But it's not in the handler's best interests to claim that their dog alerted them to the presence of drugs when they don't actually find any because that just makes them look stupid.

None of this has any bearing at all on whether they would use dogs to try to find drugs where there are none.... that probably happens nearly as often as police might feel they have any reason whatsoever to instigate a search. I'm just saying that it's silly to think that they are going to claim that their dog smelled drugs in their car when there aren't any unless they intend to plant some there. Dogs are also well able to discern where a smell is actually coming from,so with a smell which may be on a person's body because they may have at some point recently handled such drugs, but where no such drugs are actually in the car, a trained dog would *easily* be able to identify the actual source of the scent... an officer who tries to claim that the dog smelled drugs in their car when there aren't any there is, again, only going to make both himself and the dog appear incompetent.

There are no statistics on how frequently dogs "alert" and the subsequent search finds no contraband.

This reasoning reminds me of how people allege that the fact that there is no real evidence that NASA tried to cover up that they "never really went to the moon" is somehow indicative of or suggests that they actually *are* covering it up. It's called circular reasoning, and it's a logical fallacy.

Have you considered that the possibilty that reason there aren't any published statistics for it is because it doesn't tend to actually happen that often in the first place?

As I said elsewhere, it is not generally going to be in the interests of even a genuinely maliciously inclined officer to allege that his dog "smelled" drugs when they hadn't actually found any, because that undermines any confidence with which anyone could reasonably claim that dogs have any reliability in this capacity in the first place... unless, as I said above, the officer were intending to plant drugs for the dog to find. A dog's sense of smell can be over a million times more sensitive than a human's, and there is no doubt whatsoever that sniffing out such things even in extremely concealed locations would be well within their sensory capability.

I do not dispute that police use dogs to attempt to find drugs on people where none are found.... that actually *does* happens a lot, and there are unfortunately plenty of published statistics to support it. But it makes almost no sense for the police to actually claim that their dog had alerted them to the presence of drugs when they don't actually find any because that just makes them look stupid, as well as like the dog needs a whole lot more training.

No... but I'm betting they don't frequently claim that a dog they were using had identified that there was an actual material presence of drugs unless they actually find some. Again, what "signalling" could the poster that I responded to above have been referring to if not to signal the dog to act as though it had found some drugs?

I'm not questioning that the cops don't have dogs sniffing for drugs when there aren't any... that number could easily be quite high... the regularity and consistency to which I referred was with respect to how often the officer is liable to claim that a dog they have had sniff through a vehicle has smelled some drugs to how often such drugs are actually found after a search. Again, I'm not saying this doesn't ever happen.... but in reality, if it happened too often, then the police probably wouldn't be using dogs for the job in the first place At the very least, even a police officer with genuinely malicious intent wouldn't have much incentive to ever *claim* that their dog has smelled drugs when they could not actually find any drugs unless they intended to actually plant some drugs there themselves, because doing otherwise would certainly compromise the confidence that anyone would be able to place in using dogs for the job in the first place.

Anyways, the post above to which I responded suggested that a dog that finds drugs is somehow only reacting to signals being given by its controlling officer. I'm saying that a cop trying to so signal a dog to react as though it found drugs is not going to spontaneously make drugs appear in the car when there weren't any there before, unless it was planted by the officer. At this point, I can't say I'm sure what kind of signalling they were even talking about if that's not what they meant.

I would think it otherwise be a rather extraordinary coincidence that when the dog appears to react to the presence of drugs, that they also somehow, and with such consistency also happen to find such drugs.

Are you then suggesting that officers who use dogs to sniff for drugs always plant the drugs?

Most people who think a flat tax is ideal are likely not accounting for the disparity of income that actually exists among taxpayers, and probably failing to realize that 2/3 of all taxes are actually paid for by the top 10% wage earners. The effect of a flat tax would be that while the very highest wage earners tax rates would be lowered only slightly, absolutely everyone else's rates would go up, for some very significantly... as much as nearly 4 times more tax for those who are currently in the lowest tax bracket. Deductions from a person's taxable income are offered not to help rich people get richer, even if that may be seen as a side effect by some (a notion that is not really substantiated by any evidence, and seems to run contrary to the fact that most taxes are paid by the wealthy anyways), but because they provide an immediate, or at least relatively short term, incentive for people, particularly lower wage earners, to do the things that such deductions are actually offered for.. presumably because doing such things is somehow more beneficial to society as a whole than if they were not practiced.

You seem to me to be saying things about God that my experiences, and my logic, very strongly contradict.

Which part? I didn't really have much to say about God in that post.... In the post to which you responded, I was mostly pointing out that even I myself face the same intellectual challenges with wrapping my mind around the notion that God is not somehow malevolent or cruel as anyone else does. The only difference between myself and people who decide that the so-called loving God must be a fiction because of it is that I've come to the conclusion that my own wisdom isn't really going to be sufficient to explain the true nature of God, and I believe that in time, although probably not before I die, I will finally understand how.

... future descendant might try and argue, by the same reasoning, that the "people" (as we currently call them) in this time were not really alive either... that all we actually are is a bunch of organic compounds arranged in a pattern that suspiciously behaves like what they consider to be life, but actually isn't.

I read the article... it cites a single example of how someone *COULD* modify the ECU and make the car no longer legally compliant, but again... that's already against the law. The first part of the article itself talkes about using the DMCA to stop people from doing such things, but as I said... there's already a law against making your car unsafe anyways, so if people aren't going to pay attention to that law, why would they pay attention to the DMCA? Particularly when they are just as liable to be caught doing either?

Does tinkering with anything in the car always affect the ECU? And even then, does absolutely any possible change to the ECU always cause the vehicle to violate safety or environmental regulations?

One can drink alcohol while holding a driver's license and still not drive

And in general, one can also tinker with their own car without making the vehicle noncompliant to required safety standards.

Sure... but my point is that at least that's actually possible. I used to know a guy who built his own car... I'm not in contact with him any more so I can't go and ask him how much he paid for certification, but as far as I know the car was entirely road-legal.

And if such changes would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with regional safety standards for vehicles, then the person would be held responsible if or when that modification was discovered. While that may be too late to actually prevent an accident, making it illegal to modify your car under the allegation that you may make it unsafe to drive is like making it illegal for you to drink alcohol if you happen to have a driver's license (ignoring the fact that a driver's license is often used for verifying that one is of legal drinking age in the first place) because you might try drive while drunk. Most of the people who are suspected of drunk driving are unfortunately only found so after they have already caused an accident as well.

My point is that like drunk driving, and laws that prohibit that activity, there are already laws that prohibit making any unsafe modifications to your vehicle... and not realizing that a change would cause a vehicle to not meet the necessary safety requirements is no more of a justification than not realizing that one was over the legal limit for blood alcohol content when getting behind the wheel of a car.

... that prohibit enthusiasts from making modifications to any vehicle that is to be driven on public roads which make it no longer comply with regional safety regulations.

If manufacturers don't want people tinkering with their systems because they are genuinely concerned about public safety, then it seems to me like they are already covered... there's no need to bring the DMCA into it at all.