Interesting, I could have sworn that "punitive" meant punishment.

"shaming" sounds like a punitive action. Last I checked, police are law enforcement. I'd have thought that a judge would be required for anything punitive.

...because that's when everyone wants to travel. Telling me to travel when I don't want to travel ain't a solution.

Hey buddy! Just ruin your holiday and you'll easily avoid the traffic!

Why don't I just not celebrate it at all.

Is this what we can expect from big data? Spend another day with your annoying family consuming the entire weekend, work more hours, or take half the work day off?

Here's a better way. Stab yourself in the neck, then you can take an ambulance right through any traffic that stands in your way. Your family will meet you at the hospital with a slice of turkey.

Here's another idea. Just celebrate thanksgiving two weeks later. You can avoid everything.

Thanks for the help, oh great and wise swammy-g.

It's never been difficult to save money by removing luxuries -- or, you know, the most basic of simple necessities: sunlight.

Hey, we can get rid of snacks, drinks, pillows, blankets, food, and attendants too! Think of the savings!

It's already waterproof from the front and sides, which may be sufficient for the poster's application, and it can be made waterprooof from the back with a few gaskets, or a fully enclosed rear panel.

www.kioskstyle.com

So, PRODUCING human beings isn't more "productive" than working, huh? Nice vocabulary you've got there.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If women want to take all of the jobs, I'm good with that. I'm looking forward to being a 1950's house wife in 2015 -- you know, with modern kitchen appliances, big-screen tv's, music in every room, and modern cleaning tools. I'll even throw in DIY home renovations if it means that I don't need to deal with commuting, clients, bosses, and, you know, actual work. We won't even discuss spending time with children.

Men, it's time to let women work hard and pay for everything. I'm ready to stay home and cook -- I love to cook.

Heh, probably!

Isn't sea-level measured relative to shore-lines? Perhaps the sea levels aren't rising at all. Perhaps the land is falling. Huge difference.

First, answering dumbass interview questions and showing hidden Seattle gems is actually dating. That's not finding a date, that's dating. Forcing guys to date a mystery woman before being able to see her only to then try to date her just won't work. You've done nothing but add another layer to the already-anonymous layer. Can you imagine even the most successful online dating guy, who engages ten women in a month, is now being interrogated twice each week, coming up with hidden gem videos and countless other things. Poor guy! That's a lot of work. Or would you accept a guy who sends the same videos and answers to every women he engages? That's called a profile. A big one. Which is creepy again.

Second, the definition of a creepy guy is one who is on a dating site. Every guy on a dating site is creepy. Quite frankly, so are women on dating sites. Welcome to the concept of a list of people looking for other people. That's creepy from the get go. If you're looking for not creepy, then you're seeking a guy who pretends to not be doing exactly what he/s doing which is exactly what you wanted him to be doing -- looking for you.

Third, 17 to 1. Because a guy will engage 17 women, whereas most women won't engage anyone. 17:1 is less of a message ratio and more of a browsing ratio.

Here's a solution: a site where guys aren't able to engage women at all. That'll solve your problem. then you can just wait for women to engage men. the species will die out, and this problem will be solved.

Glad I'm through with dating -- hope I never find myself back there, certainly not online dating.

Certainly I won't argue with the very-old being a drain on society reasoning. To some extent it can certainly be true -- e.g. workforce, taxes, economy. Whether or not that is countered in terms of wisdom, historical knowledge, and otherwise unobtainable perspective is a subjective matter.

I do, however, take umbrage with the idea that remembering someone as "vibrant and engaged" is a good thing. Everyone that I know who's died "vibrant and engaged" has been the result of some crime or major illness, and has left friends and family distrought to the point of needing some amount of psychological therapy to get over the loss, sudden or otherwise.

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Moreover, I'm 35 now. I'm not feeble, but I'm not fit. I'm not inefectual, but I'm lazy. I'm not pathetic, but, well, to some I am. I'm a pretty relaxed, happy guy, with no problems and no ambition and a lot of personal hobbies. If I cared to be seen as "vibrant and engaged", I wouldn't be content as I am today. That would be horrible. I don't live for the memory of others; I live for my own joy of the day.

Got any hobbies? It's not a hobby if you don't average 15 hours per week. The more hobbies you have, the more time you want to spend on the hobbies. It's not that the work passion is gone, it's just that you already do 40 hours a week of that passion.

I think you've missed the earlier items in the sequence. The neighbour was the last item. First you need to be reminded that you left the stove on. Or you need to actively check. And with dozens of things to actively check, you're either a paranoid nut job checking everything every hour, or you check once, thoroughly, before you leave the house.

And if you don't have any friends who can check on your house while you're away, the nI refer you, again, to your homeowners insurance policy -- which probably doesn't cover anything that happens when you're away for more than 3 days in a row.

Oh, and good job turning off your stove when your phone says "stove on". Your phone doesn't say "kitchen cabinet on fire", so I guess you didn't type "use extinguisher on fire". Ok.

There's a reason that your insurance won't cover it. There's no substitute for walking around your house.

If you use a smart thermostat, your power company will make more money, you'll spend more money on other things, your pets will be uncomfortable, and your life will be just a little bit worse. So why would you use one?

I live in neither of those zones. Like I said, it only applies to 25% of my year. So would you like me to ask again? How about solving a problem that I have, instead of trying to convince me that I have a problem?

It's not pretentious to ask for help with my situation. I'm not asking for help with yours.