Does that additional stuff (with the possible exception of the extra missions) actually add any value to your gaming experience?

Per your first point, I'll just put this here --> "Never memorize what you can look up in books. " - Albert Einstein

As far as GenEd goes, sure, let the students pick what they want and then let the market sort 'em out. Works for me.

You're not too smart, huh?

START II was never ratified.

The illustrations found on wikipedia of that very important act also add a whole lot. Wikipedia user seedfeeder's depiction of 'the money shot' is truly one for the ages.

Agreed

That's true if you live somewhere that doesn't freeze and you're able to use a monolithic foundation. Otherwise, your foundation has to be below the frost line.

Wow, a quote from an article over a year old, a link to a /. post from 4 years ago, and the stupid skeleton thing from March. Slow "news" day I guess...

In my experience, having operated a back hoe off and on for 10 years, both the "red streamer" and the fill (smallish gravel gets used around here) aren't necessary to tell when you've dug past another ditch. The soil in the ditch you cross is visibly and tactilely different from undisturbed ground. Also, FYI, we hit a fiber line about as big around as my arm (it was marked ~15 feet from where it really was) once and the people who fixed it showed up within the hour - it was not a national security line, just a commercial com line. I know this b/c the gas station that was right there couldn't process credit cards 'till it was fixed.

wow - note the extent of my enthusiasm

Nope - not guilty. Perhaps liable.

You do know the difference between criminal and civil law, don't you?

I still can't believe that some people seem unable to grok what I'm saying. I am not defending some fucking stupid cop who got taser-happy. That was not and is not my purpose. My purpose was to point people in the direction of instances where NO DOUBT exists that the cops exceeded their authority. Where their statements have proven false and their actions have been extremely egregious - even leading to murder. Of course, if you want the current functioning of our system to continue the way it has been, then by all fucking goddamned means keep harping about cases where it is only arguable that police brutality occurred. Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense. Let me spell it out for you in even simpler terms. As you mention, it is indeed often a matter of a cops word against someone else's. Unfortunately, many people - probably older and who think all cops are andy griffith - will believe the cop over someone who can be characterized as a punk. Note, you fucking idiot, this is not a value judgment, but an assessment on how things work. So, the better strategy is to talk about cases where no reasonable person would support the abuses which the cops have done.

Its no wonder that cops have lost respect. Part of it of course is their own problem, the other part comes from people like the above AC who in their "righteous rage" focus on cases that reasonable people can disagree about. Thus, when these types of public debates do occur (which only happens rarely) people use the latest alex jones/alternet/wacko idiot cause célÃbre to argue their point - instead of instances where only the most jackbooted thug would see any justice. Then, people who are reasonable as well as fence sitters on the issue think less of the point you're trying to make - which I assume is that cops lack serious oversight and that their cowboy tendencies need to be reigned in. Why, please tell me, is this simple concept so hard to understand?

Let me google that for you

To recap, the parents claim he was clean but refused to release any blood test to the police. Hmmm, who should we believe?

Let me reiterate my point - again. No one, me included, wants dirty cops. This case may have involved a dirty cop. However, the facts of the case are ambiguous. So, for people wanting to point out the jack-booted thugs in law enforcement would do well by picking unambiguous stories, i.e. stories in which there is no doubt that the cops acted beyond their authority.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

My entire point is that when highlighting police brutality people need to stick to stories that are clear and not ambiguous. Its not like its hard to find these stories, so why use bad examples? Once again, stories like Kathryn Johnston's are good examples of police brutality, why no-knock warrants shouldn't be issued as easily as they are now, and how paid police snitches are bad.

If you want this crap to stop - don't use examples that are easily picked apart after 10 minutes with google.