges out of the courtroom and threatening to hang them if they foreclose one more deed. I read the first third of the book non-stop today. It's non-fiction that reads like top shelf fiction, absolutely incredible stories told in an excellent voice with just the right amount of historical context and explanation to make sense of it but without it getting in the way of the flow of the story. Its well worth $8 and the time to read it.

....umm...thanks? Err, I guess?

If you're an asshole, I will ignore you. Just like "in real life", if you are an asshole, I will not voluntarily interact with you because life is too short to waste time on assholes. This solves 99.9% of Internet related drama. The other .1% can be solved by remembering the following little saying that's gotten me through many tough times: and don't become this guy:

I hesitated to click on this, afraid it was going to be a post about a new toilet.

Black Ops 2 is still getting them, and you have to go through an advert screen every time you load up multiplayer.

I get balder every year.

There is no advantage (price-wise) in paying cash. The dealership would actually prefer you to finance it, as they get a kickback from the financing company when you go through them. Does Scotland have anything like truecar.com that lets you see what others are paying for the car? Edmunds.com?

As a rule, I'm for it. I don't believe in warehousing human beings who will never be allowed to interact with society again, who continue to pose a threat to other inmates and prison staff, or who require such costly and resource intensive solutions to those two issues such as "super max" prison cells. Beyond that, fire up a thread and we can talk about it.

It depends on how much the company cares. Disney cares. Fair use ends when you are selling the item.

Less than the copyright holders would sue for, probably. Honestly I have never paid more than $100 for hand painted work. His best bet is to paint some non copyrighted material and approach a local gallery.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I am not an expert in mental health. Not even a knowledgeable laymen. However there are plenty of experts in our society who are qualified to offer expert opinions.

That is not a photoshop. Another officer on the race detail took it.

Trees hate us. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0927-trees.htm

For the most part we're in agreement. I think we have different expectations of what the law can do, though. You'd be surprised how many robbers use toy guns. Gang bangers can usually get guns through straw purchases, but the lone bad guy who's banned and doesn't have a lot of resources (contacts, cash, knowledge of work-arounds) etc. can find it difficult to find a gun. Folks who are violently mentally ill may have trouble finding someone to arm them. The guy who killed Laird couldn't just get new guns, or at least he didn't. He waited until he got his old guns back from the court and got cleared. That's not the main point, though. The main point is stricter sentencing would remove the likely murderers from society before they murder. Regardless of how dedicated they are, its unlikely they'll be able to get a gun inside a prison cell. Traffic laws don't prevent all accidents, and we don't expect them to, but we don't clamor to end all traffic laws because we know that there would be more, and worse, accidents.

Yet murder is illegal so that we can sequester that person away and keep them from doing it again, or be able to arrest them for attempt or conspiracy to commit and prevent a life lost. Stricter gun laws can prevent crime, if done appropriately. Banning cosmetic features or wholesale prohibition is not doing it appropriately. Allowing the mental ill to be disarmed does. Indiana has the "Jake Laird law" because a mentally unstable person had their guns confiscated, petitioned the court and got them back, and then murdered his mother and shot up the neighborhood, killing one cop and wounding several others. Had the law allowed his crazy ass to be held in a mental institution or prohibited him from getting his guns back, the tragedy could likely have been avoided. http://www.odmp.org/officer/17421-officer-timothy-jacob-jake-laird Since I work in Homicide & Robbery, I get a stat sheet on every homicide, murder or otherwise, in our county. Very few murderers don't have weapons priors along with multiple prior felony and drug arrests (as do a majority of victims, for that matter). Stricter enforcement for weapons offenses for felons would prevent crimes, as those assholes would be in jail instead of back out carrying guns and slinging dope again.

Yeah. A big one in the back split and fell on the back of the house.

Taken at this year's Indy 500:

Of course not. That doesn't get you any attention, doesn't get you any web traffic, etc. Plus, its just more fun for them, and maybe a touch comforting. At least *someone* is in control of everything that happens, even if that something is bad. Same people who have two years of canned tomatoes but no short term disability insurance or emergency savings fund. Real likely setbacks are scary and no fun to prepare against.

Try to catch a pharmacy robber.

They are the same, and it won't change. Gun control won't change, either. The gun debate is fueled by emotion and a fantasy world on both sides. The hard core gun rights people will obstruct any true attempt to get hands out of crazy people's hands with the "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand" mentality and because they see conspiracy and police state in their own shadow, they'll slipperly slope it to death as "the government will just declare us all crazy" type bullshit. The hard core anti-gunners will pretend guns will just disappear if more laws are passed and ignore the huge population of gun owners who aren't murderous assholes. A prime example is the irresponsible assholes who leave guns out where children can find them because "if someone breaks into my house, I don't have time to unsecure the gun..." thinking. They'll claim the statistics about it being more dangerous to have an unsecure firearm in the house are lies, manipulated, include suicides, etc. They aren't, from my experience. I'm so sick and fucking tired of seeing children shot because of people leaving their guns out. You know how many home invasions I've had stopped with a firearm in the last year? One. You know how many children I've had shot? Four, one fatally, two permanently disfigured (missing a finger and a thumb, respectively), and one that will heal up ok. All 6 and under. But if you suggest mandatory trigger locks, gun safes, or keeping it in a holster, you are anti-2nd amendment and against safety. If you're really worried about a home invasion, under the sofa is a stupid fucking place for a gun, on your hip in a holster is the smart play. After Newtown, all we heard was "we don't need gun control, we need better mental health laws, etc." Go to a gun forum now, and that's forgotten. No, its all tyranny and blood on the tree of freedom if you try to disarm the suicidal or mentally ill.