I had to do this with an insurance company that was didn't want to provide me the fair market value for my car that was totaled. They insisted that the vehicle was only worth about $1200 when every other thing indicated that it was in the $2900-$3100 range. I had attempted to work with them for several months but they refused to budge so eventually I had to sue them. I showed up with an independent appraisal, pictures of the car before the accident, sample vehicles that were for sale, the KBB valuation of the vehicle, the NADA value of the vehicle, and the insurance companies data points and method used for assessing the value of my vehicle. I presented my data showing that the vehicle was worth far more and then went through the insurance companies data points (2 vehicles with lots of unknowns) and method for calculating values. The biggest problem was that the 2 vehicles they chose as data points had no stated information about the mileage, options or condition so the insurance company assumed that for options and condition they matched my car which seems unlikely as min was a California car with all available options and the others were Minnesota cars. Additionally since the mileage wasn't stated on either of their data point cars they insurance companies method went like this:
1. Assume each vehicle in their set had the same amount of miles as my car as well as options and condition then subtract some value from each one for mileage
2. Average the 2 resulting values and then subtract mileage again
3. This is now the base value so subtract mileage yet again
Also as one of my data points for representative vehicles I found a similar vehicle to mine that was just over the value they were offering. The only problem was that it was a non running one that was really rusty and had over 750,000 miles on it. It was however the same year and model though. After presenting my evidence the judge went to the the representative from the insurance company and asked if my description of their valuation of the vehicle was correct, to which the responded yes. The judge then asked if they had anything else to add, to which they responded no. At this point the judge ruled in my favor and told the insurance company that there was no reason for this to have gone as far as it did any that everything I had requested was entirely reasonable and valid so they should have just settled 6 months previous (just after the accident) instead of dragging it out as it would have been far cheaper and it wouldn't have wasted everyone's time. In the end I got $3135 since I went for the highest justifiable value plus the $35 filing fee and the insurance company had 20 days to pay or appeal. The insurance company still didn't pay within in the required 20 days and it took a phone call to them informing them that I had a judgment against them and at this point I could legally get a court order to have their assets frozen and I would be doing so the next day if I didn't receive my check before the court opened on the following day. I got a hand delivered check 2 hours later.
Seriously why to people do water intensive farming in a desert in an effort to preserve their water rights? I am not all that sympathetic to farmers and ranchers that through our governments subsidy rules and their use it or lose it water rights are having a hard time in what normally is a desert. Guess what you live in a desert and if you can't get the water to grow your alfalfa, lettuce, grape, etc crops maybe you should be trying to grow those things there.
These 2 parts of the ruling did manage to accomplish one thing though which is I now have no faith in the supreme court to make logical well reasoned decision that is even coherent within the same ruling. This becomes most clear on pages 31 and 32 or the ruling where the court felt compelled to treat it as a tax for the purpose of ruling it constitutional yet somehow wasn't compelled to at the same time to rule it was a tax for purposes of standing. This line of reasoning I find rather disturbing since it basically states that if there is a way or reading or interpreting a law that might make it constitutional then the law must be ruled constitutional. There are 2 previous examples where this was done and any legal mind arguing before the supreme court would be wise to make use of this to ensure all laws government writes get ruled constitutional since there is a very long running president of this now (about 180 years).
I should just hand him the phone, and say, "hey, this guy wants you to tell him all about Minecraft, Rainbow Loom, and Pokemon!!"
With my 3 year old replace those with things with the trips up to the iron range, the threshing shows, and the railroad museum in Golden, CO. The kid would talk for hours if you let him.
While the purpose of a burnout is in part to remove the debris from the tires it is mostly to heat the slicks up so they are good and sticky so you can get a good launch off the line and not spin the tires as much. If it were just about scraping the crap off there wouldn't be a need to keep going beyond the first couple of revolutions until they smoke. Some drag races do like the big burnouts which as you stated really wastes tires, while others (like my father) do them until they see the smoke out the rear view, or enough to get the tires hot and sticky but not waste them. Also most of the drag I've seen are running 4.10 or 4.11 gears so it is even easier to break them loose. There still is the difference between drag slicks and street tires with street tires offering no where near the traction of the traction of even cold slicks.