waitforufo

Thinking about the litter box posts, here is what I did. From scrap lumber I nailed to together a wooden frame 3ft x 2ft x 3 inches. I put this on the ground up against my neighbor's house and filled it with sand. Then I buried some fresh cat crap in it. So far no new cat crap in my yard. All it really cost me was three bucks for the bag of sand.

As I said in the OP I did try crushed red pepper. I also looked in to chemical repellants and checked them out at the local farm supply store. In my opinion the chemical repellants work by smelling worse than cat urine. They are also expensive and have to be reapplied each time it rains. I also looked into the motion activated sprinkler. Because of the layout of my back yard and house I think I would need two of them. Also I run a timed set of sprinklers off my hose bib to irrigate some of my more water hungry trees and shrubs so I don't over water the rest of my yard and garden with my underground system As iNow points out, I have a life and don’t have time to while away the hours in a ghillie suit waiting for the neighbor's cat to hear natures call. I really was a nice when I spoke to my neighbor the first few times. I have been a pet owner in the past. I know first hand how attached people get to their pets. An attachment as protective as parents to children. When speaking to them they seem to already know that their cat uses my back yard as a latrine. They seemed to think that this was the natural order of things. On the other hand perhaps they are just upset that I burst their bubble about the magical cat crap pixies. Maybe they just can't believe that their precious adorable pet actually produces excrement. The funny thing was that when I complained the woman next door seemed to think I was making a big deal about nothing. "It's only cat poop for goodness sake." When she found it on her front porch she said it was "just disgusting!" When I smilingly told her "It's only cat poop for goodness sake" I thought she was going to blow a gasket. So yesterday afternoon I set up the cat trap in my back yard. I made sure it was in full view of my neighbors back balcony. It has a safety catch so you can bait it without having the door snap closed. I left the safety catch engaged. This morning when I was getting the newspaper she was waiting to give me a piece of her mind. When I told her I leased the trap from animal control for 5 bucks a month plus a refundable deposit and told her about their policy for unlicensed stay cats she said I was just despicable. The cost to her would be for the surgery to fix her cat plus 80 bucks. I'll keep you posted.

Last fall the house next to mine changed hands so now I have new neighbors. They have no children and I would guess they are in their late twenties. They have a cat. This cat has decided that my fenced (7ft tall cedar) back yard, particularly my raised vegetable garden makes a great latrine. So now my back yard is constantly fouled with cat crap. By the way cats do not always burry the crap. I find it on my grass, on top of the dirt, and partially buried. My understanding, confirmed by my local health department, that I shouldn't eat vegetables from a garden where cats crap, so I guess it is flowers this year. For those of you that do not know, cat crap and urine smell particularly bad. So much for enjoying the fresh spring air. Also, I have very many dead spots in my grass from the urine. So I tried a few things like crushed red pepper to make my yard less appealing to the cat but all to no avail. So I talked to my neighbors. I was very pleasant. Were they apologetic? No. The said that their cat was a dumb animal and they could not help it if the cat preferred my back yard for doing its business. When I suggested they buy a litter box and keep the cat indoors they said the cat "needed fresh air." So the next week I spoke to them again. Again very pleasant. I said they should come and clean up my yard. They were shocked I would even suggest such a thing. I showed them pictures of their cat in my back yard. They said I could buy products that would discourage cats from entering my yard if I had a problem with cats. I told them if they purchased me such products I would be happy to try them. The said it wasn't their problem. So I checked with the law. If the cat enters my yard it is a stray and I can call animal control. I called animal control and they told me I could use a humane trap and then I could bring the cat in to them. They would not send an animal control officer for a stray cat. They told me if I caught the cat, turned it in, and it had a license, they would contact the owner. If the cat was not spayed or neutered, that would be done at the owner's expense and they would also have to pay a fee to get the cat back. If they did not want it back they would attempt to adopt it out. If the cat did not have a license, they would hold the cat for claim for 24 hours, and then they would try to adopt it out. Cats held for adoption were euthanized after 24 hours. The cat does not wear a collar. I don't want the cat dead but I don't want it crapping in my back yard. It's not the cats fault that its owners are irresponsible. So this last weekend I collected all the cat crap I could find and put it on my neighbors front porch about 1 foot from their door. About 2 hours later the police came to my house. I showed the officer the photos of the cat in my yard, I showed him the trap I borrowed from anamal control (not yet set), and explained to him that I was only returning to my neighbors their property (cat crap). The police officer thought this was rather humorous. He said I was within my rights to return the cat crap. He went next door, spoke to the neighbors for a few minutes, and left. Since Sunday was the first nice day in a long cold winter/spring the neighborhood was out doing yard work. Since my other neighbors saw the police in the neighborhood they were curious and asked both me and my next door neighbors what was up. I simply told them we were having an issue with their cat waist in my fenced back yard. I'm not sure what the cat owners said but there was lots of arm waving. A few of my neighbors explained to me the positive uses of antifreeze. I told them my problem wasn't with the cat. So eventually my next door neighbors came over to explain to me that I am a jerk. I said I knew that already. They asked me what I thought they should. I told them they could keep their cat indoors, they could get rid of the cat, or they could move. I asked them why I should I be responsible for their pet, particularly the unpleasant aspects. They told me that was part of being a good neighbor. I guess I'm not that good. This morning their cat was in my back yard. I left another pile in front of my neighbor's front door. So, do you think my actions are justified? Do you think they will learn?

I agree with the above, but I also believe that laws must be interpreted based on the definition of words when the laws were written. By interpreting laws in this way, stability is created in our legal system. Without the damping provided by interpreting laws based on their original intent, our justice system would be at the whimsy of popular fads.

Come on people, this really is not a difficult question. Up until very recently virtually no one considered marriage as anything but a formal relationship between one man and one woman. Even in polygamous societies marriage does not define the relationship between the wives of one man or the husbands of one woman. Laws against polygamy simply restrict each person to only one marriage. Words mean what they are widely held to mean. Just 10 years ago no one talked about same sex marriage. The idea of marriage as recognized in law between same sex couples is new. I for one am glad to see the definition of marriage changing to include same sex couples, but I am honest enough not to pretend that marriage has always included our modern notions. I am also glad to see that legislatures are creating laws that permit the formalization of relationships between same sex couples. I personally don't believe this effort will be finished until one set of laws describe relationships between couples regardless of sex. You want evidence. Well look around. How many same sex marriages exist? When were they legally created? How many existed 10 years ago? 100 years ago? When did people start protesting for same sex marriage? Words mean what they are widely held to mean.

What difference does it make? Let's say 100% are made in or processed through the USA. It would only show that gun control does not work. It doesn't work in Mexico and it won't work here. We have another thread on the prohibition of Marijuana. Prohibiting guns would work as well as prohibiting Marijuana. Such a prohibition would only provide another product for criminals to sell. Just because some other country is screwed up does not mean my rights change. My rights are inalienable. A fact that my government simply recognizes.

Sorry about the language, but it does make it even funnier.

Well then I guess I could have been clearer as well. I am not talking about land owned by human individuals within the Everglades either. The Everglades is owned collectively by the people of the United States. Those people are humans. Development within the Everglades or outside but still impacting the Everglades could reduce the value of the Everglades for its owners, the people. Development regulation regarding the Everglades protects the value of the Everglades to its owners, the people of the United States. The same is true for other publicly own lands like the national forests, parks, and wildlife preserves. A film produced by the national park service call "The Greatest Good" covers this topic well. http://www.fs.fed.us/greatestgood/film/related.shtml?sub2 Notice that Gifford Pinchot was for wise development. He understood that the people wanted to exploit their publicly owned property while at the same time preserving it for future generation. This is an example of good regulation.

After the noticeable cooling at that end of 2007, I posted the following. I have said my piece for now. I will check back in a year to see if we can make it three.

The Everglades are publicly owned and are maintained for the benefit of the public. There are indeed many varied reasons why the public would like these lands to be maintained but the public are indeed humans.

In a previous post I agreed that there was no global warming or climate change conspiracy but suggested that climate change enthusiasts were exhibiting classic symptoms of "groupthink." I provided the following link on groupthink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink This link provides the following symptoms of groupthink. Well, the opening post mentions that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. I have read other reports that claim the cooling has been occurring since 1998. Either way the data shows that cooling has been occurring for about a decade. This should at least make warming enthusiast take a second look particularly at their predictions of future catastrophe. My post was a rather mild warning. What response did my post illicit? Mostly responses have been rationalizing and stereotyping (see above). In general warming enthusiast support their position based on position of scientific unanimity. They also tend to ignore the consequences of their proposed solutions to the warming "crisis." I have been following the global warming topics in science forums for some time. I seem to recall skeptics pointing out that warming was caused by unusually strong El Niño or from unusually strong solar irradiance. These claims by skeptics were roundly condemned as stupid (see Stereotyping). But now warming enthusiast point to La Niña and a low sun spot cycle (see Rationalizing). So, I repeat my previous statement. Not a conspiracy, but it could be an example of "groupthink."

Free enterprise (I like that better than Marx's "Capitalism") can operate just fine within boundaries defined by regulation. Often times regulation is intended to insure that the consumers of products (or services) pay the true cost of what they are purchasing. For example environmental regulation in the main is intended to prevent non purchasers, those downstream or downwind, from paying a price while not receiving value. In Pangloss's example, consumer regulation is intended to provide consumers with the value they believe and are generally told they are purchasing. Regulation in the financial markets may include providing consumers with the security they have been lead to believe they are purchasing or prevent financing cost from being passed to those not being serviced by the financing. Excessive regulation increases cost for no reason and generally provides benefits to those who provide no product or service. One could think of excessive regulation as economic waste created by those receiving the benefit and passed on to those paying the increased cost of goods and services. An example of excessive regulation might be overly restrictive urban growth boundaries. In the attempt to protect rural land, urban land prices are increased. Those that enjoy their rural surroundings benefit, and those that own urban land benefit, but those that want to develop rural land pay as do those that don't own urban land. Excessive urban growth regulation would benefit few at the expense of many.

How is this topic related to the reporting of science? What am I missing? The referenced article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008916994_webborderbust24m.html) describes an organized drug swapping operation involving cocaine from the US and marijuana and ecstasy from Canada. The operation included road and helicopter transportation. Two helicopters were seized carrying large amounts of marijuana and ecstasy. Road transportation, helicopters, drug swapping between different organized groups in different countries all mentioned in the article. Yea, I guess your right there is no transportation infrastructure supplying simultaneously marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy, mentioned in the article at all. Also, I'm sure you're right that the profit to be made from ultimate distribution of 600 lbs of BC bud had little to do with the exchange. Data: US: 2 helicopters, 600 lbs of BC bud, 170 pounds of cocaine, Canada: 150 lbs of marijuana, 40,000 tablets of ecstasy Legalize marijuana and the profit motive for this drug deal would have collapsed.

Then why is it I read articles like this one all the time? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008916994_webborderbust24m.html

And by that you mean the data that it is getting cooler?

Penn is however staking out his "I told you so" rights.

Perhaps you missed the following in my previous post. I have not yet seen the program, but I do look forward to it.

I did say "could", and it is simply a general observation.

Not a conspiracy, but it could be an example of "groupthink." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

He has not made such a request.

I may be reading Padren incorrectly but by "serious issues" I believe he is referring to significant medical problems. I have had significant medical problems. Problems that have required surgery and rehabilitation. My private insurance covered my "serious issues" exactly how the policies said they would. No, I was not covered 100% so I did experience a financial sting. But then again I was not willing to pay more for additional private insurance. In my personal pursuit of happiness I am willing to accept certain risks such as setbacks due to medical problems so that I can afford enjoyment in other aspects of my life. My right to pursue happiness is not a guarantee of attaining happiness. The "right" to medical care you mention above is simply a license for involuntary servitude. With regard to the post of Sisyphus, I have not found that "horror stories seem to be the rule, not the exception." Yes, people complain about their coverage, but people complain about the price of gasoline as well. Do people have a right to moderately priced gasoline? I actually find the people more often complain about incompetent doctors and medical facilities. In my job I travel the world and find that people in countries with socialized medicine complain more than people here regarding doctors and medical facilities. Your statement about my ability to "navigate the system so successfully" implies that I have either been skillful or lucky. Neither is the case. I either bought insurance privately or received it through my employment. When I needed medical care, the insurance worked as my policy said it would. Since this is true for virtually everyone I know, it must be quite simple for people to be so skillful or lucky. Now I do know people who have no insurance. (In my early twenties I myself had no medical insurance.) Those people are making choices in their pursuit of happiness. For example I notice that they drink, eat in restaurants, go on vacations, smoke cigarettes, and enjoy marijuana. I hope their choices work out for them. As I mentioned in my previous post I have a hard time with people who think their mere existence entitles them to the benefits of my labor or wealth. I do however make exception to those that are not able bodied. So if you had ability, were stupid enough not to have insurance, and became seriously injured, out of kindness I do believe such dead beats should be considered for charity. If they receive charity, they should be grateful and not complain about the quality of their care. They rolled the dice and should live with the outcome. People without ability should be provided medical care by a kind society. This includes people, particularly children, in poverty or those who would be put into poverty by chronic illnesses. Again those people should be thankful they live in such a kind society. Finally with regard to your comment "never struggled personally", perhaps you assume too much. I find that people who have had great struggles in life expect others to struggle with similar vigor.

I agree as long as I am more equal than others.

When studying electromagnetics I dreaded solving dyadic green's functions. I could not imagine ever working in a field where solving such problems would be part of my daily routine. Well I have worked as an electrical engineer 25 years. Much of that work has been solving microwave and RF (radio frequency) problems. I have never once even considered using green's functions. Most often I just use algebra and occasionally a bit of calculus. I thank the publishers of the "CRC standard mathematical tables." If you are ever going to be an electrical engineer, you better be very comfortable working with imaginary numbers, the convolution integral, and Fourier transforms. I found that most of the mathematics I took when studying electrical engineering helped me visualize, in my mind's eye, the problem and its solution. Once I trained myself to do this the actual mathematics became less important in solving problems. So in electromagnetics the electric field always terminates perpendicular to a conductive surface and the magnetic field circulates (begins and ends on itself), is always parallel to a conductive surface, but at zero strength at the surface. Remember this and some basics about quarter wave resonance and you can visualize most practical electromagnetic engineering problems. To reach such a level of understanding however you will have to push Maxwell's equations around a piece of paper a time or two. I imagine the same would be true in mechanical engineering. Fluid dynamics and heat transfer problems for example can be quite similar to problems in electromagnetics. When using a computer, I use Matlab and sometimes Simulink. These programs generally take some real programming skill but they provide wonderful visuals. So once again your science and mathematical training teaches you to understand when the visuals produced by your programming are correct. One last thing. At some point, most of us reach a personal limit. This may be based on personal innate ability, desire to know, or the satisfaction received at a given level of understanding and what can be done with it. Perhaps the fact that you do not enjoy math will limit the extent of your study. Perhaps you will stop at the undergraduate level. I stopped at the master's degree level. Others will receive a doctorate and continue studying. At each of these levels you will be pushed to your limits and have to study subjects you have little interest in. I had little interest in solving dyadic green's functions but solving them did help my overall understanding of electromagnetics. That's why each of these degrees means something. At the same time there is nothing wrong with understanding your own needs and abilities and stopping where you want.

It seems to me that he disagrees with but hopes that the counterintuitive is correct. Maybe we each read it the way we choose. Anyway I agree that Penn provides his commentary with style.

I feel no moral obligation to provide health care to able bodied adults or their dependents. I do not feel that others are morally obligated to provide me or my dependents with health care. When I am able, which has been the majority of my life, I voluntarily provide charity to those in need. I work hard to make sure that those receiving my charity are not able bodied adults. I am interested in plans, private sector or government, that reduce my health care costs. I am weary of government programs because they seem to emphasize providing assistance to dead beats. I am also weary of government health care programs because such government programs tend to take pride in forcing all users to feel like dead beats on the dole. Think I'm wrong? When was the last time you had a tetanus shot or a vaccination? Well in Washington State it is almost impossible to get a private doctor to give you one. You have to go to the government clinic wait forever in room full of people with critters jumping off of them while some reforming crack addict administers injections to her former drug addict friends while loudly reminiscing with them about their good old junky days. After putting up with this for two hours I decided it would be better to risk having lock jaw and left. With regard to private health care it, it has always worked just fine for me and my family. This includes all the medical care for bringing three children in to this world, two surgeries for my wife, one for my son, and three for me. The only problem I have ever had is that one insurance company had the habit of denying full coverage for service provided by hospital support staff. They often claimed that these health care providers were "out of plan." It never took more than a toll free phone call to correct these problems. Has my health care cost me out of pocket? Yes, but the plans I have been involved with never said they would cover 100 %. You see, I don't think I am entitled to the necessities of life. I also don't think other people are entitled to my money unless they have provided me with a service or they are my direct dependents.