Texsox

Possibly found a piece of the plane in the Indian Ocean. Was it planted by whomever took the plane?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 03:35 PM) I didn't really want to get into the gun aspect of this case. I'm much more worried about the privacy/property rights issues. If somebody's going to fly one of those things that slowly that close to the ground, I can whack it with a bat (unless I'm Tyler Flowers, then I'd miss). I didn't either but earlier Balta mentioned what if the bullet hit someone, he didn't use a rifle and he used really small shot. It also kind of confirms his version that it was really close. I wish the police confiscated the video to accurately tell what they were looking at.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 05:56 PM) Anyone got any outrage left for the 30,00 other murders in Zimbabwe? Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe’s death squads have reportedly killed at least that many and buried in mass graves, They even had names too, just like the lion... Or the humans being killed by capital punishment in our country as well?

I compare the hundreds of millions of cows, steers, pigs, chickens, fish etc that each year are factory raised and killed for our consumption with the few trophy hunts of animals in the wild. Morally and ethically I am more troubled by the process of artificially inseminating, raising them in pens, and killing them the cheapest way possible method of food production. I'm not bothered enough to stop eating meat, but I do feel that morally the vegetarians among us are probably on better ground.

And seriously, Cecil wasn't as famous as people were making him out to be. Who here really heard of him before he was killed?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 03:31 PM) This specific one was at least in a protected area and thus shouldn't have been exposed to that hunt. However you're right that this def. goes on all the time otherwise. For those areas, it's an exploitable natural resource. My understanding is if a lion wanders off that area they can still be killed. This one was collared, so it would never be legal. But a lion which is baited off a preserve and into an area where the landowner has he necessary permits is fair game. On a much smaller scale landowners have this dispute with neighbors all the time. Encouraging animals to leave one property for another. Hunts in the US adjacent to protected areas often are at a premium.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 02:52 PM) If you want another interesting case, several drones interfered with firefighting in L.A. about 2 weeks ago and as a consequence several loads of fire retardant were dropped away from their targets. The fire in question hopped the 15 freeway and destroyed a bunch of cars, so they literally produced hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. I also saw a video of firefighters knocking one out of the sky by shooting water at it. Can we guess the path drone regulation will take? Step 1, the industry will claim they can take care of it through education programs and no government interference (laws) are necessary.

I've been on guided fishing trips to Mexico and Canada I assumed the guides were having me fishing legally. I guess I could have hired a lawyer first and had them check I've been on guided excursion in National Parks, Wildlife Areas, again I trust the people taking my money that the program is legal. So if, and that is a big IF, the hunter was not aware the hunt was illegal, and again my spidey senses tell me otherwise, I see him being somewhat innocent of the technical charges against him. The lack of quota in that region, the landowner not having a permit, etc. Even the ethics leaves me shaking my head, but the laws do allow for baiting lions (with proper permits). That exact same hunt could have been made legal with the proper paperwork. Has anyone really paused to think about that? The hunt would have been legal with the proper permits and in a different area. Then no one would have been outraged?

Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone who was so outraged by the killing send in $20 for lion preservation? Problem solved. Upwards of 600 lions are legally killed each year in Africa. If this one didn't have a name, no one would care. Having said that the methods used are reprehensible. I can't believe anyone could take pride in that safari. What was illegal in this hunt is the lack of permits (money to the country). The fact that hundreds more will be legally killed IMHO should outrage more people than one lion with a human name. As humans we take from nature what is valuable. We destroy wetlands to build homes. We destroy birds for wind power. The factory farms and processing that produce your cheeseburger are on a scale well beyond Cecil. But the millions of cows that will be slaughtered this year do not have names and cute marketing stories. Our most durable leather comes from old dairy cows that are not normally eaten by humans. We don't care, they don't have names. But we like the leather. Think about the sweet baseball mitts we all broke in. The beef didn't feed humans.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07...r-his-backyard/ He used #8 birdshot. If they had fallen on someone it would be far less than getting hit by hail. But it's a gun and they are all the same to some people. The thing had a camera attached. peeping on people. Anyone think that doesn't go over the line?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 02:13 PM) If the bullet were to hit someone on the way back down, would he face extra charges for that? He should. Flying ten feet off the ground peeking under roofs? I hope they were laughing at each other saying "what are they going to do, shoot it down!" The point is how do you investigate and charge someone with flying a drone in an unsafe, harassing, manner? We sometimes talk about all the new laws that get created and we don't need any more laws. Here is a prime example. Drones. Registration? Permits? Training? Identifying signals? Tracking? Flight plans? Limit the size and range? Some lawyers are going to be making bank in this industry.

I've been waiting for a case like this. Read the article before responding. The drone was not just flying over, it was hovering over people's homes and even flying low enough to look under a patio roof. At some point that seems like an unreasonable amount of spying. I don't advocate at all shooting it down. I think the home owner will, and should, be punished based on discharging a firearm in the city. But there needs to be some laws written regulating these drones.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 12:54 PM) I think you have that backwards. It's generally the committed, vote-in-every-election base that drives the primaries. QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 01:14 PM) Trump hasn't won any actual primaries. I think Tex is just referring to very early polling, where having a big name and making a splash results in big numbers among political illiterates. Thank you, I messed up by saying primaries. I also should have mentioned the people who only vote every four years. Again, not the most cued in.

Presidential primaries are like New Years and St. Patrick's Day, amateur hour. It isn't Republicans putting Trump up there, it is the every four years amateur voter who responds to surveys that has him there. The folks that wander these forums are every year Republicans and I don't hear any of them really supporting the guy. The only GOP candidate that I match up with a couple key issues is Rick Perry. I'd be selecting him based on his vision for America and track record and a couple key issues. If I wasn't paying attention the past three years, I might be picking a candidates name from media reports and telling that to some survey worker.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 12:38 PM) I looked earlier and we're at IIRC 2 D indictments and 1 R indictment, along with 1 R who resigned before the indictment, so far this year, counting all of Congress. Exactly. I've always said that one of our strengths as a country that corrupt politicians are the exception, not the rule. From the local, volunteer, part time, school board member to the POTUS.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 12:18 PM) From the link..."He will be replaced by Mike Honda, D-Calif., who is currently the subject of an ethics probe." There ain't much difference between D and R in the ethics department. The only difference is who gets excused by which people™.

Along with the steroids causing issues for the HoF, I wish the NL would finally add the DH and somehow allow that to be considered at least in the same way as pitchers. We do not argue that a pitcher shouldn't be in the HoF because of their hitting, we shouldn't hold a DH accountable for not contributing with his glove.

"Doesn't know what PC means" translates to "sucks at being a diplomat"

Thank you. I will check that out. Her birthday is coming and I'm really, really, tired of listening to her frustration with the phone. She gets even more frustrated comparing features of phones.

My wife hates to spend money on cell phones and hangs onto hers for years past their useful date. We are on T-Mo and have had nothing but great service and coverage for years, thus, not looking to change. Any advice on a mid price phone?

Ivana stated it wasn't true that The Don raped her. This is Trump's lawyer not Trump making the statement. I think the media blew this up a little too much.

I agree with your comments from a baseball purist perspective. Selig was selected by the owners. The steroid era brought fans back to the game and made money for the owners. Was Selig a disaster to his bosses? I don't think so. MLB is a business and it is run for the benefit of the owners. Most of the time everyone's priorities and ethics are lined up. But not always. I'm not certain if it because baseball is my favorite sport of the big 4, but the baseball HoF has managed to be the only one I really care about beyond seeing if my favorite players get in. For the stats heads the old LPGA formula was the cleanest and most difficult to achieve to be in a HoF.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 04:16 PM) You are assuming that Graph Expo is a small convention. It is not. Quite large, and has visitors and exhibitors from all over the world. I likened it to banks, cable companies, etc that give awesome giveaways and deals to lure new customers, and completely forget about their current customers. As for how busy McCormick Place is, I recall about 5 or 6 years ago they were complaining that they were losing gigs all over the place and were blaming the excessive set up fees and union charges even back then. I don't know how busy their schedule is now, but still seems silly to piss off someone who has been with you for 20 years. I am just looking at the bookings. Graph Expo takes up one building. The other convention running concurrently is using three buildings. The schedule is available on line. There are no small conventions at McCormick Place.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 03:49 PM) Bill Shaikin ‏@BillShaikin 35m35 minutes ago Hall of Fame decides BBWAA members more than 10 years removed from actively covering the game can no longer vote for Hall of Fame. Hard to see this as anything but good news. I'd rather see a more selective removal. If you believe this is a good idea, then anyone here also would not have a clue in voting because they did not cover the game. And we know that is false. You don't have to cover the game to vote To have to actively study the game. There is a difference. Making a blanket policy like that may get rid of some terrible voters, but you also may lose some good ones.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 04:11 PM) I'd imagine it would be quite the disorienting situation with people running everywhere and many not even being able to quickly and accurately realize 1) what's going on and 2) where the shots are actually coming from. As Balta pointed out, at some point, the shooter in this case walked out with the crowd and was attempting to blend in before he spotted the police. That's a whole theater full of people who didn't recognize the man who was just trying to kill them. People get really bad tunnel vision in situations like that. Police and military (and private security forces) train in these high-stress, active shooter scenarios and they can still fail. I don't think you can expect the person who took a 6 hour class on a saturday and goes to the range to shoot at paper occasionally to perform in a situation as crowded and disorienting as an active shooter in a movie theater. OK, I agree with you now. In your world, people should not have guns, they are way too stupid. Where I've been from people duck from danger. It's an instinct. I am laughing out loud at people running around arms raised bumping into each other, bumping into the guy with the gun. They didn't recognize him? You are comparing recognizing someone shooting a gun with someone just walking and no sign of the gun? Well, you got me. If those two scenes are equivalent, I can't argue with you. In my world people can recognize that someone is shooting a gun and that he is dangerous and you should avoid him. You may wish to teach that to the people around you. You are right, later, when he isn't shooting a gun, they might not. What exactly then is your point? Hey I don't recognize the guy shooting at me so I'll just randomly walk over to him? As a gun owner if I see someone kill two people in front of me, and I'm his next victim, is it ok if I shoot even though I might not recognize him later? I'm probably looking at the gun, his chest, the backdrop, where his eyes are. I'm not trying to memorize his face so we can get together later at Starbucks for a coffee. But no, if he's across the room I'm too busy ducking and getting out of there to memorize what he looks like. Wow. You believe that people will just start running around not knowing where the danger is coming from? Are they running in circles like carnival targets I'll tell you what, you run in circles or directly at a person shooting, I'll duck down and hide with the intelligent people. Again with the strawman. I don't think you realize that I wouldn't try to do the job of a cop. Criminals randomly fire into crowds, normal people do not. You keep making these worst case scenarios that a normal gun owner with a license to carry would not do. Maybe you would suddenly start acting like a criminal but normal people do not. A motherf***ing killer is standing over you with a gun, you shoot. You don't shoot across a theater with idiots running towards the shooter. You call it being a vigilante. If someone is about to kill one of my kids, I'm shooting. That's personal protection, not being a vigilant.