Yeah I went to catholic schools before they were expensive so it wasn't a significant financial strain for anyone.  Saving that money to pay for college and/or a down payment on a house is probably a much wiser move. 

 

When I went to private school in 1984-'88 it was $150-$300 a month rather than that much a day.

 

I just looked it up - The Seven Hills School is $24k a year. That's insane. Then there's college after that... Parents spending so much money just for their kids to have the slightest edge.

 

I used to think the lottery was just a tax on the stupid but hey, we all need a dream. What's a dollar or two?

 

What is stupid is the people who buy 50 or 100 tickets when the jackpot hits a certain point....thinking they have a better chance.  Statistically their chances are about the same as buying a single ticket.

 

I might have already talked about this but yeah, and it's a sad sight to see all of these people blowing $60 on tickets at once. I hate getting stuck in line behind people buying a massive amount of tickets, especially when they're choosing their own numbers. When I bought my ticket, I was in line behind a guy doing that. He wouldn't stop. Just insanely impulsive. I thought the transaction was finally over but then he said, "I just had a hunch!" and bought a scratch off. People in lottery lines are the worst. He was telling the cashier his life story and made all this small talk and just BSing around. Get your ticket and get the f---k out, dude. I have stuff to do.

 

That makes sense, the odds still being about the same, even after buying 100 tickets.

 

Another thing people don't seem to realize is that picking numbers with personal meaning makes you much less likely to win. Anniversaries, birth dates, license numbers, etc. Numbers with personal meaning tend to be very small numbers yet the numbers you can select for Powerball go up to 55.

 

 

It's not so much the retailers blaming online shopping but rather lazy Millennial reporters who have never ordered anything out of a catalog or the back of a magazine. They also don't have the perspective of people who bought a lot of stuff at a young age such as Boomers and Xers who bought a ton of stereo equipment, car parts, tools, records/tapes/CDs, dirt bikes, etc. before the age of 25. So they don't even notice how their couch, laptop, TV, game system, phone, bicycle and bed as their only wordly possessions makes them totally different from a 25-year-old from 1988.

 

Yeah, all of the hobby magazines were supported by huge ads by the various mail order places.  For example, the dozen Jewish-owned camera & film importers in NYC each put huge ads in 5+ different photography magazines for decades.  The internet appeared out of nowhere in the late 90s and soon people networked and told each other never to buy from Abe's of Maine, Cambridge Camera, and the other crooked outfits in Brooklyn.  They had their guy in the New York attorney general's office and there was no recourse for a hobbyist out in Ohio or Iowa when they send you something cheaper (or grey market -- which meant the warranty was voided) than what you ordered and refused to accept a return.  B&H and Adorama in Manhattan went "straight" quickly and left the crooked Brooklyn boys in the dust.

 

Look at this pathetic website...Abe's wants you to "trust" them:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/?scid=scawd105&l=ADWORDS&gclid=CJ6436yMtNICFQ-QaQodKD0IJg

 

 

 

 

I might have already talked about this but yeah, and it's a sad sight to see all of these people blowing $60 on tickets at once. I hate getting stuck in line behind people buying a massive amount of tickets, especially when they're choosing their own numbers. When I bought my ticket, I was in line behind a guy doing that. He wouldn't stop. Just insanely impulsive. I thought the transaction was finally over but then he said, "I just had a hunch!" and bought a scratch off. People in lottery lines are the worst. He was telling the cashier his life story and made all this small talk and just BSing around. Get your ticket and get the f---k out, dude. I have stuff to do.

 

 

Exactly, some of them think they are at the casino.  The worst are the ones who insist on scratching the damn things right there.  I've been known to make it clear what I think of them.

 

 

I might have already talked about this but yeah, and it's a sad sight to see all of these people blowing $60 on tickets at once. I hate getting stuck in line behind people buying a massive amount of tickets, especially when they're choosing their own numbers. When I bought my ticket, I was in line behind a guy doing that. He wouldn't stop. Just insanely impulsive. I thought the transaction was finally over but then he said, "I just had a hunch!" and bought a scratch off. People in lottery lines are the worst. He was telling the cashier his life story and made all this small talk and just BSing around. Get your ticket and get the f---k out, dude. I have stuff to do.

 

 

Exactly, some of them think they are at the casino.  The worst are the ones who insist on scratching the damn things right there.  I've been known to make it clear what I think of them.

 

Reason #3,243 why I avoid Speedway gas stations at all cost.  There is always multiple guys picking their own numbers, scratching their own tickets, buying 3 slices of pizza and a corn dog for breakfast, washing it down with a 97oz Slushee, all while chatting up the obese cashier.....

'Murka

I've been buying Powerball tickets lately, dreaming of buying a penthouse on the west bank of the flats with a great view of Downtown Cleveland. I guess I was just buying Powerball specifically, for no reason but I noticed the Mega Millions jackpot is actually much higher so I bought one of those instead. THEN I found out that tickets are actually only $1 as opposed to $2 for Powerball. I was wondering about the ROI and odds of winning for MM Vs. PB and found out that Mega Millions actually has significantly better odds for the jackpot compared to PB, despite only being $1. The only problem is that since MM tickets are cheaper, perhaps more tickets are bought and you're more likely to have to share the jackpot. I couldn't find any information regarding those trends for multiple winners. Still, considering MM jackpot is significantly higher than powerball right now, it seems like I made a good decision there. Hopefully I'll be going penthouse shopping tomorrow. If I win, I'm inviting you all to a cookout on my rooftop balcony. :)

 

LOL I would be looking to convert an upper floor in one of the three triplets at the square, or perhaps Erieview or AT&T.  Though if it was one of these ridiculous 300M+ wins it would need to be that place they are building on top of the Woolworth Tower, which has to be the sweetest residence on Earth. 

 

Though in either case I would need garaging space somewhere for the Urus and the ’67 Firebird 400 convertible.  :evil:

 

What's up with the traffic lights in Cleveland? It's not all of them but a very large percentage of them have this, like, 10-12 second delay where the lights on all four sides of the intersection are red and no one is authorized to go at all. No green turn arrows or anything. It's so bizarre. I get p!ssed when that happens. When I'm a pedestrian and I see that they're all red, I'll sometimes just jay-walk across the street because I know I have 10 seconds to cross it before anyone is going to move. I can understand having maybe a 2 second delay before they switch, for safety reasons (maybe it does prevent some accidents) but it's so excessive at some of the intersections and it's not even consistent.

 

Maybe their system is programmed as if those intersections are supposed to have green turn arrows lighting up while the others are red, but they don't have the right traffic lights installed to where we'd see that that's the reason why? I don't know, I haven't put much thought into it. I just know those lights collectively waste a lot of people's time, unnecessarily.

If I won $200M I'd finance the rest of nucleus on the condition I get the top floor as my penthouse apartment for $1a year a long as I live

If I won $200M I'd finance the rest of nucleus on the condition I get the top floor as my penthouse apartment for $1a year a long as I live

 

That would tempt me too as long as I could get it redesigned so we don't have a 54 story favela at the heart of downtown.

There are 3.6 million programmers in America.

 

There are 60,000 coal miners in America.

 

Can we stop talking about coal miners as if they are "real America" and the rest of us aren't?

I'm surprised there are 60,000, to be honest.

This week's print edition of Columbus Business First has some quality graphs on the decline of the coal industry in our region.

Probably because we've reached a point where alternative energy is actually cheaper http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html . The coal industry does need to die. The mountain tops of West Virginia already look like a scene from The Lorax. Trump could invest in alternative energy and have it operate out of those extremely poor Appalachian communities. It would be a win-win for everybody. That would be like a real solution though and no one wants that.

I'm surprised there are 60,000, to be honest.

 

I am surprised too.  I bet 30K are actually working, and the other 30K are on welfare sitting back claiming their jobs went to Mexico. 

Probably because we've reached a point where alternative energy is actually cheaper

 

I think coal mining is down in our area because of competition with natural gas, which is more convenient.

 

I should also caution that the article says that alternative energy is cheaper than coal in thirty countries, not here. I'm all for solar and wind, but so far, they just aren't competitive with coal. My energy bill says that my electricity comes mostly from coal, but I can have the option to pay more for alternatives if it makes me feel better.

Smart move by Tomi Lauren. Gotta give her props for playing the long game.

Liquefied natural gas is moved by pipeline whereas coal is moved by truck or rail to a mainline train or to a river barge.  Also, coal power plants can be converted to liquefied natural gas on the same site so the utility doesn't have to buy new property or abandon the transmission network that they have already built.     

 

I've never seen a breakdown of how much shipping the same amount of fuel to a power plant by pipeline saves a utility as opposed to barge or rail shipment, but I'm sure that the savings are pretty profound. 

Liquefied natural gas is moved by pipeline whereas coal is moved by truck or rail to a mainline train or to a river barge.  Also, coal power plants can be converted to liquefied natural gas on the same site so the utility doesn't have to buy new property or abandon the transmission network that they have already built.     

 

I've never seen a breakdown of how much shipping the same amount of fuel to a power plant by pipeline saves a utility as opposed to barge or rail shipment, but I'm sure that the savings are pretty profound. 

 

Well I suppose I can understand why FE didn't propose converting the Lakeshore plant to LNG.

Probably because we've reached a point where alternative energy is actually cheaper

 

I think coal mining is down in our area because of competition with natural gas, which is more convenient.

 

I should also caution that the article says that alternative energy is cheaper than coal in thirty countries, not here. I'm all for solar and wind, but so far, they just aren't competitive with coal. My energy bill says that my electricity comes mostly from coal, but I can have the option to pay more for alternatives if it makes me feel better.

 

That's in part because you're not paying the full cost of your coal-fired electricity. That's left to the lucky folks downwind. Funny how happy we are to socialize some costs but not others.

Liquefied natural gas is moved by pipeline whereas coal is moved by truck or rail to a mainline train or to a river barge.  Also, coal power plants can be converted to liquefied natural gas on the same site so the utility doesn't have to buy new property or abandon the transmission network that they have already built.     

 

I've never seen a breakdown of how much shipping the same amount of fuel to a power plant by pipeline saves a utility as opposed to barge or rail shipment, but I'm sure that the savings are pretty profound. 

 

Pipelines are ridiculously cheap per ton as compared to any other form of transportation. Next cheapest is barge. I have a business textbook somewhere that breaks it down with a graph.

Not to take away from your point but I doubt that textbook factors in all the ruptures from corrosion and the cost of explosions that randomly kill ten people who are out camping or how it exacerbates climate change. You can make any graph look good depending on what the intentions behind it are.

Well, that was embarrassing. I took my very expensive earbuds back to the store because after a short period of time, one side wasn't producing half the volume of the other side and one thing I don't mind shelling out a lot of money for, is premium headphones so I was p!ssed. The salesman explained to me that sound waves produce heat and due to all the wax build up in one of my ears, the wax melted and covered up the screen inside the bud, causing the sound to not penetrate through, which is an easy fix. I really wish I would have just googled my problem first.

 

If they get enough idiots like me coming in complaining, the Director of Operations is going to start ordering and stocking Q-Tips in the audio department.

 

Pipelines are ridiculously cheap per ton as compared to any other form of transportation. Next cheapest is barge. I have a business textbook somewhere that breaks it down with a graph.

 

Pipelines are much cheaper than barges, which are in turn much cheaper than trains.  My dad is in the barge business and they're anticipating that the company will shrink 25% in ten years since about half of their business is coal.  So there will be a hiring freeze and tons of equipment sent to the scrapyard.  What's crazy is that the EPA's coal mandates were a windfall to the barge business for the past 30 years because a lot of American utilities started burning cleaner South American coal while we shipped our coal to South America.  So giant tows of American and South American coal have been passing each other on the Mississippi River for the past 30 years.  There is a huge amount of coal transferring that has been going on near New Orleans and in Mobile Harbor. 

 

It is a completely ridiculous situation that the anti-environmentalists never complained about because they were making tons of money on these needless shuffling. 

 

 

 

 

 

Probably because we've reached a point where alternative energy is actually cheaper

 

I think coal mining is down in our area because of competition with natural gas, which is more convenient.

 

I should also caution that the article says that alternative energy is cheaper than coal in thirty countries, not here. I'm all for solar and wind, but so far, they just aren't competitive with coal. My energy bill says that my electricity comes mostly from coal, but I can have the option to pay more for alternatives if it makes me feel better.

 

Not sure where you live, but here in Northern Ohio almost all the coal plants have been shut down.    A few are using gas for re-transmission.

Giant tows of American and South American coal have been passing each other on the Mississippi River for the past 30 years.

 

Wow, I didn't know that. Talk about unintended consequences.

 

 

Giant tows of American and South American coal have been passing each other on the Mississippi River for the past 30 years.

 

Wow, I didn't know that. Talk about unintended consequences.

 

 

It's totally nuts. 

 

On this image you can see the spot in Mobile Harbor where coal is unloaded from ocean-going ships and transferred to barges:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6564285,-88.0420454,3409m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

What's crazy is that two long-needed projects are finally getting built, just in time for the collapse of the inland waterways' primary cargo.  The second lock is now well underway at Kentucky Dam and the Olmstead Lock & Dam near Paducah (which will replace two 100 year-old low wicket dams) was finally funded in 2013 by the only earmark of the Tea Party era.  But now neither are really needed. 

 

 

 

Sorta like how they spent millions to raise all the overpasses on I-75 near the Lima military tank plant just for it to cease production almost immediately.

Here you can see the second lock under construction at Kentucky Dam:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0152708,-88.2651753,775m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

And here is Olmstead, the all-new dam that will replace two old dams:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1824743,-89.0650264,1887m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

The Ohio River's locks & dams were all rebuilt in the 1960s with a pair of 1200-ft locks except for Olmstead, which is the most important one.  I don't know why that happened. 

 

The Ohio's locks are all standardized so that a full tow of 15 barged (3x5) can go through without having to break things up.  But the Tennessee's dams are a total mess.  Most of them are 600 feet, which means every 3x5 tow needs to be broken in half and rebuilt at every dam, but for unknown reasons Pickwick is 1,000 feet, not 1,200 feet.  So the tows have to separate from 3x5 barges, travel through the auxiliary lock, then pull their barges out.  It's an absolutely ridiculous situation. 

 

Also, the Tennessee River dams only have one main lock and a very small auxiliary lock (Pickwick is the anomaly), and there have been times when barges have had to be taken through the small locks one at a time and the tow rebuilt completely on the other side.  It's like a 2-day process. 

 

i had no idea about this, its pretty mind blowing. its about looking at the stars. apparantly you can see about 5k in the sky on average. in special places, like the atacama desert in chile, you can see like 15k. however, looking out from the darkside of the moon you can see over 2M, so many that the sky or space you are looking into is actually white with stars as opposed to the black with stars that we are familiar with on earth. this really stunned the apollo astronauts.

 

there is a satellite up there, gaia, that has mapped this effect in 360, so you can have a look and check it out:

 

http://charliehoey.com/threejs-demos/gaia_dr1.html

Thanks for the link. What a experience it would be to witness that with your naked eye.  Al Worden gave an account of his view from the dark far side of the moon during his Apollo 15 moon orbit.

 

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/13651-apollo-15-al-worden-astronaut-moon-space

 

 

Wow. And most of those stars have at least one planet orbiting them. It's easy to see why scientists believe there is a very good chance that intelligent life exists out there.

Thanks for the link. What a experience it would be to witness that with your naked eye.  Al Worden gave an account of his view from the dark side of the moon during his Apollo 15 moon orbit.

 

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/13651-apollo-15-al-worden-astronaut-moon-space

"Far" side of the moon.  Regardless of what Roger Waters sang.  :)

If women only make 77% of what men do, why aren't there any companies exclusively hiring women to save 23% on labor cost? We already know that companies hire illegal immigrants to save money - why not target women too? Sounds like a genius plan to me, especially since despite supposedly only making 77% of what men make, study after study shows that women have a much higher rate of job satisfaction.

Men are defined by their jobs and women are defined by their husbands.  Men and women make much more fun of an unmarried woman than a man.  Men and women make much more fun of men with crappy jobs than women with those same jobs.  A woman with a good job but no husband and no kids is very low on the totem pole. 

Men are defined by their jobs and women are defined by their husbands.  Men and women make much more fun of an unmarried woman than a man.  Men and women make much more fun of men with crappy jobs than women with those same jobs.  A woman with a good job but no husband and no kids is very low on the totem pole. 

That was true thirty years ago and maybe even twenty, but items 1 and 3 are not true any more.  Not even close.

Hmmmm......

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531836/does-lockheed-martin-really-have-a-breakthrough-fusion-machine/

If women only make 77% of what men do, why aren't there any companies exclusively hiring women to save 23% on labor cost? We already know that companies hire illegal immigrants to save money - why not target women too? Sounds like a genius plan to me, especially since despite supposedly only making 77% of what men make, study after study shows that women have a much higher rate of job satisfaction.

 

The 77 cents on the dollar notion is misleading because it isn't a direct comparison of men and women doing the same job for the same number of hours. It's a global average. The main reason for any difference is that male-dominated fields (engineering, science, tech) tend to be higher paying, while female-dominated fields (social work, childhood education) are low paying. Some of the lowest paying college majors like early childhood education and social work are overwhelmingly dominated by women. The interesting discussion here IMO is about the psychology behind career choice by gender.

Men are defined by their jobs and women are defined by their husbands.  Men and women make much more fun of an unmarried woman than a man.  Men and women make much more fun of men with crappy jobs than women with those same jobs.  A woman with a good job but no husband and no kids is very low on the totem pole. 

That was true thirty years ago and maybe even twenty, but items 1 and 3 are not true any more.  Not even close.

 

It may be a little less true these days but I think it's still 'true enough' to call it true. A lot of people aren't going to want to admit it; especially people who claim they're feminists. You see a lot of women put pressure on their men to make more money so that they're able to work somewhere for the company culture or maintain a non-managerial or low-stress job. Or to be given flexibility to stay at home with the kids a lot or volunteer and do fun things. Men aren't allowed to complain about their jobs and simply have a job they love with great work-life balance, the way it's acceptable for women to be concerned about that. A lot of women are pressured by their friends and especially parents, to marry a guy who makes a lot of money; someone who can 'take care of them' even though in this day and age and in this country, everyone has the ability to take care of themselves equally and should be expected to. Instead, you have men who are over-worked with all this pressure piled on to not work so much and be available, yet make more money to provide for them. Then when they snap from the lack of work-life balance, all the pressure and high expectations - they're another man with "anger issues."

 

I hear women brag to each other all the time about how much money their husband makes or what their husband does for a living. They wouldn't be doing that if it increase their social status so there's definitely truth to what JMeck is saying. Personally, I think that mindset completely goes against feminist ideology and taking a stand for equality but in large part it doesn't seem to apply to them.

If women only make 77% of what men do, why aren't there any companies exclusively hiring women to save 23% on labor cost? We already know that companies hire illegal immigrants to save money - why not target women too? Sounds like a genius plan to me, especially since despite supposedly only making 77% of what men make, study after study shows that women have a much higher rate of job satisfaction.

 

The 77 cents on the dollar notion is misleading because it isn't a direct comparison of men and women doing the same job for the same number of hours. It's a global average. The main reason for any difference is that male-dominated fields (engineering, science, tech) tend to be higher paying, while female-dominated fields (social work, childhood education) are low paying. Some of the lowest paying college majors like early childhood education and social work are overwhelmingly dominated by women. The interesting discussion here IMO is about the psychology behind career choice by gender.

 

Right. I already knew that. Women in Science and Engineering are HIGHLY sought after by employers. So much so that they could probably easily negotiate a higher wage than a male counterpart if not the same wage, where all else is equal besides sex.

 

Fact is, there's non-profits like AAUW (who really do help in some ways with fighting for equality for women with things like sexual harassment cases) but who feel the need to manipulate statistics that make women look like they're victimized by wage discrimination so they can keep the non-profit's gravy train running and are able to continue to secure funding. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/

 

If I ever got into journalism, it would be to expose the ridiculous disinformation being spread and just straight-up corruption and inappropriate allocation of funds by a lot of non-profits.

Men are defined by their jobs and women are defined by their husbands.  Men and women make much more fun of an unmarried woman than a man.  Men and women make much more fun of men with crappy jobs than women with those same jobs.  A woman with a good job but no husband and no kids is very low on the totem pole. 

That was true thirty years ago and maybe even twenty, but items 1 and 3 are not true any more.  Not even close.

 

It may be a little less true these days but I think it's still 'true enough' to call it true. A lot of people aren't going to want to admit it; especially people who claim they're feminists. You see a lot of women put pressure on their men to make more money so that they're able to work somewhere for the company culture or maintain a non-managerial or low-stress job. Or to be given flexibility to stay at home with the kids a lot or volunteer and do fun things. Men aren't allowed to complain about their jobs and simply have a job they love with great work-life balance, the way it's acceptable for women to be concerned about that. A lot of women are pressured by their friends and especially parents, to marry a guy who makes a lot of money; someone who can 'take care of them' even though in this day and age and in this country, everyone has the ability to take care of themselves equally and should be expected to. Instead, you have men who are over-worked with all this pressure piled on to not work so much and be available, yet make more money to provide for them. Then when they snap from the lack of work-life balance, all the pressure and high expectations - they're another man with "anger issues."

 

I hear women brag to each other all the time about how much money their husband makes or what their husband does for a living. They wouldn't be doing that if it increase their social status so there's definitely truth to what JMeck is saying. Personally, I think that mindset completely goes against feminist ideology and taking a stand for equality but in large part it doesn't seem to apply to them.

 

Women put up with all sorts of glaring flaws to be with a guy with money and who "looks good on paper" -- i.e. maintains or lifts their own status within their family and their social circle.  That said, I have known a fair number of girls from blue blood families who wanted out of the life that had been laid out for them.  They hate charity balls, guys who work in finance, and all of that stuff. 

 

 

Women offer a lot of points for men who are "doing their best". If one man's best is only 10% as good as another man's cruise control, the terrible man is still ahead of the wonderful man. That's why a near-flawless man must attain true perfection or the women bolt whereas a terrible one merely needs to start using new heroin needles rather than re-using them. Many women eventually grow out of it -- and that's how divorces happen.

Women offer a lot of points for men who are "doing their best".

 

I get what you're saying -- I've definitely seen that.  What's really weird is that when you get over 35, you'll get these looks from the 40+ divorced women that say "I should have married one of those guys". That's when Frank Zappa's Muffin Man starts cycling over and over in my head. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Women offer a lot of points for men who are "doing their best". If one man's best is only 10% as good as another man's cruise control, the terrible man is still ahead of the wonderful man. That's why a near-flawless man must attain true perfection or the women bolt whereas a terrible one merely needs to start using new heroin needles rather than re-using them. Many women eventually grow out of it -- and that's how divorces happen.

 

Could you explain that a different way. I'm not quite following it.

I wish I had a celebrity analogue for the phenomenon, but I don't really know much about celebrity relationships. There's probably one out there.

Women offer a lot of points for men who are "doing their best".

 

I get what you're saying -- I've definitely seen that.  What's really weird is that when you get over 35, you'll get these looks from the 40+ divorced women that say "I should have married one of those guys". That's when Frank Zappa's Muffin Man starts cycling over and over in my head. 

 

 

 

 

Everybody thinks I'm 28 now. I got a haircut a few years ago so that stopped happening.

Women offer a lot of points for men who are "doing their best".

 

I get what you're saying -- I've definitely seen that.  What's really weird is that when you get over 35, you'll get these looks from the 40+ divorced women that say "I should have married one of those guys". That's when Frank Zappa's Muffin Man starts cycling over and over in my head. 

 

 

 

 

Everybody thinks I'm 28 now. I got a haircut a few years ago so that stopped happening.

 

I shaved mine when I had just turned 41 and dropped back to being mistaken for under 30.  I still get guessed 10-15 years low close up, 15-20 from further away. 

 

Little things can make a major difference.

here is another one of the moon -- its a 360 degree full rotation gif by the nasa lro orbiter:

 

 

https://i.imgur.com/RRHUQRl.gifv

 

 

^ if that is too much moon for your screen, here is a smaller youtube version:

 

Parents Sue Georgia Over Right to Give Daughter the Surname ‘Allah’

 

The most important piece of this article:

 

While there was no problem with the name Allah, Mr. Barrett wrote in a footnote that states must maintain a mechanism to reject bizarre or vile naming requests that would subject a child to ridicule, offering as (real) examples from around the world: Snappy Fishsuit; Acne Fountain; Sex Fruit; Loser; Fat Meat; Stud Duck; Ghoul Nipple; Number 16 Bus Shelter; Yeah Detroit; Tula Does The Hula In Hawaii; Captain Fantastic Faster Than Superman Spiderman Batman Wolverine The Hulk And The Flash Combined; and Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116.

My firstborn will be named Mystic Timbers.