Yeah, I was waiting to get to the "onerous" part, but I didn't see it. They might have well just said:

Well think about it, now you won't have to reach all the way into your pocket to grab your phone if you want to know what time it is. Genius, isn't it?

Really? Weddings? That's where you draw the line?

Killing people for bringing blankets and beds to kids, that's cool. Killing journalists, that's cool. Terrorizing locals, that's cool. Attacking schools, that's fine? Weddings none of that shit. ... that's it ... huh. To each his own, I guess.

There's the newish game called Besiege. There's a video on you tube of this giant robot someone built. It has fire coming out of its anatomy. It's fucking hilarious, but it's also pretty bad-ass.

I just don't get people that don't think it's awesome (my grandmother excluded).

You realize that prices are water are reflected in where that water is used, right? You can't just say "well now! Livermore is thirsty and we need some of that sweet H2O! Let's just buy some farms in Modesto and we'll have all the water we need!"

You didn't see what he did there. Pay attention. Don't be so quick to jump at people.

You've never grown anything for commercial profit. To the folks who do, it is most certainly "not stupid" to rip out your crop and replace it with something that would make you more money. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but if you grow things, and the things you currently have in the field don't provide as great a profit as something else, it doesn't matter what the crops are, you are going to replace your crops with something more profitable. Done.

I recall very well a weekend where my dad and I took chainsaws to hundreds of nice sized (4-5" trunk) retail nursery shade trees to make space for new ones.

"Can't you get anything for all these? Seems like a $600 tree could do somebody a lot of good instead of turning it into mulch."

"No, I can't get anything for these. It will cost more money in labor to sell these than I would get back. Also, I can save a few thousand in mulch by making it myself."

Responded above before I saw this. But this may totally be the case.

I don't think non-competes are entirely unethical. Their premise makes sense, but the gray areas are where lawyers err on the wrong side of the morality spectrum. If an employer isn't willing to make changes to a contract to remove those nasty gray areas that make non-competes absurd, you should be grateful for not signing yourself up for disaster.

At this point, I imagine many employers don't even realize the non-compete clauses are in their contracts. They just downloaded it from buy-a-generic-contract.com and told the HR person to hand it out to new hires.

Is it?

The last two times I was given a non-compete to sign (Colorado), I stood up and addressed the issues I saw with it.

The first one was reviewed by a co-worker's legal buddy. There was a lot of boilerplate, but there were also certain components that were totally unenforceable and unreasonable. A couple people signed it, but the majority of us refused. What is the employer going to do, fire everyone?

The last one was a completely reasonable non-compete. In my case, my work is fairly niche, and the number of people in Denver that are skilled is very few. If we decide to part ways, it could force me to either move or take up a new niche for the next 18 months or whatever. That part isn't so great as I don't want to move or necessarily take up a new niche. I spoke to the employer and we were both happy to agree to amend the contract to nullify the nastiest teeth.

Just because you are given a non-compete clause to sign doesn't mean you aren't allowed to discuss it in detail with your employer. They certainly should have the right to protect their business, and as an employee you understand that. You certainly should have the right to continue working after parting ways, and an employer will understand that.

If you talk to them about it, I'm sure you'll be surprised at the amount of flexibility they are willing to give.

A fool and his ... wait.. shit. I guess a fool and his smart wallet are soon pa ... wait ... this is pointless.

You're familiar with the 22RE?

You're aware that those motors would run for 200,000 miles driven by an irresponsible teenager that never changed the oil, right?

That certainly aren't the most power motors ever made, but they are remarkably reliable. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see components replaced with plastic and still perform to spec. Sure, not for another 200,000 miles, but certainly longer than 10 milliseconds.

You can go talk to them and ask them yourself. Meeting

Also, Lake Tulloch / New Melones ...

Also 30 percent price raises in the Bay Area.

If you think people aren't actively working on the problem, you need to look around more. That information took me 5 minutes to find.

The suburbs around Denver have a lot of the same names of streets that exist in the city core road grid.

North/South streets will usually be ordered alphabetically and with a theme. Plant names, city names, historical names, etc. This is great, it makes a lot of sense because you know if you are on Ivy then you know the next block over is Holly.

Now, in the suburbs, they decided to do away with a grid road system and instead went with semi-random twists and curves and such. The grid is gone, but the names of the streets remain the same. On top of this, you have several streets with the same name, differing only on the suffix as you mentioned. Ivy Street, Ivy Lane, Ivy Road, Ivy Avenue, Ivy Court, etc. So while the guys in the city decided that putting Ivy next to Holly next to Jasmine etc. the folks that laid out the streets in the suburbs also thought that was a great idea, so good that they made everything intersect with everything unpredictably.

Fuck you Aurora.

Any album. They are all good.