True. Most metal cans (the kind used for packaging, anyway) are coated with a layer of plastic to prevent interaction with the Al/Sn in the metal of the substrate itself. Particularly with acidic contents (tomatoes are the ones that come most readily to mind.) Can *ends* are manufactured separately and joined to the can bodies themselves after filling. Some can ends are coated with plastic over the majority of the surface, but others have perforations and other 'gaps' that allow for proper sealing/seaming between the can and the can end, and for tabs to break through, etc. Any place the plastic coating is missing and an acidic ingredient can come into contact with the metal, corrosion can occur (though slowly).

Source: I'm a market researcher specializing in food/beverage packaging in the US.

That's essentially a company-paid life insurance policy of 5x annual salary (slightly less, actually, since it's annuitized). When I worked as a call center grunt shortly out of college, we were given a 1x annual salary term life insurance policy paid for by the company. With an option of paying something like $0.35/month for 3x annual salary term life insurance.

This is really not the crazy-off-the-wall benefit that it's being made out to be. It's good, to be sure, but not unheard of.

Chicago got a ton of outside help to police the various protests--from the Chicagoland suburbs, from other states/cities (including New York), and even municipal police from Canada. That doesn't bug me. Chicago's police force is pretty sparsely staffed to begin with, and getting help was a necessary step. Chicago Police did most of the front-line stuff, while the other districts were used for traffic control and other non-confrontational areas. From all accounts, the police did a good job of de-escalating most situations--they were generally garbed in soft-gear (their regular uniform shirts) rather than riot gear/armor/helmets. It did a lot to make things seem more safety-related than "We're going to beat down the protesters", and kept things civil for the most part.

To be sure, there were arrests and confrontations and some bad crap. But it was a lot better than it could have been (and better than it has been in the past).

My biggest issue is that the TSA was involved. That, to me, is just bonkers. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." TSA ignores that, and it pi**es me off.

Just out of curiosity--I'm in Chicago and haven't heard of TSA running checks in our parks. A quick Google News search returns nothing. Can you point me to an article/example?
I hate TSA and would love to have more (local) examples of their idiocy for friends/family who think they're all rainbows and unicorns as they grope you...

The value is in the EXIF geo-location data. That is all.

I've been corrected. I relied too much on another poster, prior to all the well-informed rebuttals to that misinformation. If you'll look through any of the half-dozen or so replies noting that eradication of the human-infecting Pertussis bacterium actually is possible, you'll realize that I've accepted that I made a mistake. So glad you bothered to read any of the prior posts...

I do too.

Yes, if only we could engineer human behavior to act only within strict tolerances, removing individual choice and freedom in the process...That sounds like Freedom (TM)

Thanks for the support!

Except, the rates of infection prior to the introduction of the vaccine were NOT near 100%. Infection rates plummeted from the early 1900s through the late 1930s, as did the deaths-per-100,000-people rate. The vaccine was used nationwide beginning in the late 1930s. Presumably, the improvements in hygiene (preventing the spread of the disease) and medical care (treating the people who did get infected to prevent severe adverse outcomes) had a lot to do with this, even prior to the vaccine. Sure, the vaccine helped--and has the potential to eradicate some diseases, which is non-trivial.

And as a greater percentage of people opt out of vaccination, the potential harm due to not vaccination climbs, shifting the cost-benefit. Which means that somewhere, we'll hit a balance--not at 0% vaccination nor at 100% vaccination. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.

Thank you for being the first to address my point--that it's a cost-benefit/risk-weighted decision rather than an "OMG EVERYONE MUST VACCINATE OR YOU'RE STUPID" issue. I disagree with your conclusions, though I appreciate seeing the rationale.

Presumably, your kid is vaccinated. So there's a darn low chance of him/her getting infected in the first place. Further, the odds of him/her dying due to pertussis, diptheria, or chicken pox is even smaller. So yeah, I have factored in the odds that a) my kid gets sick, AND b) gives it to your kid (who has been vaccinated), AND c) your kid happens to die, AND d) you know that my kid was the definitive source, AND e) you know who I am/where to find me, AND f) you have the balls to follow through on your threat and not just make pseudonymous statements online.

And I'm not really worried about it. Have a nice day.

Yeah, I've been corrected on this point a few times through the thread. I relied too much on another commenter's post, to my detriment.

The odds of getting a mild case of pertussis = small.
The risk of spreading pertussis from a mild case = smaller.
The exceptionally small risk of vaccination = small.
You're saying I have the ability to prevent $Event (with very small risk) by choosing $Action (with very small risk). This is true. But don't compare "Chance approaching 1" with "exceptionally small risk". The risk of both events are pretty darn small.

Yeah, that's a consideration. And a valid one. But at what cost are we willing to shift the .01% to .005%? That's halving the rate of $Negative_Outcome, but at what cost? $1 billion? $1 trillion? For how many lives saved?