In my observation (judging from writings by various terrorist types), it's because they're in it mostly for the high, not for the job. There's no thrill in doing the simple and legal.
You'd be amazed what a hunting dog's nose can detect. I've seen Labradors dig up aluminum cans that were buried two feet deep some years previous, homing in on that single point. They regularly find cellphones wrapped in plastic and hidden in toilet tanks (prison trick, so I'm told). Covering up a scent doesn't work nearly as well as you'd think, either... the original scent is still there and detectable by the dog.
As to whether the sniffer dog cues on the scent or the handler's expectations, that's another issue.:(
Last time I got a flu shot I inquired about tetanus and whatever. About fell over when I was quoted $160. Which would come out of my personal pocket. Another $60 for pneumonia shot, ditto.
Well, that's what happens when you sue all but one of the vaccine manufacturers out of existence.:/
That depends entirely on the virus. Some require a large innoculating dose (thousands of live particles); others require only a handful (parvovirus leaps to mind; I can't find a cite offhand but I vaguely recall the innoculating dose is as few as six particles, possibly because it's a fast-replicating virus).
So your daughter eventually marries a fellow who wasn't entirely pre-marital celibate, or was previously married (caught it from his wife, and has since divorced)... and he gives your daughter HPV...
Now what?? Your daughter, virginal til marriage, is now infected through no direct fault of her own and perhaps not even of her spouse.
It's not about behavior; it's about mitigating future risk that might nail you despite your best behavior.
Well, better would be to return to the tariff system that this country's gov't got by on just fine (well, in non-war years) in the days before income tax let it bloat itself to "gov't fills the dollars allotted". No need for anyone to track anything, incentivize buying local.
Actually what the article notes is pretty much my own observation too, having lived around "poor" neighborhoods -- they lived better than I did, drove newer vehicles, ate more junk food, owned more shit, etc.
The point is, when the media cries "poverty", the average person doesn't think "car, house, microwave, satellite TV, computer, nice things of various sorts-see list" which are now more the norm than not. The average person thinks "falling-down tenement with leaky roof and no electric or plumbing and infested with rats and cockroaches" and the tenant-farmer shacks of the 1920s.
Even given the hand-to-mouth financial aspect, there's a difference in mindset between being poor, and having no money. Give $5 to a "poor" person and they buy a meal at McDonald's. Give $5 to someone with no money, and they buy a week's worth of groceries.
My family all grew up with no money. Compared to most people, we had nothing. But we were *never* "poor".
That's not entirely a bad idea, but let's be fair -- extend it to everyone. This shouldn't be any hardship if you're already in the wage class where you spend most of what you make just to live.
The upside is that there'd probably be a lot more discretionary spending, which in turn would boost a lot of industries. Particularly if you get a consideration for buying domestic products, where they exist.
The downside is that it might negatively impact investment, but I'm not entirely sure that'd be a bad thing, as methinks some of the boom-and-bust of recent years stemmed from too much venture capital burning a hole in some accountant's pocket.
Conversely I've found the best bait to attract ants is -- dead ants. Squish a few and pretty soon you've got lots of ants. (I use this trick when I find some of the tasty kind and feel a yen for fried ants. Our cold-climate American ants are too puny to be worth the bother unless you've got a whole lot of 'em.)
Slashdot Mirror
So why couldn't a gunsmith mill plastic parts as readily as he might metal parts?
In my observation (judging from writings by various terrorist types), it's because they're in it mostly for the high, not for the job. There's no thrill in doing the simple and legal.
You'd be amazed what a hunting dog's nose can detect. I've seen Labradors dig up aluminum cans that were buried two feet deep some years previous, homing in on that single point. They regularly find cellphones wrapped in plastic and hidden in toilet tanks (prison trick, so I'm told). Covering up a scent doesn't work nearly as well as you'd think, either... the original scent is still there and detectable by the dog.
As to whether the sniffer dog cues on the scent or the handler's expectations, that's another issue. :(
Last time I got a flu shot I inquired about tetanus and whatever. About fell over when I was quoted $160. Which would come out of my personal pocket. Another $60 for pneumonia shot, ditto.
Well, that's what happens when you sue all but one of the vaccine manufacturers out of existence. :/
That depends entirely on the virus. Some require a large innoculating dose (thousands of live particles); others require only a handful (parvovirus leaps to mind; I can't find a cite offhand but I vaguely recall the innoculating dose is as few as six particles, possibly because it's a fast-replicating virus).
Wasn't it also implicated in prostate cancer? Thought I heard something about that as well.
I expect if that becomes proven, many minds will change about many daughters.
So your daughter eventually marries a fellow who wasn't entirely pre-marital celibate, or was previously married (caught it from his wife, and has since divorced) ... and he gives your daughter HPV...
Now what?? Your daughter, virginal til marriage, is now infected through no direct fault of her own and perhaps not even of her spouse.
It's not about behavior; it's about mitigating future risk that might nail you despite your best behavior.
And how does this compare to the risk of permanent disability or death if you contract the disease?
Well, better would be to return to the tariff system that this country's gov't got by on just fine (well, in non-war years) in the days before income tax let it bloat itself to "gov't fills the dollars allotted". No need for anyone to track anything, incentivize buying local.
Actually what the article notes is pretty much my own observation too, having lived around "poor" neighborhoods -- they lived better than I did, drove newer vehicles, ate more junk food, owned more shit, etc.
A pound of hamburger, some macaroni, tomato sauce...
It may not be fine dining, but it can be done.
Yeah, I didn't figure a person should bathe in it, or use it as room freshener! :)
The point is, when the media cries "poverty", the average person doesn't think "car, house, microwave, satellite TV, computer, nice things of various sorts-see list" which are now more the norm than not. The average person thinks "falling-down tenement with leaky roof and no electric or plumbing and infested with rats and cockroaches" and the tenant-farmer shacks of the 1920s.
Even given the hand-to-mouth financial aspect, there's a difference in mindset between being poor, and having no money. Give $5 to a "poor" person and they buy a meal at McDonald's. Give $5 to someone with no money, and they buy a week's worth of groceries.
My family all grew up with no money. Compared to most people, we had nothing. But we were *never* "poor".
That's not entirely a bad idea, but let's be fair -- extend it to everyone. This shouldn't be any hardship if you're already in the wage class where you spend most of what you make just to live.
The upside is that there'd probably be a lot more discretionary spending, which in turn would boost a lot of industries. Particularly if you get a consideration for buying domestic products, where they exist.
The downside is that it might negatively impact investment, but I'm not entirely sure that'd be a bad thing, as methinks some of the boom-and-bust of recent years stemmed from too much venture capital burning a hole in some accountant's pocket.
What we now call "poor" is what was called "middle class" or even "well off" a couple generations ago.
See http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
I did wonder, but at the time didn't see anything about it. However, I haven't found anything else that can replace it for certain applications.
Those look like the tasty kind, too :D
Where I lived in the desert, those woulda been runts. The harvester ants run 1/3' to 1/2". No good to eat, tho... all crunch and no taste.
They did keep the yard weeded, tho.
Actually, it woulda been my homework in the '60s, sonny.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
Conversely I've found the best bait to attract ants is -- dead ants. Squish a few and pretty soon you've got lots of ants. (I use this trick when I find some of the tasty kind and feel a yen for fried ants. Our cold-climate American ants are too puny to be worth the bother unless you've got a whole lot of 'em.)
My method of killing fire ants:
Put two tablespoons of diazinon granules on top of the hill.
Next day the entire colony is dead.
I was astonished.
[And people wonder why I went around buying up all the diazinon I could find when it was taken off the market.]
So is the right to own and drive a car worth some 35,000 lives every year?
How about the right to see a doctor, which results in, by some estimates, over 100,000 deaths a year from doctors' mistakes?
Good points. Might be boiled down to "Laws exist to punish everyone for the sins of a few."
Change, or just that our sample size (er, length) is too small to know what the variances normally are?
http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/dwi/breathalyzer-101-fail-test-sober/
Not to mention
http://www.ladanlaw.com/how-accurate-are-breathalyzers-anyway.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html