Amazing that I only have your word to take for it, eh?
I guess that's because, as a "double major in philosophy and computer science", you're too stupid to either follow the links elsewhere in this thread, or this.
By the way, thanks so much for researching the current state of the legal profession for me.
You flatter yourself - it's a cut-n-paste from an article I wrote.
Then again, you have to flatter yourself - after looking at your arguments, nobody else would. You come off exactly as you are - a snot-nosed know-nothing who should have been held behind a few years more, no experience in the "real world", non-existent logic skills, poor research and debating ability, whose childish responses can best be summed up as "lalala i can't here u i have my fingers in my ears lalalala".
And we wonder why the economy is heading for the worst recession since the depression... and that most people are too fat for their own good... and that Bush is president...
Instead of whining, follow the linkies or do your own research. Oh, right, thinking is a hinderance when your future consists of asking "do you want fries with that?"
Learn to read. The studies all show that not wearing a seatbelt also increases your likelyhood of serious injury, as opposed to just walking away.
The money you save by people dying who wouldn't if they were belted is not enough to compensate for those who have injuries that are more serious than they would have been if they had buckled up.
Also,
most of the other philosophy majors I know have moved on to law school (the career prospects for law students are pretty good I've gathered),
So, philosophy is a real career-boster, huh? Guess not. There's an oversupply of lawyers. Why not ask why more lawyers are moving to "inactive status" (read: unemployed), and the real elephant in the room - the trend to outsource legal work to India.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, ominously entitled "More U.S. Legal Work Moves to India's Low-Cost Lawyers," provides an eerie forecast of what the near future may bring to the legal field. The authors report on how "increasingly, squads of experienced but inexpensive lawyers based in India are doing things ranging from patent applications to divorce papers to legal research for Western clients." The article mentions legal outsourcing firms with operations in India ranging from Pangea3 and ALMT Synergies to the Dallas law firm Bickel & Brewer. While the legal tasks are currently confined to mostly non-legal or paralegal work, this could quickly change. Legal outsourcing to India is currently focused on repetitive activity such as databasing the detailed documentation required to meet regulatory compliance requirements or databasing large amounts of evidence for complex trial work. While currently it is estimated that 12,000 legal jobs are already outsourced world-wide, more and more are certainly in the works. Forrester Research predicts that the numbers will increase dramatically to 29,000 in 2008, with most of the growth being to India. At this rate, it won't be long before the document reviewing tasks that my friend, a recent graduate from a top five Ivy League law school and chief editor of the law review, does at a prestigious D.C. law firm will be in danger of being outsourced to overseas as well.
Finding the document review market a little slow? While you were busy busting your hump and clicking away on the "Anita" project, Kirkland was coming up with a way to outsource your jobs:
Jones Day, Kirkland Send Work to India to Cut Costs (Update1)
Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Bruce Masterson, chief operating officer of Socrates Media LLC, asked his outside counsel to customize a residential lease for all 50 U.S. states in 2003. The firm's estimate: about $400,000. He rejected that price tag and hired QuisLex, in Hyderabad, India, which did it for $45,000.
"It was good quality," said Masterson, whose Chicago-based company publishes legal forms on the Internet. "We've been working together ever since."
Clients are pushing law firms like Jones Day and Kirkland & Ellis to send basic legal tasks to India, where lawyers tag documents and investigate takeover targets for as little as $20 an hour. The firms are reacting to a trend that will move about 50,000 U.S. legal jobs overseas by 2015, according to Boston- based Forrester Research Inc.
"The objective is to have only the most valuable people in London or New York, and the others in India, China or Columbus, Ohio," said Robert Profusek, co-head of the mergers and acquisitions practice at Jones Day in New York, who sends low-end work to t
after an upgrade from a P-133 -- yes, first generation Pentium)
The p-133's weren't first-gen by a long shot.
The 1st-gen Pentiums were P5 (Intel product 80501/ 80500) - 66 and 60 mhz (the 60mhz chips were those that couldn't pass QC at full speed). -.80 micron process. Your p5-133 is either a P54CS or (if its a lappy) a P55C. You skipped both the original P5 and the P54C.
Good thing too - the original P5 was expensive, and slowwwww compared to an AMD 486-120.
Except I'm fairly sure there are laws against fruad... Which is what you'd be likely accused of next if they found you running around with a large amount of a dead person's paperwork.
What is this "fruad" you speak of?
Seriously, you can have dead people's paperwork in your posession. How do you thing you close out their bank accounts, or get them buried, or shit like that?
Of course, if you bothered to read the article, you'd know there are 35,000 US citizens who are officially dead, but they're still carrying their paperwork around with them, all nice and legal.
The other poster was claiming that twice-a-week mail delivery (which wasn't my idea, but it makes sense) was impractical. Its not. It saves energy, resources, etc. The only thing stopping it is inertia and the postal employee's union.
A second claim was that not everyone who sends him money can do the "direct deposit" thing - you no longer need direct deposit to send money via email. So then it became "not everyone has the internet / email", then "not everyone has a bank account." Well, if they don't have a bank account, how are they writing checks? If you don't have a bank account, how are you cashing them? A lot of banks won't cash checks made out to 3rd parties any more because of fraud.
In other words, its just a series of reasons to maintain the status quo in the face of changing conditions, rather than trying to allocate limted resources in a more efficient manner. The original proposal (twice-a-week mail delivery) would cut energy waste by the post office. It would also reduce vehicle wear and maintenance costs, as there would be fewer miles driven each year. It would also cut employment at the post office, which is where the unions get all pissed off.
The other group who would get pissed off by twixe-a-week delivery are all the people selling crap on ebay who's high point of the day is looking to see what the mailman brought.
Do you really care if your phone bill arrives on Thursday instead of Wednesday?
However, in the winter months, I have a better use for them. Throw them on the floor of the car, and they'll absorb the humidity from the melting snow from your boots. Replace every few days, and your inside windows will stay clear, instead of having to scrape them at -25.
Its a lot better (environment-wise) than scrapping the car after an accident because you couldn't see where you're going, and it also reduces the need to idle until the inside of the car is warm enough to melt the frost build-up on the inside of the windows.
Years back, the neighbour (who was a taxi driver) died. a year later, their kid came over with a parking ticket, dated 6 months in the future.
I knew an editor at the newspaper, so I forwarded the info to her. The headline read along the lines of "Parking Department Engaged in Psychic Predictions". Their first response to the reporter didn't cut it - "It must have been 6 months ago - its just the year that's wrong". Like the dead guy was out doing the zombie thing...
They eventually cancelled the ticket, but they really are retarded sometimes...
I would actually like to see a good empirical argument for that--it's entirely possible that driving without a seat belt decreases health care costs because people who drive without seat belts are more likely to die. Dead people don't need health care. Similarly, I hear that wrongful death is often much less expensive than actually paying for someone's medical care.
I guess "philosophy students*" are too stupid t look up the links I've posted elsewhere in this thread... its not those who die who cost the money - its those who don't, and we have to support, both through higher insurance premiums, and through higher medicare / medicaid costs.
You want to drive on the roads, then you have to stick with the rules that society, who pays for the roads, insurance, and medical costs, sets. Don't like it? Either move, or don't drive, or pay the fines. You have no more right to drive without wearing a seat belt in jurisdictions that require it, than you have sending spam to an ISP that bans spamming.
In other words, you have no such right. Grow up, get a job, learn a bit about the real world.
*"philosophy student" - preparation for Hamburger U where they get to contemplate "do you want frys with that?" Ranks right up there with "Art History Major".
Don't be stupid. Driving without wearing a seat belt increases health care and insurance costs for all of us.
I don't give two shits about your safety - I *do* care about being forced to pay more because morons insist on not taking elementary safety precautions. When *I* have to pay more, it becomes my business.
Throughout history, many people like you have been put against walls and shot. And they all deserved it.
Nice indirect threat. You and what army... hey, maybe if you pray to god enough, he'll do the nasty deed for you... not!
Here's a clue - think about the saying "No man is an island" for a while. Do you like the idea of paying higher premiums because some asswipe refused to wear a motorcycle helmet, and another one refused to wear a seatbelt? Today's airbags require a seatbelt to work properly - the seatbelt holds you in position so that the airbag can do its' job. Also, the airbag doesn't help after the primary collision. Only a seat belt works.
Its not the people who get killed who are the real problem - quick closed-coffin burial and people move on. Its the ones who survive, who make multi-million-dollar insurance claims, who basically pissed their life away - we end up paying the costs through higher premiums, higher taxes, etc.
Until you can find a way to keep that from happening, its everyone's business what people do on public roads.
No other major airline has operated in the black in decades. They ALL end up filing for bankruptcy. Everything leading up to it is just funny-money accounting.
What about those of us that refuse (for various reasons) to have a bank account? At least with a check you can go to the bank it was written from and get your money.
Not any more - a lot of banks stopped doing that because it makes it harder to chase check fraud artists. The best they'll let you do is certify it - you still have to find someone who has a bank account and is willing to deposit it into their account for you, or go to one of those pay-day loan sharks.
You're completely missing the point here--whether or not I wear a seatbelt principally affects my safety. Not yours. So fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands.
... and you're cmpletely missing the REAL points here:
if you end up even more of a self-centered drooling idiot than you obviously already are because you don't wear a seatbelt, and WE have to pay for it, either in higher insurance premiums. or higher welfare costs because you're no longer self-supporting, it IS our business;
you don't have a *right* to drive on the roads - if the taxpayers vote that bigger fines are needed for compliance, you either comply, pay the fine, or don't drive on public roads.
Same as the rules against drunk driving, driving while impaired, driving while yacking on your cell phone with ne hand and stuffing your face wth the other, etc. Nobody is forcing you to obey the rules - just that if you don't be big enough to accept the consequences - fines, higher insurance rates, vehicle impounded, criminal record, etc.
Seat Belts are the best protection in a car accident.
Failure to wear a seat belt contributes to more fatalities than any other single traffic safety-related behavior. 63% of people killed in accidents are not wearing seat belts. Wearing a seat belt use is still the single most effective thing we can do to save lives and reduce injuries on America's roadways.
Data suggests that education alone is not doing the job with young people, especially males ages 16 to 25 the age group least likely to buckle up. They simply do not believe they will be injured or killed. Yet they are the nation's highest-risk drivers, with more drunk driving, more speeding, and more crashes. Neither education nor fear of injury or death is strong enough to motivate this tough-to-reach group.
Rather, it takes stronger seat belt laws and high visibility enforcement campaigns to get them to buckle up.
Seat belts are the most effective safety devices in vehicles today, estimated to save 9,500 lives each year. Yet only 68 percent of the motor vehicle occupants are buckled. In 1996, more than 60 percent of the occupants killed in fatal crashes were unrestrained.
If 90 percent of Americans buckle up, we will prevent more than 5,500 deaths and 132,000 injuries annually.
The cost of unbuckled drivers and passengers goes beyond those killed and the loss to their families. We all pay for those who don't buckle up in higher taxes, higher health care and higher insurance costs.
On average, inpatient hospital care costs for an unbelted crash victim are 50 percent higher than those for a belted crash victim. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved. Every American pays about $580 a year toward the cost of crashes. If everyone buckled up, this figure would drop significantly.
By reaching the goal of 90 percent seat belt use, and 25 percent reduction in child fatalities, we will save $8.8 billion annually.
Seat belts are more than 3x more effective than air bags. To the extent that people depend on air bags rather than buckling up, air bags net impact is that they cost lives.
Air bags are much LESS effective at saving lives than seat belts.
Removing air bags as required equipment would give people some incentive to use their seat belts, since they'll no longer be thinking "well, the air bag is there".
wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by about two thirds
You're less likely to be ejected during a rollover, or to have the "guillotine effect" - the car door pops open, your head goes out the door, and the car door slams closed again, chopping your head off. One of my friends is a doctor, and he described it to me. He's seen the results.
Repealing air bags, along with instituting mandatory seat belt use, would lower the death rate, vehicle costs, and slightly improve fuel consumption (the air bags, sensors, etc., and the cosmetic panels needed to hide them, are "dead weight").
Buckteeth by 2021? Is Great Britain getting nuked?
The one that got me was waistlines disappearing in 2025.
Does this mean everyone becomes supersized lardos? To me, that just means they've got HUGE waistlines.
Or does it mean everyone gets "right-sized" - which means the disappearance of Americans, fat Canadian snowbirds on Florida beaches, etc...
And "Thank you" disappearing by 2012? No thanks.
Text-based search disappearing in a decade? So all those html-based web pages will vanish?
Receptionists disappearing by 2015? Are you kidding. Receptionists do a lot more than answer phones - they usually know more about what's going on than the CEO.
Some interesting correlations - Cher dissapearing right before cosmetic surgey... adn oil, the middle class, microsoft, spam, and rocky films disappearing in 2035...
In a properly designed cell phone system, if the tower you were going to be handed off to can't take the connection, either the tower you're with will keep the connection, or another (though still sub-optimal) will take the connection.
Of course, when you don't have transmitters with overlapping coverage, this doesn't work.
The PC was the first product sold where "it works sometimes" was acceptable
Cars started out like that (and some are still like that). Compare te reliabilty of today's cell phone with the bricks from 20 years ago. Much more reliable, at a much lower cost.
Even toilets don't have 5 9's reliability when there are small kids around who want to see their guinea pigs go for a swim...
Its not paternalistic. Its enlightened self-interest.
For one, seat belts are MUCH more effective in saving lives than air bags are. AND a lot cheaper. Air bags add a cuple of grand to the cost of each new car. Just getting people to buckle up not only saves lives, but it saves moeny.
Then there's the cost of taking care of the kids of the dead parents, because they're too fucktarded to wear a seat belt.
And the cost of medical bills, higher insurance rates, etc.
When what you do affects MY costs, I have a right to ask that laws be passed that help lower those costs. Want to use the public roads? Wear a seat belt. Its not like you have a "right" to drive. You can be removed from the road for an unsafe vehicle, for collecting too many demerit points, for using a vehicle in the commission of a felony, failure to pay your license fee, etc.
Don't like the rules? Then either don't drive, or be prepared to pay the fines.
Once you're recorded as dead in the database, there's no reason for someone to go looking for a body - they assume all that's already done - so you're good to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that's because, as a "double major in philosophy and computer science", you're too stupid to either follow the links elsewhere in this thread, or this.
You flatter yourself - it's a cut-n-paste from an article I wrote.Then again, you have to flatter yourself - after looking at your arguments, nobody else would. You come off exactly as you are - a snot-nosed know-nothing who should have been held behind a few years more, no experience in the "real world", non-existent logic skills, poor research and debating ability, whose childish responses can best be summed up as "lalala i can't here u i have my fingers in my ears lalalala".
And we wonder why the economy is heading for the worst recession since the depression ... and that most people are too fat for their own good ... and that Bush is president ...
Instead of whining, follow the linkies or do your own research. Oh, right, thinking is a hinderance when your future consists of asking "do you want fries with that?"
Lesson #3 - Re: Lesson #2 - see lesson # 1
And while we're at it, and before it gets out of hand ...
Lesson #4 - Re: Lesson # 3: see "recursive"
Learn to read. The studies all show that not wearing a seatbelt also increases your likelyhood of serious injury, as opposed to just walking away.
The money you save by people dying who wouldn't if they were belted is not enough to compensate for those who have injuries that are more serious than they would have been if they had buckled up.
Also,
So, philosophy is a real career-boster, huh? Guess not. There's an oversupply of lawyers. Why not ask why more lawyers are moving to "inactive status" (read: unemployed), and the real elephant in the room - the trend to outsource legal work to India.
here's the warning about outsourcing in 2005
Here's the result 2 years later
I didn't say YOU carry it on - you let him use your space allowance - let him lug it, and be entirely responsible for it.
Airlines could see it as a profit center - allow flyers to trade their "baggage points" while taking a cut of the action.
Besides - they always ask you if you packed the bag - you say "no - its his." and produce the paperwork, etc.
The p-133's weren't first-gen by a long shot.
The 1st-gen Pentiums were P5 (Intel product 80501/ 80500) - 66 and 60 mhz (the 60mhz chips were those that couldn't pass QC at full speed). - .80 micron process. Your p5-133 is either a P54CS or (if its a lappy) a P55C. You skipped both the original P5 and the P54C.
Good thing too - the original P5 was expensive, and slowwwww compared to an AMD 486-120.
If it has fatso's name on it, etc., and you've got proof that you sold your excess space to him, what's the problem again?
Someone obviously didn't read the article ...
What is this "fruad" you speak of?
Seriously, you can have dead people's paperwork in your posession. How do you thing you close out their bank accounts, or get them buried, or shit like that?
Of course, if you bothered to read the article, you'd know there are 35,000 US citizens who are officially dead, but they're still carrying their paperwork around with them, all nice and legal.
The other poster was claiming that twice-a-week mail delivery (which wasn't my idea, but it makes sense) was impractical. Its not. It saves energy, resources, etc. The only thing stopping it is inertia and the postal employee's union.
A second claim was that not everyone who sends him money can do the "direct deposit" thing - you no longer need direct deposit to send money via email. So then it became "not everyone has the internet / email", then "not everyone has a bank account." Well, if they don't have a bank account, how are they writing checks? If you don't have a bank account, how are you cashing them? A lot of banks won't cash checks made out to 3rd parties any more because of fraud.
In other words, its just a series of reasons to maintain the status quo in the face of changing conditions, rather than trying to allocate limted resources in a more efficient manner. The original proposal (twice-a-week mail delivery) would cut energy waste by the post office. It would also reduce vehicle wear and maintenance costs, as there would be fewer miles driven each year. It would also cut employment at the post office, which is where the unions get all pissed off.
The other group who would get pissed off by twixe-a-week delivery are all the people selling crap on ebay who's high point of the day is looking to see what the mailman brought.
Do you really care if your phone bill arrives on Thursday instead of Wednesday?
You can "toss" flyers into the recycling :-)
However, in the winter months, I have a better use for them. Throw them on the floor of the car, and they'll absorb the humidity from the melting snow from your boots. Replace every few days, and your inside windows will stay clear, instead of having to scrape them at -25.
Its a lot better (environment-wise) than scrapping the car after an accident because you couldn't see where you're going, and it also reduces the need to idle until the inside of the car is warm enough to melt the frost build-up on the inside of the windows.
Years back, the neighbour (who was a taxi driver) died. a year later, their kid came over with a parking ticket, dated 6 months in the future.
I knew an editor at the newspaper, so I forwarded the info to her. The headline read along the lines of "Parking Department Engaged in Psychic Predictions". Their first response to the reporter didn't cut it - "It must have been 6 months ago - its just the year that's wrong". Like the dead guy was out doing the zombie thing ...
They eventually cancelled the ticket, but they really are retarded sometimes ...
I would actually like to see a good empirical argument for that--it's entirely possible that driving without a seat belt decreases health care costs because people who drive without seat belts are more likely to die. Dead people don't need health care. Similarly, I hear that wrongful death is often much less expensive than actually paying for someone's medical care. I guess "philosophy students*" are too stupid t look up the links I've posted elsewhere in this thread ... its not those who die who cost the money - its those who don't, and we have to support, both through higher insurance premiums, and through higher medicare / medicaid costs.
You want to drive on the roads, then you have to stick with the rules that society, who pays for the roads, insurance, and medical costs, sets. Don't like it? Either move, or don't drive, or pay the fines. You have no more right to drive without wearing a seat belt in jurisdictions that require it, than you have sending spam to an ISP that bans spamming.
In other words, you have no such right. Grow up, get a job, learn a bit about the real world.
*"philosophy student" - preparation for Hamburger U where they get to contemplate "do you want frys with that?" Ranks right up there with "Art History Major".
Don't be stupid. Driving without wearing a seat belt increases health care and insurance costs for all of us.
I don't give two shits about your safety - I *do* care about being forced to pay more because morons insist on not taking elementary safety precautions. When *I* have to pay more, it becomes my business.
Nice indirect threat. You and what armyHere's a clue - think about the saying "No man is an island" for a while. Do you like the idea of paying higher premiums because some asswipe refused to wear a motorcycle helmet, and another one refused to wear a seatbelt? Today's airbags require a seatbelt to work properly - the seatbelt holds you in position so that the airbag can do its' job. Also, the airbag doesn't help after the primary collision. Only a seat belt works.
Its not the people who get killed who are the real problem - quick closed-coffin burial and people move on. Its the ones who survive, who make multi-million-dollar insurance claims, who basically pissed their life away - we end up paying the costs through higher premiums, higher taxes, etc.
Until you can find a way to keep that from happening, its everyone's business what people do on public roads.
Why bother with checked baggage?
FedEx whatever you'll need in advance, or buy new, and UPS it back home.
Save on worries about your baggage, speed up your boarding and deplaning, etc.
Then sell your excess baggage capacity to some fat jerk who needs the extra space because his clothes are made by Omar the Tent-Maker.
No other major airline has operated in the black in decades. They ALL end up filing for bankruptcy. Everything leading up to it is just funny-money accounting.
Just go to any Golden Arches, any grade school, any high school ... "them thar's astronut material, folks."
Putting too many of them in an airplane guarantees it won't crash - too heavy to take off.
What gets me is the 600 pound blobs who say they deserve extra free seating because they're "handicapped" by their fat ...
- if you end up even more of a self-centered drooling idiot than you obviously already are because you don't wear a seatbelt, and WE have to pay for it, either in higher insurance premiums. or higher welfare costs because you're no longer self-supporting, it IS our business;
- you don't have a *right* to drive on the roads - if the taxpayers vote that bigger fines are needed for compliance, you either comply, pay the fine, or don't drive on public roads.
Same as the rules against drunk driving, driving while impaired, driving while yacking on your cell phone with ne hand and stuffing your face wth the other, etc. Nobody is forcing you to obey the rules - just that if you don't be big enough to accept the consequences - fines, higher insurance rates, vehicle impounded, criminal record, etc.Why not get the facts about seat belts - they were invented by the car industry in an attempt to make their vehicles safer, and it works.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html
Seat belts are more than 3x more effective than air bags. To the extent that people depend on air bags rather than buckling up, air bags net impact is that they cost lives.
Air bags are much LESS effective at saving lives than seat belts.
Removing air bags as required equipment would give people some incentive to use their seat belts, since they'll no longer be thinking "well, the air bag is there".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident
You're less likely to be ejected during a rollover, or to have the "guillotine effect" - the car door pops open, your head goes out the door, and the car door slams closed again, chopping your head off. One of my friends is a doctor, and he described it to me. He's seen the results.
Repealing air bags, along with instituting mandatory seat belt use, would lower the death rate, vehicle costs, and slightly improve fuel consumption (the air bags, sensors, etc., and the cosmetic panels needed to hide them, are "dead weight").
Buckteeth by 2021? Is Great Britain getting nuked?
The one that got me was waistlines disappearing in 2025.
Does this mean everyone becomes supersized lardos? To me, that just means they've got HUGE waistlines.
Or does it mean everyone gets "right-sized" - which means the disappearance of Americans, fat Canadian snowbirds on Florida beaches, etc ...
And "Thank you" disappearing by 2012? No thanks.
Text-based search disappearing in a decade? So all those html-based web pages will vanish?
Receptionists disappearing by 2015? Are you kidding. Receptionists do a lot more than answer phones - they usually know more about what's going on than the CEO.
Some interesting correlations - Cher dissapearing right before cosmetic surgey ... adn oil, the middle class, microsoft, spam, and rocky films disappearing in 2035 ...
Of course, when you don't have transmitters with overlapping coverage, this doesn't work.
Cars started out like that (and some are still like that). Compare te reliabilty of today's cell phone with the bricks from 20 years ago. Much more reliable, at a much lower cost.
Even toilets don't have 5 9's reliability when there are small kids around who want to see their guinea pigs go for a swim ...
Its not paternalistic. Its enlightened self-interest.
For one, seat belts are MUCH more effective in saving lives than air bags are. AND a lot cheaper. Air bags add a cuple of grand to the cost of each new car. Just getting people to buckle up not only saves lives, but it saves moeny.
Then there's the cost of taking care of the kids of the dead parents, because they're too fucktarded to wear a seat belt.
And the cost of medical bills, higher insurance rates, etc.
When what you do affects MY costs, I have a right to ask that laws be passed that help lower those costs. Want to use the public roads? Wear a seat belt. Its not like you have a "right" to drive. You can be removed from the road for an unsafe vehicle, for collecting too many demerit points, for using a vehicle in the commission of a felony, failure to pay your license fee, etc.
Don't like the rules? Then either don't drive, or be prepared to pay the fines.
So it ends up in the sewer instead of the recycling center?
Maybe you should check out how many tons of chemicals your sewage treatment plant uses ... I was surprised.
Once you're recorded as dead in the database, there's no reason for someone to go looking for a body - they assume all that's already done - so you're good to go.