MacGyver

Got my first two tomatoes in yesterday. Early this year, which is surprising since I didn't get them out until late. I don't usually have ripe tomatoes until the 4th.

A cheap pour over filter is maybe $5 and totally worth it. Seriously. If you're wife is not totally into camping, that's a little convenience that'll buy you a lot of grace. Or heck, the flash dehydrated stuff is way better than the Foldger's of old. Either are likely to win you a few points.

I can see the logic in that argument - and I'm sure some curricula were originally based on that reasoning. That said, if I were going to teach it to my kids, I'd start with the rules that govern the universe, build in chemistry and then take both of those into biology. That said, today's student isn't really prepared to take physics or chemistry earlier in their academic careers. They don't have the math for it. Even a trigonometry-based physics curriculum is going to be out in front of where most freshman are from a mathematical perspective. I guess we could flip the whole thing up on end and teach the math as we come to it in the sciences...

To each their own, I guess. It's not my preference, but they generally smoothed things out a little bit a few years ago when they introduced that Pike Place blend.

You probably got the sciences in the order they should be taught - physics, chemistry, biology. I got them the other way around - biology, chemistry, physics. My physics teacher's name was "coach." For the love of me, I can't remember his actual name. Needless to say, freshman year calculus-based physics in engineering school was a steep learning curve.

I've held for years that Starbuck's should have two lines - one for fruity drinks and one for people who just need a cup of coffee to get to work without killing someone...

I know there are several universities in the state that, of course still teach physics courses for engineering students, but haven't had an actual physics major in years. Jobs are plentiful right now, but a BS coupled with passing the Praxis in physics would land someone in a pretty secure job that still has a pension.

This post is likely to make me have to move this to the Swamp. We'll see if people can separate their rhetoric from their tribe. A note upfront: This post is likely to be unpopular (and doesn't necessarily fully capture my personal views) but that's okay - I'm okay expanding the borders of our thought and conversations. So, I'll preface this post with two thoughts: Quoting Chekhov to start, "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." A person I respect a lot told me early in my career that "the evidence has to tell the story." Notice that's different than the evidence supporting your story - the evidence should tell the story clearly...by itself. Our evidence is starting to tell a pretty compelling story... I posted earlier in this thread about Sir Robert Peel publishing 9 rules for modern policing in 1829. At their core, they describe a group put forward by the citizens they serve that "polices by consent" rather than "polices be force." This is largely the reason that 90%+ of British police officers don't carry guns. Weapons or people with weapons are normally close by (the recent attacker at parliament was subdued quickly) but the average officer doesn't carry one as a part of their normal day-to-day duties. So here's some evidence to consider: In 2016, the British police fired 7 bullets (killing 5 people). Compare that to 1,092 killed in the United States during the same period. In the last 10 year, the British have had 3 officers killed with firearms. Two, Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were murdered in cold blood by Dale Cregan who also employed a grenade. The third, Ian Dibell was killed off duty while pursuing an armed suspect. Three officers in 10 years. Two ambushed and one killed off-duty (where a gun may have helped.) What do we do with this? How does this evidence match up to the story we train on "that every stop is potentially your last?" For the sake of discussion, what if we took a time out? What if our officers had access to weapons, or access to highly trained officers with weapons, but didn't carry them in their interactions with the public(that they serve) on a daily basis? What if we took the weapons out of the revenue generation engines' hands? What if we de-escalated the "warrior officer" that uses "opposition force" language? Certainly some of you will say, "good luck finding officers to serve..." Maybe that's the case. But, I would be willing to bet within 10 years we have some cities in the US voluntarily disarm in the vast majority of their patrols and interactions. Additionally, I'd be willing to bet that not only do they have fewer police shootings, but you also have a lot better officer safety statistics. We've got a problem that is only going to escalate. These shootings are seeing more light - and I'd argue that it's a good thing. What got us here isn't going to get us where we need to go as a nation. Just a thought exercise...

Ohh.. a physics problem! Fun fact: Did you know there are only 11 people certified in the state of Tennessee to teach physics at the high school level? Maybe the Canadians are better at math? That's a hard take on the classic 'two trains leave the station at the same time' problem. That bullet is moving way faster than the speed of sound out of the barrel and likely gets enough of a head start that the sound doesn't catch up - but kudos to anyone who shows their work... Second fun fact: If you can solve that problem and pass the Praxis, you're a unicorn and can go to any school you want to teach in. And, you'll likely have no problem coming up with interesting problems for your final exam.

Sir Robert Peel published these nine principles of modern policing in 1829. They're recognized as the basis upon which modern law enforcement agencies have been formed. Give them a read and measure what you see today against them: The nine principles were as follows: To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

I asked if there was a body in the one I hit. The reply I got was, "well...there wasn't one in there when we pulled it out."

If it's done right by someone who knows what they're doing, it's reasonable.

Weird - but neat.

Same stuff they always trot out. Mag limits, feature bans, stronger checks... whatever. Pick your feel good power grab of choice

I'm going to post his here and hope I'm wrong - but how many GOP congressmen getting shot does it take to get "common sense" gun control? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/house-majority-whip-steve-scalise-shot-va-baseball-field-article-1.3246505?utm_content=buffer8e8d5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw Here's hoping to a speedy recovery.

Yeah, this is one of those cases where those fundamental rules of firearm handling are really important.

Ahh, that makes more sense - and is certainly problematic.

So, if the safety is in the "fire" position and the trigger is pulled it might fire? Man, I've always kind of counted on that feature.

Solid game tonight. Sunday night will be crazy downtown.

Yes.

You do in fact want a G19 MOS running an RMR.

These guys played like they want to win tonight. Nice game. What a great crowd.

Number one rule of traveling abroad (only partially applicable here - but the part that is matters): you do not want to go to jail there. You're almost certainly safer here than any major city on the redneck riviera. You're going to the beach - take a healthy dose of situational awareness - and then don't worry about it. Check out Bioluminescent Bay. Eat some mofongo. Have fun.

@TGO David and I have been trying to get our schedules sync'd to come over y'all's way for at least two years. We need to make that happen.

I was in Canada a couple of weeks ago, and everyone wanted to talk about the Preds. They were hugely supportive. The most common point of respect I heard was - "Nashville sure can fill up an arena."