The standard US coverage is something like $30,000 to $250,000 in most states. I don't know what it is in Germany, or what Uber charges. I do know that New Jersey airport omnibus registration requires $1.5M insurance, but the regular fare on cabs is much lower.
Look, I assume something similar is set up in.de. If you can read German, have at it; Uber doesn't publish information about the German, British, or Japanese market on the US site.
I wouldn't call that causation though. It's evidence, for sure; but a lot of other things have changed over the years, greatly confounding the link between the USDA recommendations and the increase in obesity.
Controlled evidence that starch-heavy diets do, in fact, produce large health consequences compared to fat-heavy diets should cause us to re-examine the food pyramid and its derivatives, such as the Vacant Lady's MyPlate.
- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone)
Actually, they have insurance, either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.
- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs
They're as checked-out as any other car, i.e. the state puts them through a 2 year safety inspection on re-registration. My state doesn't do that; as I drive, I am faced with other drivers whose brakes or steering may spontaneously fail, causing them to veer into my car. The risk of me personally driving is roughly similar to the risk of riding with an un-inspected Uber driver.
- no transport obligation (a cab here HAS to transport you, even if you just want to go around the corner)
- no reliable costs (cabs here cost the same all the time, no matter whether it's an early morning in march or New Year's eve)
That's part of business. Maybe the driver decides he wants to reject your request. You get whatever driver accepts for the fee you accept, or you call a chartered cab. Make those decisions on your own; you're free to reject the terms and charter a yellow cab.
- no proper filing of taxes
Seriously? Costs are centrally logged. There is an income audit trail. This is an IRS matter.
- no right for the drivers to form a workers council, therefore dumping payment is to be expected
- no health insurance, no social insurance, no pension payments for the drivers...shall I continue?
When you start a small business, you have to cover your own health and life insurance, as well as your own retirement; that money comes out of your income, which is now the income of the business. A start-up is a very personal part of your life, and its income reflects your income on a personal level--even though you can isolate them on a legal level. All of these insurances and benefits you're used to as an employee become your own responsibility.
Uber drivers have a much smaller chance of hitting it big with their Uber business model. That said, they are fully aware that Uber gives them no pension and no health insurance; however, it covers the cost of commercial insurance when they carry passengers, and it's a non-scheduled system where they can become active on a whim. It's a low barrier to entry for a second job or a job between jobs, and the conditions appeal to those who chose to use Uber to facilitate the sale of their services.
Uber isn't abusing its employees; they are providing subcontracted taxi drivers the ability to clock in and clock out at the touch of a button on their phone, anywhere they are, and to select their fare and their passengers at will. They are providing much more workplace freedom with reduction of other workplace benefits; if this model doesn't appeal, you can put in an application to Yellow Cab.
Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.
Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as a rating of "1 Star, Driver raped me, would not ride again".
WE ALL HAVE STANDING! I am living in this state, what the fuck? If the police come to disappear me for writing a book or reading some novel they don't like or whatever, I will send bodies back. You can imagine the shitstorm this will start and how it will affect my quality-of-life.
Do you know how many courts have ruled it self-defense to react to the police with lethal force if they try to arrest you wrongfully? In America we have dozens of these cases at state and federal levels, establishing clearly that the police may not cite you for a crime for violently resisting an illegal arrest; and that you can intervene and free a person from an illegal arrest even if the person being arrested is not himself resisting. This extends to the use of excessive force, especially dangerous force, in the course of a legal arrest.
That means if you see the police beating someone and you run up with a baseball bat and drive them off--some seriously injured--the courts have decided that you were assisting a civilian being assaulted, as the police were using unnecessary and excessive force and jeopardizing life and limb of the suspect (even if he IS guilty of a crime!), and thus you are not guilty of a crime!
Now think about this: Clash with the police, or disappear away with the police? You know this isn't going to end well either way, even given the above--the police might shoot you anyway, or the courts might ignore precedent, or they might weave some imaginative fantasy to use your legal self-defense as an example of how dangerous and unstable you were and thus how they were justified in coming to arrest you in the first place! Which one is going to be less shitty? Now consider that accepting this behavior in society subjects you to this Morton's fork. How does every single person in America *not* have standing in legal action against the police here?
Yes, that seems fair. If you are in court for child sexual crimes telling the judge you stuck your penis up some girl's ass, and they put you in prison... you should probably blame yourself for not mentioning that it was a couple weeks ago, in July, a month after she turned 18, instead of back in January when she was 17. It's an important detail.
If the police are telling us they locked some guy up for writing novels... well, all the shit that comes their way is their fault. If something else is actually going on, they should tell us that; otherwise we will assume they are doing the most terrible things, abridging peoples's rights and abducting folks for having the wrong thoughts.
The most likely explanation is the one most common when given the set of facts currently available. Not the one most common when given a full set of facts; we want the one most common at the cusp of an action, when few details have been released, and those details coincide with the ones we have right now.
If in 80% of cases of such arrest we have details that the teacher was schizophrenic or BPD or such, and was taken for erratic behavior; but 20% of cases we have details like this--lack of detail, "emergency medical evaluation", and so on--and 80% of THOSE turn out that the guy was normal and the police are fucktards; then the guy is most likely innocent, normal, and being mistreated by the state, with 80% certainty.
As this doesn't happen all that often, we don't have historical information to compare to. We have no likely scenarios, except that something is different now compared to crazy teacher arrests in the past and teachers writing novels in the past.
I went to school with a kid like that in second grade. Whenever somebody started interpreting things he said in all kinds of weird ways, he would just say, "Suck my dick!" Then he'd get confused about why people went completely batshit.
You will be an unhealthy, lean couch potato. Exercise builds blood vessel networks, breaks down old body mass, and allows your body to remain healthy. Physical activity causes consolidated fat cells to deflate and get replaced; it causes muscle cells to rework and replace; and it moves fat storage from fat cells to highly-active muscle cells, allowing burning of fat for energy via oxidization rather than lipolysis. The physical movement of blood helps wear down arterial plaque; the heart becomes stronger with increased load; and the metabolism of more fat during increased load cycles out the blood-borne cholesterol (necessary for life!) and corrects the balance of HDLs and LDLs of various types.
I'm not gonna say it removes toxins from the body, but it does free some up if they're absorbed into cells which get deflated or replaced. Urination removes toxins from the body--that's what the renal system is for; otherwise you'd just sweat and conserve water by not pissing. Putting load on the body does tend to free float things, though: your body will engage in demolition as well as building, restructuring things instead of just adding more dense muscle mass on top of less-dense muscle mass.
The only thing you particularly emit from the process is salt (magnesium, sodium, etc.), which is not toxic; but some soluble compounds constricted within cell membranes will become free-floating, either being re-absorbed or filtered by the renal system. Most of the toxic compounds are heavy metals (chelation required), which don't move around readily, and gases (CO2, chlorine, NOx), which move around quite easily anyway--you'll accelerate the removal of everything but CO2, which is scaled, simply by accelerating respiration and blood movement.
In short: exercise has structural effects which greatly enhance health. It also accelerates the removal of some free-floating toxic compounds that your body eliminates anyway, and can temporarily make bound toxic compounds free-floating; but the removal of "toxins" isn't a major effect. Nevertheless, the slight increase in motility of nitrous oxides, the more rapid oxidization of free radical oxidizers, the more rapid elimination of excess salts and other compounds normally removed by the lymph and renal systems, and the replacement of overprovisioned forms of cholesterol with a more correct blood stream balance are, in combination and across decades, an important enough effect to warrant consideration.
The major and minor effects of physical activity are interesting to me.
Uh, I switched from eggs or cereal, a ham sandwich, and some dinner food to a massive breakfast of 3 eggs, a half a tomato, shiitake mushrooms, portobello mushrooms, bacon, sausage, ham, and baked beans all fried up in lard and butter for breakfast, with a bento box of 20 pieces of sushi (salmon, avocado, cream cheese), some cheese, and some sliced fruit, and then ate a cornish hen with stuffing and spinach sauteed in butter for dinner.
I gained weight, but lost a lot of fat and became thinner. Got some very dense muscle mass and dropped 3 notches off my belt.
I was bicycling 7 miles to work each day, 45 minutes. It was a 42 minute drive. The overall time cost was 20 minutes each day. The total time was 100 minutes at most of medium-intensity cycling, 5 days per week. I could have moved much faster with an ice vest; in the rain, I could keep 18mph steady, almost twice as fast, thanks to superior cooling. That would cut me down to under an hour each day.
They took a greater proportion from fat. Instead of 30 fat 30 carb 30 protein, they took 30 fat 20 carb 30 protein, 33% fat instead of 30% fat and 22% carb instead of 30% carb.
The fat group did the same, but with fat. I imagine the total intake was scaled for similar caloric intake--at the very least, for similar satiation (i.e. neither group went hungry for a year). They said no calorie restrictions.
Because a balanced diet, according to the USDA, has minimal fat and a high load of grain. Our recommended balanced diet is primarily starch, and a minimum of fat.
Phenibut is more like Valium up to 11 than GHB yes. Have you ever had valium delivered as a continuous intravenous drip? You won't remember a damn thing, but you'll be awake and compliant. Mind you, that's a massive bioavailable dose compared to a pill.
Humans are rational. Humans are rational 100% of the time. They do, at different times, account for different sets of information.
Consider: A human whose life is threatened will execute lethal force without considering the need or consequence, if urgency is so high as to preclude time for consideration. This is rational behavior: immediate recognition of a situation and rejection of analysis which leads to a qualitatively-assessed high likelihood of poor outcome. In a stand-off, a man will try to talk down another man who is threatening someone, even when he's 100% sure he's got the head shot with no consequences beyond his own conscience: there is time to now account for the gut feeling that you would dislike killing a man in cold blood, and hesitation is selected on the grounds of reason.
Criminals in da hood are embroiled in gang wars in which they may die. They die much more often in gang-related violence than by state arrest, trial, and execution. State execution isn't a concern because it never happens: even if 100% of arrests for gang-related murder lead to state execution, their existing actions are getting them killed by gang-related violence 99.9% of the time, and so they really have better things to worry about than the lawman.
Individuals in quieter neighborhoods with low tolerance for criminals aren't used to murders. When convinced that murder is impossible to escape, they hesitate on any impulse to murder: the fact that committing a murder will lead to their inescapable death is burned into the basal ganglia, which constantly provides all known information about a situation--and the concept of killing someone is tied directly to the concept of being hunted and killed by a relentless mob of state enforcers, so the very basic impulse brings a rational decision about facing the enforcers. It takes large amounts of reasoning (often faulty reasoning, as above) or extreme levels of emotion to override this.
You can't get GHB anymore because of dumb ass jocks, but, for some reason, Phenibut isn't scheduled.
Phenibut is a GABA receptor agonizer with a powerful relaxing effect. It's OTC, but pretty useless: you become tolerant on the first use, and then require high doses to get an effect. It might be useful once a month, give or take a week. After using it for 2-3 days--by upping the dose a bit to overcome tolerance--side effects include severe depression and suicidal desires. Your life actually becomes a steaming pile of despair from which you wish to escape. It's far more addictive than Valium, and worse than Heroin.
A dose of 250mg is a good, strong initial dose. Doses of 5000mg are common among body builders, who use the substance as a relaxant while training (bodybuilders used to dose GHB for the same purpose). A dose of 5000mg directly into some girl's drink would be fantastic... until it wore off. In the interim, nothing would bother her, and she'd probably be amenable to whatever you want. The next day, she'd cry a lot, then kill herself after deciding she'd be better off.
Again: this stuff is OTC, has no viable medical use, is impossible to use without addiction, has severe withdraw effects, is not directly toxic at high doses, and can be used to make someone compliant.
It should be banned because it's sold OTC as an anti-stress relaxant, yet is incredibly fucking dangerous to the user. It's not a thing you could dose yourself safely--like Modafinil or Dextroamphetamine--because it's not a thing a fucking physician could prescribe safely for any useful treatment. It's not a dangerous drug that can provide a recreational high or a medical benefit or can somehow be managed; it's a completely useless, indirectly toxic substance that creates immediate tolerance and brings on intense withdraw qualifying as a medical emergency.
It's not so much the consequence of punishment as the risk. The full force of a threat is the consequence multiplied by the probability. Make the same consequence more likely and it becomes more of a result of action.
Slashdot Mirror
The standard US coverage is something like $30,000 to $250,000 in most states. I don't know what it is in Germany, or what Uber charges. I do know that New Jersey airport omnibus registration requires $1.5M insurance, but the regular fare on cabs is much lower.
Look, I assume something similar is set up in .de. If you can read German, have at it; Uber doesn't publish information about the German, British, or Japanese market on the US site.
I wouldn't call that causation though. It's evidence, for sure; but a lot of other things have changed over the years, greatly confounding the link between the USDA recommendations and the increase in obesity.
Controlled evidence that starch-heavy diets do, in fact, produce large health consequences compared to fat-heavy diets should cause us to re-examine the food pyramid and its derivatives, such as the Vacant Lady's MyPlate.
.
- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone)
Actually, they have insurance, either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.
- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs
They're as checked-out as any other car, i.e. the state puts them through a 2 year safety inspection on re-registration. My state doesn't do that; as I drive, I am faced with other drivers whose brakes or steering may spontaneously fail, causing them to veer into my car. The risk of me personally driving is roughly similar to the risk of riding with an un-inspected Uber driver.
- no transport obligation (a cab here HAS to transport you, even if you just want to go around the corner) - no reliable costs (cabs here cost the same all the time, no matter whether it's an early morning in march or New Year's eve)
That's part of business. Maybe the driver decides he wants to reject your request. You get whatever driver accepts for the fee you accept, or you call a chartered cab. Make those decisions on your own; you're free to reject the terms and charter a yellow cab.
- no proper filing of taxes
Seriously? Costs are centrally logged. There is an income audit trail. This is an IRS matter.
- no right for the drivers to form a workers council, therefore dumping payment is to be expected - no health insurance, no social insurance, no pension payments for the drivers ...shall I continue?
When you start a small business, you have to cover your own health and life insurance, as well as your own retirement; that money comes out of your income, which is now the income of the business. A start-up is a very personal part of your life, and its income reflects your income on a personal level--even though you can isolate them on a legal level. All of these insurances and benefits you're used to as an employee become your own responsibility.
Uber drivers have a much smaller chance of hitting it big with their Uber business model. That said, they are fully aware that Uber gives them no pension and no health insurance; however, it covers the cost of commercial insurance when they carry passengers, and it's a non-scheduled system where they can become active on a whim. It's a low barrier to entry for a second job or a job between jobs, and the conditions appeal to those who chose to use Uber to facilitate the sale of their services.
Uber isn't abusing its employees; they are providing subcontracted taxi drivers the ability to clock in and clock out at the touch of a button on their phone, anywhere they are, and to select their fare and their passengers at will. They are providing much more workplace freedom with reduction of other workplace benefits; if this model doesn't appeal, you can put in an application to Yellow Cab.
Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.
Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as a rating of "1 Star, Driver raped me, would not ride again".
WE ALL HAVE STANDING! I am living in this state, what the fuck? If the police come to disappear me for writing a book or reading some novel they don't like or whatever, I will send bodies back. You can imagine the shitstorm this will start and how it will affect my quality-of-life.
Do you know how many courts have ruled it self-defense to react to the police with lethal force if they try to arrest you wrongfully? In America we have dozens of these cases at state and federal levels, establishing clearly that the police may not cite you for a crime for violently resisting an illegal arrest; and that you can intervene and free a person from an illegal arrest even if the person being arrested is not himself resisting. This extends to the use of excessive force, especially dangerous force, in the course of a legal arrest.
That means if you see the police beating someone and you run up with a baseball bat and drive them off--some seriously injured--the courts have decided that you were assisting a civilian being assaulted, as the police were using unnecessary and excessive force and jeopardizing life and limb of the suspect (even if he IS guilty of a crime!), and thus you are not guilty of a crime!
Now think about this: Clash with the police, or disappear away with the police? You know this isn't going to end well either way, even given the above--the police might shoot you anyway, or the courts might ignore precedent, or they might weave some imaginative fantasy to use your legal self-defense as an example of how dangerous and unstable you were and thus how they were justified in coming to arrest you in the first place! Which one is going to be less shitty? Now consider that accepting this behavior in society subjects you to this Morton's fork. How does every single person in America *not* have standing in legal action against the police here?
Yes, that seems fair. If you are in court for child sexual crimes telling the judge you stuck your penis up some girl's ass, and they put you in prison ... you should probably blame yourself for not mentioning that it was a couple weeks ago, in July, a month after she turned 18, instead of back in January when she was 17. It's an important detail.
If the police are telling us they locked some guy up for writing novels... well, all the shit that comes their way is their fault. If something else is actually going on, they should tell us that; otherwise we will assume they are doing the most terrible things, abridging peoples's rights and abducting folks for having the wrong thoughts.
Minus the bad hair, yes.
The most likely explanation is the one most common when given the set of facts currently available. Not the one most common when given a full set of facts; we want the one most common at the cusp of an action, when few details have been released, and those details coincide with the ones we have right now.
If in 80% of cases of such arrest we have details that the teacher was schizophrenic or BPD or such, and was taken for erratic behavior; but 20% of cases we have details like this--lack of detail, "emergency medical evaluation", and so on--and 80% of THOSE turn out that the guy was normal and the police are fucktards; then the guy is most likely innocent, normal, and being mistreated by the state, with 80% certainty.
As this doesn't happen all that often, we don't have historical information to compare to. We have no likely scenarios, except that something is different now compared to crazy teacher arrests in the past and teachers writing novels in the past.
I went to school with a kid like that in second grade. Whenever somebody started interpreting things he said in all kinds of weird ways, he would just say, "Suck my dick!" Then he'd get confused about why people went completely batshit.
You will be an unhealthy, lean couch potato. Exercise builds blood vessel networks, breaks down old body mass, and allows your body to remain healthy. Physical activity causes consolidated fat cells to deflate and get replaced; it causes muscle cells to rework and replace; and it moves fat storage from fat cells to highly-active muscle cells, allowing burning of fat for energy via oxidization rather than lipolysis. The physical movement of blood helps wear down arterial plaque; the heart becomes stronger with increased load; and the metabolism of more fat during increased load cycles out the blood-borne cholesterol (necessary for life!) and corrects the balance of HDLs and LDLs of various types.
I'm not gonna say it removes toxins from the body, but it does free some up if they're absorbed into cells which get deflated or replaced. Urination removes toxins from the body--that's what the renal system is for; otherwise you'd just sweat and conserve water by not pissing. Putting load on the body does tend to free float things, though: your body will engage in demolition as well as building, restructuring things instead of just adding more dense muscle mass on top of less-dense muscle mass.
The only thing you particularly emit from the process is salt (magnesium, sodium, etc.), which is not toxic; but some soluble compounds constricted within cell membranes will become free-floating, either being re-absorbed or filtered by the renal system. Most of the toxic compounds are heavy metals (chelation required), which don't move around readily, and gases (CO2, chlorine, NOx), which move around quite easily anyway--you'll accelerate the removal of everything but CO2, which is scaled, simply by accelerating respiration and blood movement.
In short: exercise has structural effects which greatly enhance health. It also accelerates the removal of some free-floating toxic compounds that your body eliminates anyway, and can temporarily make bound toxic compounds free-floating; but the removal of "toxins" isn't a major effect. Nevertheless, the slight increase in motility of nitrous oxides, the more rapid oxidization of free radical oxidizers, the more rapid elimination of excess salts and other compounds normally removed by the lymph and renal systems, and the replacement of overprovisioned forms of cholesterol with a more correct blood stream balance are, in combination and across decades, an important enough effect to warrant consideration.
The major and minor effects of physical activity are interesting to me.
Uh, I switched from eggs or cereal, a ham sandwich, and some dinner food to a massive breakfast of 3 eggs, a half a tomato, shiitake mushrooms, portobello mushrooms, bacon, sausage, ham, and baked beans all fried up in lard and butter for breakfast, with a bento box of 20 pieces of sushi (salmon, avocado, cream cheese), some cheese, and some sliced fruit, and then ate a cornish hen with stuffing and spinach sauteed in butter for dinner.
I gained weight, but lost a lot of fat and became thinner. Got some very dense muscle mass and dropped 3 notches off my belt.
I was bicycling 7 miles to work each day, 45 minutes. It was a 42 minute drive. The overall time cost was 20 minutes each day. The total time was 100 minutes at most of medium-intensity cycling, 5 days per week. I could have moved much faster with an ice vest; in the rain, I could keep 18mph steady, almost twice as fast, thanks to superior cooling. That would cut me down to under an hour each day.
They took a greater proportion from fat. Instead of 30 fat 30 carb 30 protein, they took 30 fat 20 carb 30 protein, 33% fat instead of 30% fat and 22% carb instead of 30% carb.
The fat group did the same, but with fat. I imagine the total intake was scaled for similar caloric intake--at the very least, for similar satiation (i.e. neither group went hungry for a year). They said no calorie restrictions.
Because a balanced diet, according to the USDA, has minimal fat and a high load of grain. Our recommended balanced diet is primarily starch, and a minimum of fat.
Actually, she manufactured that herself. There was no such person.
You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
What does the Malaysian Republican Army have to do with this?
Well, no, she shouldn't receive death threats.
But she still ran away like a woman, and she's still a delusional d-bag.
The article doesn't specify why the hand doesn't contain its own control board and software.
Phenibut is more like Valium up to 11 than GHB yes. Have you ever had valium delivered as a continuous intravenous drip? You won't remember a damn thing, but you'll be awake and compliant. Mind you, that's a massive bioavailable dose compared to a pill.
Phenibut really is useless, though.
Humans are rational. Humans are rational 100% of the time. They do, at different times, account for different sets of information.
Consider: A human whose life is threatened will execute lethal force without considering the need or consequence, if urgency is so high as to preclude time for consideration. This is rational behavior: immediate recognition of a situation and rejection of analysis which leads to a qualitatively-assessed high likelihood of poor outcome. In a stand-off, a man will try to talk down another man who is threatening someone, even when he's 100% sure he's got the head shot with no consequences beyond his own conscience: there is time to now account for the gut feeling that you would dislike killing a man in cold blood, and hesitation is selected on the grounds of reason.
Criminals in da hood are embroiled in gang wars in which they may die. They die much more often in gang-related violence than by state arrest, trial, and execution. State execution isn't a concern because it never happens: even if 100% of arrests for gang-related murder lead to state execution, their existing actions are getting them killed by gang-related violence 99.9% of the time, and so they really have better things to worry about than the lawman.
Individuals in quieter neighborhoods with low tolerance for criminals aren't used to murders. When convinced that murder is impossible to escape, they hesitate on any impulse to murder: the fact that committing a murder will lead to their inescapable death is burned into the basal ganglia, which constantly provides all known information about a situation--and the concept of killing someone is tied directly to the concept of being hunted and killed by a relentless mob of state enforcers, so the very basic impulse brings a rational decision about facing the enforcers. It takes large amounts of reasoning (often faulty reasoning, as above) or extreme levels of emotion to override this.
Of course humans are rational.
You can't get GHB anymore because of dumb ass jocks, but, for some reason, Phenibut isn't scheduled.
Phenibut is a GABA receptor agonizer with a powerful relaxing effect. It's OTC, but pretty useless: you become tolerant on the first use, and then require high doses to get an effect. It might be useful once a month, give or take a week. After using it for 2-3 days--by upping the dose a bit to overcome tolerance--side effects include severe depression and suicidal desires. Your life actually becomes a steaming pile of despair from which you wish to escape. It's far more addictive than Valium, and worse than Heroin.
A dose of 250mg is a good, strong initial dose. Doses of 5000mg are common among body builders, who use the substance as a relaxant while training (bodybuilders used to dose GHB for the same purpose). A dose of 5000mg directly into some girl's drink would be fantastic... until it wore off. In the interim, nothing would bother her, and she'd probably be amenable to whatever you want. The next day, she'd cry a lot, then kill herself after deciding she'd be better off.
Again: this stuff is OTC, has no viable medical use, is impossible to use without addiction, has severe withdraw effects, is not directly toxic at high doses, and can be used to make someone compliant.
It should be banned because it's sold OTC as an anti-stress relaxant, yet is incredibly fucking dangerous to the user. It's not a thing you could dose yourself safely--like Modafinil or Dextroamphetamine--because it's not a thing a fucking physician could prescribe safely for any useful treatment. It's not a dangerous drug that can provide a recreational high or a medical benefit or can somehow be managed; it's a completely useless, indirectly toxic substance that creates immediate tolerance and brings on intense withdraw qualifying as a medical emergency.
I bet their strips don't test for that.
It's not so much the consequence of punishment as the risk. The full force of a threat is the consequence multiplied by the probability. Make the same consequence more likely and it becomes more of a result of action.
You've never blued someone's soda? Bromothymal blue does it. You can't see it in caramel color, and then you pee green or blue.
They said they've been receiving reports about a bomb on the plane, not that they put one there. They didn't make a bomb threat; they relayed one.