Here's something you might be interested in.
There was a story the other day about a woman trying to cross the border. She looked nervous as she walked by with her stroller. It probably had something to do with the 10 pounds of pot she was using the stroller to hide.
Now, to make that work, I'm not sure if she used a real baby. But one thing that would've been good, would be to have a dirty diaper. It probably wouldn't throw off the dogs, but at least the border inspectors would let you thru quickly.
A few people at the border recently got popped with cocaine. A Ford Explorer had 51 pounds of powder in a compartment under the back seat.
Another person got caught when their huge truck was filled with sharks. The sharks had cocaine inside them.
When I turned on CNN this morning, they did a report about sharks being like serial killers. Their reasons for saying this:
A zoology journal reports they stalk their prey, they attack during optimal conditions (when it's dark or the light is low, and the prey is all alone). And they learn from each kill.
I'm not sure how they came to the realization that sharks learn from each kill.
Every summer, you hear about shark attacks on the news. And you always hear the same thing. The newscaster says something like "Shark attacks are extremely rare. You have a better chance dying from a bee sting." Or they might say "Your chances of dying from a shark attack are 1 in 1,000,000."
The problem I have with these statistics, is a bit like the argument I had in that blog about women supposedly making less than men. You have to look at how they compile such stats.
I'm guessing with the shark attack stat, they look at the number of people attacked each year around the world. Then they look at how many people are on the planet. So...there might be 35 attacks in one year. And with billions and billions of people on the planet, it looks like that's just a drop in the bucket.
But shouldn't the statistics not include people that live in Nebraska?
For shark attack statistics to be relevant, they should only deal with people that go into the ocean. If you live in California, but only swim in the pool, you aren't counted.
And if that's how they compiled the stats, I'm sure it would still be something like 1 in 100; but it would be a more accurate statistic.
There was a story the other day about a woman trying to cross the border. She looked nervous as she walked by with her stroller. It probably had something to do with the 10 pounds of pot she was using the stroller to hide.
Now, to make that work, I'm not sure if she used a real baby. But one thing that would've been good, would be to have a dirty diaper. It probably wouldn't throw off the dogs, but at least the border inspectors would let you thru quickly.
A few people at the border recently got popped with cocaine. A Ford Explorer had 51 pounds of powder in a compartment under the back seat.
Another person got caught when their huge truck was filled with sharks. The sharks had cocaine inside them.
When I turned on CNN this morning, they did a report about sharks being like serial killers. Their reasons for saying this:
A zoology journal reports they stalk their prey, they attack during optimal conditions (when it's dark or the light is low, and the prey is all alone). And they learn from each kill.
I'm not sure how they came to the realization that sharks learn from each kill.
Every summer, you hear about shark attacks on the news. And you always hear the same thing. The newscaster says something like "Shark attacks are extremely rare. You have a better chance dying from a bee sting." Or they might say "Your chances of dying from a shark attack are 1 in 1,000,000."
The problem I have with these statistics, is a bit like the argument I had in that blog about women supposedly making less than men. You have to look at how they compile such stats.
I'm guessing with the shark attack stat, they look at the number of people attacked each year around the world. Then they look at how many people are on the planet. So...there might be 35 attacks in one year. And with billions and billions of people on the planet, it looks like that's just a drop in the bucket.
But shouldn't the statistics not include people that live in Nebraska?
For shark attack statistics to be relevant, they should only deal with people that go into the ocean. If you live in California, but only swim in the pool, you aren't counted.
And if that's how they compiled the stats, I'm sure it would still be something like 1 in 100; but it would be a more accurate statistic.