It would effect far more than just the insurance industry. The medical industry is 18% of the American economy. In other OECD countries it is as low as 6%, despite the fact that healthcare outcomes in those countries is actually better. So if we decoupled healthcare from employment, and instituted sensible policies instead, 12% of the American economy would disappear. That would require some major adjustments, and there are a lot of powerful special interests that would fight it every inch of the way.

What makes the B-1 such an unpleasant plane to fly? I know it usually flies low, where there is a lot of turbulence. I have flown on C-130s many times, but as a grunt, I wasn't crew, I was cargo.

Many rodents have an innate fear of the smell of cats. So cat urine should work well unless the critter is infected with toxoplasmosis.

So your argument is that since we can't be ready for everything, therefore we should prepare for nothing?

Like I said, my primary concern is a major earthquake. That would probably disrupt supplies for only a few weeks. A major disease pandemic, like a "super-flu", might last longer, but no more than a few months. A major global crop failure cause by a volcano or asteroid, would be a bigger problem, but humanity has survived these several times in the past. The worst was probably the famine of 1315-1317, which may have killed 25% of Europe's population. But back then Europe relied on crops, such as wheat, that needed warmth, sunshine, and dry weather to harvest. Today, we have crops, such as potatoes, that can thrive in cold, wet, and hazy conditions. Supposedly people survived that famine by going into the woods and digging up earthworms to eat. Those people were your ancestors. You probably wouldn't be here if they had the same attitude towards survival that you do.

Not a chance. Here is the algorithm that divorce courts use to determine custody:

bool
getsCustody(parent)
{
        return parent.hasPenis() ? NO : YES;
}

Sorry, I was unaware of the distinction. So I own an "assault weapon" that is a rifle, but not an "assault rifle". Got it.

You can have either, but not both.

I am only a "3" on the Dawkin's Scale, and certainly not a Christian. Instead of the bible, I prefer the moral lesson of The Little Red Hen. Why should my family starve because you made a conscious decision not to prepare? But I am still helping my fellow humans more than you are: When the Yellowstone Caldera erupts, and blocks out the sun, you will rush out in a panic buying spree, thus depriving others. But I will already have my stash, built up during times of plenty, so I will need to take nothing from others.

It is an AR-15, and I have owned it since 1982. I also have a M870 shotgun. In the event of a zombie attack, my wife would use the rifle, and I would use the shotgun (it kicks too much for her). I don't own any other guns, so our kids will focus on reloading magazines (I have trained them to use a speed loader).

Because we don't expect to be lonely. We expect our friends and families to survive along with us. I live in California, so I am more concerned with a major earthquake than zombies. I am also concerned about a major contagious disease outbreak, or a weather anomaly that causes major crop failures (this happened in 535-536, 1315-1317, and in 1815). So I have about a year's worth of food for my family, basic tools and survival equipment, and (since I am an American) an assault rifle. Even if a crisis never comes, I am still saving money by buying food in bulk, and growing most of my own vegetables. I also have a some chickens for eggs. You may think that being prepared is kooky, but if you look back through history, there is at least a 30% chance of a major calamity occurring during your lifetime. By the time you see it coming, the store shelves will be bare, and it will be too late. So I think it is foolish to not be prepared. Some of my neighbors also have a stash of supplies, and we are prepared to work together to fight off the zombies.

No. Unless you don't include Apple in "everybody".

Why? Individuals should engage in debate about issues. Why should restaurants? When I go out to eat, I should be able to choose the best food, without trying to remember their political orientation. Is it really a good thing to have "liberal" restaurants, "conservative" restaurants, "libertarian" restaurants, etc?

The mere threat of a boycott caused the CEO to publicly apologize. How was that "ineffective"?

Chic-fil-a did not close, but they got a lot of negative publicity, and now other restaurant chains will be reluctant to take sides on divisive social issues. When I drive past a Chic-fil-a, I have a mental image of two ugly guys having sex, and I lose my appetite.

Yes it can. A OTP can protect the content of your communication, but it does not protect the meta-data. "They" can still see who you are talking to. Once they know who is involved, they can use the proverbial $5 wrench to retrieve the content.

If the car drives itself, then you can relax and enjoy the scenery even more.