Octopus Overlords

Skinypupy wrote: How No Doubt made it as the darlings of the 90's pop/ska scene while Dance Hall Crashers were mostly ignored is positively criminal. Elyse and Karina were an absolute blast to watch, and were every bit the singers that Gwen Stefani was.

hitbyambulance wrote:

Skinypupy wrote: How No Doubt made it as the darlings of the 90's pop/ska scene while Dance Hall Crashers were mostly ignored is positively criminal. Elyse and Karina were an absolute blast to watch, and were every bit the singers that Gwen Stefani was.

i never got into the 'third-wave ska' thing - i liked Operation Ivy ok, but as the years went on, the bands just got progressively more terrible, to the point that i wrote the whole thing off.

the whole pop-punk scene was pretty bad then as well. it was all part of the musical nadir that was the late-90s.

Kelric wrote:My guess would be they are somewhat similar to shrimp in size, so do you need 5 lbs of shrimp per person? I'd say no. I've had crawfish but it was a few years ago and I was not sober, so I can't recall the amount of meat to shell. 5 lbs still seems excessive, especially since you can buy sides. If $6 a pound is the price, then $6 a pound is the price. Try it once for fun and see how it goes.

Daehawk wrote:Got a thing in the mail where they want us to be a Neilson family for a week. In the 90s I wanted to do this and watch all sci fi all the time haha. Now I wont do it because they want to come in probably and hook stuff up.

With the show’s creators happily beginning to close off character and story arcs in a bid to bring the whole thing to an end with a sensational series finale that would leave fans cheering in the aisles, the studio which produces your favourite show has instead opted to sign more or less everyone up to lucrative contracts for another three years, with plans to replace anyone who leaves with a new actor that nobody likes.
...
“Well, when we say ‘what we have planned’, we don’t really have anything planned at the minute. In fact, the story you were watching has been pretty much told at this point. But we’re going to bolt some new arc onto the end of this, kinda drag it out for a few years, then try desperately to tie everything all together with a big mish-mash of a finale that will have you saying ‘fuck, is that it?’. But we promise you; we’re going to have a great time with all that money we’ll make”.

Isgrimnur wrote: ... we’re going to bolt some new arc onto the end of this, kinda drag it out for a few years, then try desperately to tie everything all together with a big mish-mash of a finale

KDH wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: ... we’re going to bolt some new arc onto the end of this, kinda drag it out for a few years, then try desperately to tie everything all together with a big mish-mash of a finale

LOST broke me of the desire to make an appointment to see a TV show. Telling me J. J. Abrams is involved is NOT a selling point. Directors should face disbarment from the trade

dbt1949 wrote:Why does everyone, including the government sometimes, think you can retire at 65?
If you retire at 65 it's early retirement at a lower rate. (You can actually start doing this at 62).
I didn't start until I was 66. Before then I was on disability. Now you have to be at least 67 to be on full retirement.
So many articles I read online or see reported on TV all say you can fully retire at 65. Don't plan on it.
By the time you younger people fully retire you will probably have to be 70+.
BTW there is no difference as far as benefits between retirement and disability.

LordMortis wrote:

dbt1949 wrote:Why does everyone, including the government sometimes, think you can retire at 65?
If you retire at 65 it's early retirement at a lower rate. (You can actually start doing this at 62).
I didn't start until I was 66. Before then I was on disability. Now you have to be at least 67 to be on full retirement.
So many articles I read online or see reported on TV all say you can fully retire at 65. Don't plan on it.
By the time you younger people fully retire you will probably have to be 70+.
BTW there is no difference as far as benefits between retirement and disability.

65 is when you become eligible for medicare. It's all about how your medical will provided for. I would like to retire in my 50s but I have to figure out medical is going to work. I also am filled with stress and dread at the idea that my health will make me unemployable by then but will not have medical available to me also because of my health. Sudy Nym's career post hit close to home, as I often wonder it takes to get on disability, not from an accident, but just from having lost the good health lottery.

Isgrimnur wrote:If you wait around until you're 70 to get rewarded for living, you're doing it wrong.

dbt1949 wrote:Why does everyone, including the government sometimes, think you can retire at 65?

KDH wrote:
the story .. 'lectricity use is always the downfall


*** .. sorry Daehawk!!

Kraken wrote:

KDH wrote:
the story .. 'lectricity use is always the downfall


*** .. sorry Daehawk!!

That's way cool. I don't suppose generating their own electricity would have been practical...although with that much underground infrastructure maybe geothermal would have worked.

Kasey Chang wrote:

dbt1949 wrote:Why does everyone, including the government sometimes, think you can retire at 65?

It was the number chosen for Social Security during the Great Depression... Which is slightly beyond the life expectancy at the time (62?), to minimize payout. Due to political expediency, this was NEVER changed.

dbt1949 wrote:I see where the USA is building a more accurate nuclear bomb.

Why?