Since it is, unfortunately, timely, here’s another item about how seriously Waffle House takes disaster preparedness.  
I’m planning to eat at my local Waffle House soon, just to show that I support their approach.  

My Update this month is about something a little different: a recent Arizona Supreme Court opinion on the law of cattle brands.  The specific question was whether or not the location of the brand on the animal is a characteristic of the brand for purposes of determining whether or not it is identical to another brand.  The short answer, logically enough, is no.  
To get the whole story, go to deconcinimcdonald.com and click on the publications tab, or just click on this link.
As I said in the Update, I expect that decision to be of interest to my clients and friends in the cattle industry.  If you’d like to comment, just click the link below.  

Here’s an item that combines two topics I have been following: Bitcoin mining (whatever that is) is a way to survive during the economic meltdown in Venezuela.  I’m not sure I know why, but I do know this: bitcoin good (I think), Venezuela economic meltdown bad.  

A recent item on the Tucson News Now web site describes another instance of an old, and widespread, scam.  Someone (a scammer) sends you a check for more than you expected.  They tell you to deposit the check in your account and send them back the difference.  By the time your bank tells you that the scammer’s check is no good, the scammer has cashed the check you sent back to them.  This scam usually depends on the scammer’s check looking genuine enough to fool you, but even if the check looks perfectly genuine, that doesn’t mean it’s not fake, or from a closed or nonexistent account or bank, etc.  Even cashier’s checks can be fake.  
I have said it before: stop for just a moment and ask yourself if what the other person is asking you to do makes sense.  If not, don’t do it until you have verified that it’s legit.  

Or to put it another way, who knows better where the restaurant will succeed: the owners of the restaurant, or elected officials?  I know, the elected officials have concerns other than whether or not the restaurant succeeds.  But if that’s the case, then why do their comments (at least, as reported by the Arizona Republic) make it sound like they are only concerned with identifying the location where the restaurant is most likely to be a success?  
I have written about this before.  The methods used by large enterprises to select locations for their outlets are very sophisticated.    Armchair quarterbacking by elected officials is unlikely to be helpful.   

It sounds like the taxpayers aren’t convinced that the taxers’ motives are pure.  
I have written previously about the ultimate folly of this type of taxation.

I saw this Alice Cooper quote over at Ace's and just have to share it:

You'll find that and more pearls of wisdom from Alice at Goodreads.  In case you missed it, I have posted about Alice before.

Now it’s Instapundit saying, in a column posted at USA Today, that automation is going to replace lawyers.  The only concrete example he mentions, however, other than citing a book by another law professor, is a web site that I already pointed out has little potential impact.  
He may well be right that automation will make legal information available to people who couldn’t get it otherwise.  Far be it from me to question the logic of the Instapundit, but I can’t help asking: if automation is mostly going to benefit people who can’t afford lawyers now, how is that going to hurt lawyers?

The minister of transportation of India has declared that his country won’t allow self-driving cars.  Because jobs?
It has come to light that the state of New York has a law that requires drivers to have at least one hand on the steering wheel.  It sounds like something that was adopted to prevent the introduction of self-driving cars (see above), but it actually dates from the 1960s.