Only if the MLB would let batters use artillery weapons instead of bats. There's a fine line between a field artillery shell and a wooden bat. WHY WON'T THE MLB BE REASONABLE ABOUT THIS?

Why not just have his arm replaced with a laser-sighted firing mechanism specifically designed to shoot baseballs? If science has the answer, why not consider it?

My grandfather did this on a regular basis with my father. It's kind of funny when he tells the stories, but mostly sad.

I know this is like two months late, but I'm 80 percent through it right now... it's tough for about 60 percent and then it all starts coming together. All of his books are, to a degree, like that... My first Gibson book was Pattern Recognition, which I think is totally awesome. Nueromancer is cool, but I'm not blown…

Luntz's real talent is renaming things to make them more palatable.

Better question is how many idiots are buying 3-d content?

I knew someone who was allergic to the cold. Broke out in hives when his skin was exposed to cold air.

Yes.

Also a fad from the 1970s. And 1960s. And 1950s.

Weird how the 3d TV thing flopped. Never saw that coming.

He's the angry elderly guy hobbling around... skinny arms, big white beard.

Well, he does have a lot of insight into playing QB in the NFL these days, so he might say something useful. But there's also a decent chance that he'll say something funny or condescending to Tebow and they can get a good clip out of it. No matter what he says it'll probably be more interesting than whatever it was…

Yeah, he isn't the distraction — it's the millions of nutjobs who think he matters that's the distractoin.

Connections. That's about it. Only worth going if someone else is paying. Professors are great, other students are a bore, curriculum is less helpful than spending a week on the cop beat in East Podunk.

Pretty much the only industry that has done worse in America than journalism is the merchant marine. For a good book on the decline of sailors by a journalist, see John McPhee's "Looking for a Ship".

A chaotic crowd is the single worst place to pull a gun. Besides the fact that you would almost certainly hit people other than the one you intended, there is a very good chance that someone in the crowd who has no problem smashing your window would have no problem/trouble taking your gun from you. If you're lucky…

Well, I think we do have substantial differences.

Yeah, unfortunately, in these situations, the only way you're ever really going to truly find out what happened is hearing from a sleazebag — we can talk to this guy, or A-Rod/Braun. They think they don't have to talk, so we're left with him. There are few nice people involved with shit like this.

My argument is that people of dubious credibility who have self-serving motivations to testify or provide evidence are quite common and are regularly relied on. The fact that someone has a real motivation to save themselves is not, in itself, a reason to automatically discredit what they say. People who are testifying…

You understand how the legal system works? Most criminal cases and many civil cases hinge on people testifying in exchange for something not bad happening to them.