In this particular case, and especially given the amount of crime in Mexico, it does not surprise me that the truck would be unmarked. And it doesn't really matter if the cargo is marked: carjackers aren't going to rob you at gunpoint and beat you up then take the time to look at the cargo and see if it is worth stealing. They are just going to drive off. I am surprised that the hospital didn't at least hire a security service to escort the shipment; I would assume even(maybe even especially) in Mexico contractable security services are common. Maybe they just aren't trustworthy or capabale enough?
"Strontium-90 - RADIOACTIVE"
"LIVE SPECIMEN - BIOHAZZARD"
The hell kind of deli do you shop at?
Most "poor" countries to which we send aid, are being plundered just as hard, or even harder. Every time we send food aid to some poor African or central American country, the local farmers get no money for the little food they produce and the local market is ruined, stopping local production of food instead of encouraging it.
You are right, except it's not the West that causes it. In most cases it is the government (both state and local) that causes economies to get worse even as aid increases. In many cases these governments are corrupt to some degree, so the aid intended for local farmers or communities never gets there. The aid tends to go either to the military (purchasing soldiers is a lot more expensive than one would think, and it pays to keep soldiers happy-notice how many undemocratically elected third world rulers have military ranks?) or in the case of a tame military to personal residences and bank accounts.
In political science there is a theory that is known as the resource curse, whereby a state that has an abundance of a natural resource finds its growth hampered by that resource, so that it is poorer than one would expect. This is caused by a number of problems, such as a failure to diversify the economy or internal conflict (ie, war) over the revenue. However, a major cause of this is government corruption and revenue mismanagement. The government either diverts the proceeds to their own pockets or, expecting the revenue to continue at high levels, fails to invest the money back into the economy and spends it on pet projects to remain in power.
Now, this is kind of perverse, but think of poor people as a natural resource. As long as the people remain poor, the aid continues to come in. If the aid continues to come in, the local political elites are able to allocate that aid in ways that continues to enrich themselves while allowing them to remain in power (paying off cronies/the military/subsidies). If they invest the aid properly, then the economy grows, the poor get less poor, and as they get less poor they have more energy and resources to invest in things such as politics, demanding a greater say in how they are governed. This demonstrates a direct threat to the ruling elites, who as a general rule are not strong leaders, as they rule by economic coercion or the threat or actual use of military force. So, essentially, in order for them to remain in power it is in their own self interest (not a fan of rationalism, but sometimes it just fits) to keep their population poor. In a nutshell, this is one big reason why Third World states tend to remain poor even when they receive large amounts of foreign aid.
Ideally, the aid given to these states should be neither financial nor edible. The investment should be in infrastructure (roads), and in raising the standard of living (water filters, solar panels/crank generators, farming equipment, etc). Investments such as this help the poor and are much harder to divert or misallocate (can't exactly wire a shipment of solar panels to a Swiss bank account). You are correct that these people are perfectly capable of helping themselves given the right tools. The problem is getting the tools into the hands of the people who need them, not those who want them.
Meanwhile the company had good news in the developing world: it is the second most popular phone in South Africa.
Good news everyone! We're the second-most popular phone in South Africa!
Maybe next year they can be the fourth-most popular phone in Great Britain.
My company isn't the most popular in the world in its business, and the division I work in still had almost $1billion worth of revenue last year. This year is down slightly, and they are hoping for around $950million in revenue. You don't have to be number 1 to have a successful business.
If you're looking for famous examples of losing faith in money, there was a period in Germany where exactly that happened.
My favorite picture regarding this (saw it in a history textbook once, have never been able to find it again), was of 2 kids playing with literally (and I mean actually literally, not figuratively) brick-sized bundles of Papiermarks like they were building blocks.
You also see massive drops in murders, rapes, and theft.
So all those gang members, dealers, pushers, and manufacturers, who can currently make thousands of tax free dollars a week will suddenly stop what they are doing and get legitimate jobs, or continue to make drugs that now sell for 1/10 the price? It is more likely that things would get more violent, as these people get into the few remaining highly lucrative illicit business such as human trafficking and prostitution. Murders, thefts, and the like will become more common as the people who used to be involved in the drug trade compete for what little bit is left.
Why isn't acetaminophen also used in combination with asprin, naproxin, or ibuprofen in a single pill? Does it do no good with used with those non-opiate pain medications?
In the case of Ibuprofen, probably because Ibuprofen usually paired with Vicodin.
If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.
The Kennedy family?
But only when the planes are above 10000 feet, in order to allow these micro-cells to override ground based cell towers, and insure roaming revenue.
Below 10000 feet, the in-flight cell phone ban must remain in place, since it is much easier to bypass the micro-cells in planes and connect directly (and cheaply) to a ground based cell towers.
Or, you know, the aircraft is still climbing and is therefore more likely to encounter problems. Fewer distractions means the passengers can listen to crew instructions instead of posting last minute "OMG I'm gonna die!" selfies to Instagram. 10k feet is cruising altitude, and is also when passengers are allowed to move around (and also when flight crew starts moving around as well-they stay seated as well during climbing/descending).
Airlines will love this. Even at $1/minute, passengers will rake up pretty good bills by the end of the flight. And I doubt they will stop at a buck a minute, because above 10k feet, well, they got you by the balls.
Many airlines already have phones installed in the backs of seats that passengers can use, and have for some time now. You pay for them by credit card. In the countless times I have flown I have yet to see someone actually use them. I can assure you the airlines have not been raking in the money with that.
Cell phone use is allowed on busses (metro and inter-city), and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem there. Why should I assume that planes would be significantly worse?
In buses you don't have to talk over the sound of jet engines or air whipping by at 500mph. Especially if you are flying in a plane with fuselage mounted engines like MD-88/90s/DC-9/717 and are sitting near the engines.
Could be worse. Could be like every school in suburban Arizona or Utah which has a Mormon/LDS temple built adjacent to it, offering Seminary as an elective.
Here in Georgia, the high school I went to shared part of a lot with a small church (no street between the buildings, and separated only by a few yards). Eventually the school bought out (or emminent domained?) the church and it got turned into the electronics/robotics and theater building.
[Aside: "Two" is the answer to "How many Mormons do you take fishing with you." If you take one, he'll drink all your beer.]
Down here in Georgia, we say the same thing about Baptists. And I went to a Baptist university