JustinCharge

For most people, they find their passion in life around age 12. Bill Gates was first exposed to computers at age 13. Warren Buffet bought his first stock at age 11. Philo Farnsworth grew up in a log cabin and moved to a real house at age 12 that was wired with electricity which amazed him and set him on a life path to become an inventor. Elon Musk became an inventor / entrepeneur at age 12 when he wrote a video game on his Commodore VIC-20 and sold it for $500.

Realistically, humans would go on the offensive and kill all the walkers. Humans are smart and like killing things for sport. Probably a bunch of ranchers on horseback herding up hundreds of them at a time with the help of trained dogs into fire pits.

I tend to think of musicians as anti-establishment. Musicians that live in a totalitarian society will try to subvert it with messages of freedom. Musicians that live in a free society will try to subvert it with messages of equality (and true equality requires totalitarianism because people are not equal and the only way to make everyone equal is by force over every aspect of their lives).

When you list the top TV shows watched by men, none of them have a female lead. Science fiction shows have a predominantly male audience. There have been very few successful sci-fi / fantasy shows in the past with female leads (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena, Star Trek: Voyager) but all of them had very large supporting casts. Doctor Who will no longer be a male role model, so its losing that demographic, but it may struggle to attract women to replace them permanently. It had great ratings for the first episode but the odds are great the ratings will drop significantly.

Obviously, when someone posts a thread like this, they are looking for atypical responses, not marriage, divorce, death of a loved one, major injury, etc.

As a teenager I once rode a bus into southcentral LA in the middle of the night and got off and was surrounded by about 50 gang members. The only way I made it to the car was by having a roll of cash and handing out money to them as I walked past. I handed a $5 bill to one guiy and a fistfight broke out right there between several of them over the $5 bill.

I'd say a minimum is being in the top 10 of its era at its position and producing at a high level over a long period of time, but others are less strict and being elite for a very short period is enough.

One of two things will occur: 1. We are heading for an imminent recession 2. This is just a correction and the market will rebound to new highs. The FIRST sign of a recession is a hiring freeze. Jobs just dry up. Corporations are smart and they know when the recession is actually coming. You don't need all the information corporations have, you just need to see how they act. Corporate America is still on a hiring binge. That means we will get option 2. The correct strategy is to buy into panic selling and just sit on it. I saw this coming ahead of time and sold a lot of stock beforehand. I'm looking to rebuy lower. We probably drop more but I have signals in place if not. Its easy money really. I can't guarantee we just saw the low or not. We could easily drop more. But the point is not picking bottoms, its just buying a deep discount while knowing we'll head back to new highs. If I bought this morning, and we dropped another 10% before bottoming, I'd be fine with that. I think it goes lower so I'm going to wait on rebuying in my case.

That's part of the overall trend. The #1 issue in politics today is lack of trust. We're seeing that trend accelerate with loss of trust in the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't go to a mud party in Louisana. Fun fact: If you look at a map of cancer rates, the highest rates are all along the Mississippi river and the highest rates in the nation are in Louisiana. This is because of all the chemical runoff from the entire nation that gets concentrated in that area. Cancer rates also explode in the Nevada nuclear testing sites and northern Alaska where the ozone is weak. The West Virginia area has a lot of chemical and mining runoff. If you drive along the Ohio river in that area you see a lot of chemical plants. http://i2.wp.com/www.rebresearch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/cancer-map.png The areas with the lowest cancer rates are the deserts like the southwest because there's very little water. The cancer comes from chemicals in the water runoff. Despite what you might hear about terrible tap water, Los Angeles has very very low cancer rates.

They can't just end it without replacing it with something. That would really backfire at the polls. You can't just eliminate social security and not replace it with something, nor medicare, nor Obamacare.

Just look at it like any other market. The fundamental problem is runaway costs. The market solution is increased competition. 1. There needs to be a one-time "amnesty" on prescription drugs and medical equipment. Drug companies and equipment manufacturers need to lose their current patents. Future drugs will be allowed to be patented, but that comes with a warning that if they price gouge they will lose those patents again to force them to come to some workable agreement on how keep costs low for consumers in the future. 2. Create a new class of doctors and medical workers that require less education to be certified to work to flood the market with doctors. That will help drop costs further. If this isn't done, then medical tourism will just get bigger and bigger and you'll wind up with the same situation anyway with doctors that are less qualified performing more and more procedures. 3. Pass legislation to tear down the price gouging hospitals and medical workers do to insurance companies.

They can't. They don't have the votes to replace it with anything.

That's not accurate. Obamacare was passed because the democrats held a supermajority in Congress. The GOP would need a supermajority in congress to provide a different solution to health care. They'd need 60 votes in the Senate and only have 51. Until someone wins a supermajority, its likely health care is frozen in its current state for some time to come. Think of the general government layout like this: 1. If the President has supermajority in congress, together they can make fundamental changes to the nation. 2. If the President has a majority in congress but not a supermajority, they can make some small changes domestically but nothing major. 3. If the President faces a majority opposition in at least 1 chamber of congress, the President is almost completely restricted to foreign policy. The last time the President had a supermajority was Obama from 2009 until February 4th, 2010 when Scott Brown took his seat as Senator from Massachusetts. Obamacare was passed thru congress on the strength of the 60 votes of the supermajority on December 24th, 2009 and Scott Brown shocked the nation by winning on January 10th, 2010, taking his seat on February 4th, 2010. Too late to stop Obamacare.

We've been through this countless times in the NFL. Early in the season, the NFL sometimes experiments with rules to help offenses, but by the end of the year the good defenses take over again. So what happens is some of these high powered air attacks make the playoffs and then the more traditional defensive teams knock them out.

I grabbed Nick Chubb late. I was hoping he'd have a start where he become the lead back and rushed for 15-20 carries over 100 yards and maybe a TD and then I'd immediately trade him because he cannot run block and RBs that cannot run block often seem to struggle to keep the job. He had a breakout game but only on 3 carries so I'm still waiting to shop him around.

In my experience, an RB can (rarely) become a superproductive player out of nowhere if their is a coaching change (either by the team changing coaches or the player changing teams). Examples of this are: 1. Melvin Gordon going from being considered overrated and a bust to a hyperproductive RB once a new head coach took over for the Chargers. 2. Priest Holmes going from a backup RB to offensive player of the year once he left the Ravens to play for the Chiefs. There's a couple more I'm forgetting. I cannot ever recall an RB being pedestrian for years under the same coach and then suddenly becoming a great RB still under that same coach. So I wouldn't worry about Gio.