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.

I had this argument already. It went on for a few hours.

It appears in #wikipedia when someone explains policy to you and says that subject-matter-related resources are not independent of the subject.

Literally everyone wants nothing more than a big D.

Vehicular collision, you functional retard. An "accident" implies it's nobody's fault: it disclaims moral responsibility while accepting physical culpability. It's not as if you did it by intent, so you have no moral impetus to change your behavior, and you are a victim of circumstance.

Actually, they should have caned him. 33 months in prison is stupid. Beat him 40 times and send him home.

Did you miss the part about

Oh, no, you didn't. You said some other business magazine should cover it.

Also, a lot of magazines have become e-periodicals. I had to fight with The Baltimore Sun because I recently ordered their newspaper, and they started giving me the e-periodical without sending a physical newspaper! I paid $40 extra for the god damn newspaper! They started delivery two weeks later, although their system accounted for four deliveries which were never made--but which I was charged for. There were flames and unfriendly words.

So Wikipedia notability ignores Web sites like PenHero; but that's okay because you're not notable for featuring prominently in published glossy paper like The Pennant, either, because The Pennant is about fountain pens and it's not notable to be featured in a prominent magazine dedicated to the topic you're featured for. You have to feature in Forbes, but be about Yogurt manufacturing.

Do you get the feeling this filters out notable niche markets entirely? It filters out anything the average person would have never heard about because he's not a part of some specific subgroup. It would filter out fursuiting or whatever they're calling Disney mascots these days if the media didn't make a huge deal about furries one time, ten years ago.

It's an encyclopedia of pop culture.

Why would a business magazine care about a fountain pen company? They're selling to a niche market.

Goulet nibs are known as the best nibs you can possibly get, and they don't have a Wikipedia article. Every time you get a fountain pen, get on any of the popular forums or on Reddit /r/fountainpens, and people are like, "Try putting a Goulet nib in it!" Everyone writes with Goulet nibs.

Well, everyone in a tiny hobbyist market that writes with fountain pens, anyway.

It's like writing a Wikipedia article for Estes Industries. Nobody fucking cares, except a few retards who think launching cardboard paper towel tubes makes them science geeks.

Oh, wait, there *is* a Wikipedia article for Estes Industries.

Nah this is just Sony Electronics wanting to leverage their entertainment holdings to sell TVs and PLayers with proprietaty formats while Sony Entertainment wants to maximize sales. Or maybe I got it backward. Anyhow lots of diversified companies have internal conflicts. The IBM PC which uses all non-IBM parts was not made by the primary Computer division at IBM. Samsung also has internal competition with conflicting objectives,

Notability on Wikipedia requires a non-dedicated source to notice it. So Nemosine pens becoming quite popular among fountain pen enthusiasts (Nemosine is a disruptive company) is not notable, because nobody cares about fountain pens except for people who care about fountain pens. If Nemosine gets featured as a new leader in Fountain Pen Magazine, well... it's a fountain pen magazine; it's dedicated to the topic, thus not notable.

Statistical basis.