The story is about a guy who gets custody of his niece and eventually finds out she is his daughter. I think her name was Delight. He is very wealthy and has many patents that the government uses.
The story is about a guy who gets custody of his niece and eventually finds out she is his daughter. I think her name was Delight. He is very wealthy and has many patents that the government uses.
you do know he is making all of it up right? as for the interpersonal contact it is based on the premise of friends can talk shit to eachother and it is understood that it isn't serious. I do agree some of the things said and done are way beyond wtf at the same time I also find them to funny or at the least wishing I had friends like that. the science is supposed to be not real unless you think he should provide the blueprints for the ship for you to build.
the science is supposed to be not real unless you think he should provide the blueprints for the ship for you to build.
Not real is easy to handle. It's required for almost all space opera. Ludicrous, not so much unless the parody/satire is prominent and obvious. For example, I just reached a point in the story where they needed 20 pounds of Vanadium for their prototype FTL radio. No big deal, they need 20 pounds. Whatever... But no, he has to make Vanadium rare, available only from Sweden, and tied up with imaginary import-export restrictions. Good grief! At least spend 10 minutes on Google and pick an actual rare element.
At least spend 10 minutes on Google and pick an actual rare element.
With "actual rare elements", you don't get to specify the restrictions. With imaginary elements, you can invent them out of whole cloth.
With imaginary elements, you can invent them out of whole cloth.
Then perhaps an isotope of Unobtanium would have been a better choice. :^P
Then perhaps an isotope of Unobtanium would have been a better choice. :^P
It has already been used in commercial films and is probably trademarked.
LOL! Unobtanium has been the engineer's perfect building material for decades - or longer!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Engineering_origin
I think I saw an element that was so rare it was only found in like .5% of the desert of Syria. it was called peacefulmusliminte, or nonhomophicium.
it was called peacefulmusliminte, or nonhomophicium.
Sorry, but I suspect nonhomophobium is rarer than that! (Don't get me started after the past few days)
Don't get me started after the past few days
It's not my thing, but whatever floats your boat.
My heart weeps for all those who died Sunday in Orlando.
Hopefully the perpetrator will be met in the afterlife by 72 Virginians.
http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/laden_died.htm
72 virgins, but nuns with rulers.
Or rather, 72 virgin nuns who ain't gonna take no slack while lecturing them on good Catholic behaviors!
Is that pronounced -
UN-obtanium
or U -nobtanium????
;-)))))
depends on who it's being given to!
as a nonhomophobe conservative I am wondering who he left says the bad guy is in Orlando. the gays or the muslim gunman since I am pretty sure the gay club was a gun free zone and the feds knew the camel ranger was on the terror list but said he aint so bad then gave him a gun lisc. anyway? remember you anti 2nd amendment folks he bought the guns legally while working as an armed guard. so go ahead and tell me how a known bad guy buying guns and killing people is the guns fault.
the feds knew the camel ranger was on the terror list but said he aint so bad then gave him a gun lisc. anyway?
He may well not have been on the terror watch list. He didn't just work for any security company. His employer does contract work for DHS, a contract he did work on.
The FBI investigated him three times and came up with nothing he could be prosecuted for and he was still working for a private security company doing contract work for DHS.
so go ahead and tell me how a known bad guy buying guns and killing people is the guns fault.
The people who investigated him said that, since he hadn't committed any violent offenses or met with anyone in the Middle East, they couldn't legally restrict him, but he was on a government watch list. However, because of the efforts of the NRA, there is NO mechanism to prevent known terrorists from purchasing all the automatic weapons they desire.
On the flip side, the NRA keeps decrying gun control laws, but the only laws passed after each mass shooting are those in Republican legislatures weakening the existing gun laws. This while most surveys reveal that 80% of the NRA supports reasonable (i.e. no outright bans) on assault weapons.
Despite the NRAs constant claims to the contrary, no one is attempting to restrict the legal possession of guns, but we need to keep these high powered killing machines from the hands of wackoos.
To date, there has only been ONE mass shooting that was prevented by the use of a gun, and that was by a member of the military trained in urban combat. Arming everyone has done nothing to prevent gun violence! Frankly, unarmed blacks are more likely (and more frequently) to be shot than a terrorist carrying an assault rifle into a nightclub!
The support for the LGTB community is nice, but until we limit who has access to weapons of mass destruction (i.e. mass shootings), then nothing will change. And limited who's allowed to mention gun restrictions helps no one.
But saying that the gays are responsible for being shot is akin to claiming that rape victims are 'asking for it' simply by being female.
All great and wonderful ..except he did not have automatic weapons...
He had legal semi autos...
To get automatic weapons ..they have to come the Fast And Furious dept of DHS ...or the State Dept of gun running thru Obama or Hillary...can't buy them unless you spend a ton of money legally ...
He had legal semi autos...
The AR-15 is one of the easiest weapons to convert to full-auto for sale on the American market. Prior to 1986, EVERY part needed to convert an AR-15 to an M-16 was legally available by the bushel for just a few dollars at any gun show in the US - and it's only 6 or 7 drop-in parts, iirc. Since 1986, those parts are no longer legally for sale and are not OPENLY offered for sale at gun shows. That's kind of moot though, as an AR-15 semi-auto is capable of firing 30 rounds, dropping the magazine, reloading a fresh 30-round magazine and emptying it again - all in just a little over a minute. In a situation like the crowded nightclub in Orlando, precision aiming is not required.
That's kind of moot though, as an AR-15 semi-auto is capable of firing 30 rounds, dropping the magazine, reloading a fresh 30-round magazine and emptying it again - all in just a little over a minute.
http://www.midwestgunworks.com/page/mgwi/prod/xrail/1103-1000FFB
Add an x-rail tube magazine extender to a pump action shotgun giving you 22+1 rounds and you have a weapon that is as or even more effective for close quarters slaughter in a confined target rich environment as an M16.
Idiots like the Orlando nightclub attacker choose the AR15/M16 because it looks cool/scary/military not because it is the most effective (deadliest) tool available.
Sorry but there are more than one incident. There was one sometime back where an off duty policeman stopped a man from shooting up a mall in Utah. Another occurred in I believe Ms, where two high school students retrieved weapons from their cars to hold the twerp until Sheriff arrived. There are more but for some reason they seldom make national news. I wonder why
no one is attempting to restrict the legal possession of guns,
And yet, in the last couple of decades there have been US federal laws and state laws restricting where people can legally carry a gun. It's no coincidence that gunmen are targeting places where people aren't allowed to legally carry to go crazy in; it's because they know there's no, or almost no, risk of an armed person being able to take them down.
In the unlikely event that guns are removed from personal ownership, there are other ways to kill people. A few Molotov cocktails setting the club on fire might have killed even more people. Poison gases have been used in Japan. Other poisons exist that could have been added to drinks or food. Sharp edged or pointed weapons like swords, battle axes or spears can kill as well. Sufficiently well trained martial arts practitioners can kill in hand to hand combat. It is true certain kind of guns make killing faster easier but Artillery and explosives kill more people on the battlefield than rifles and other guns. Some fertilizers and other chemicals can make very large explosions that could destroy an entire building and almost all of the people in it.
People kill people, whether they use guns, motor vehicles, disease (Aids, e-bola, Zeta, or whatever is available) or other methods. At least having a gun may help protect its owner from bad people who want to do them harm, and might make people more polite if the alternative is getting shot. When dueling was more common, formal politeness was a survival technique.
Police are not very polite to certain unarmed citizens, mostly young male persons of color. If they had guns openly displayed, their behavior might be changed. Of course they might shoot first and ask questions later, although that kind of activity seems to occur anyhow.
A few Molotov cocktails setting the club on fire might have killed even more people. Poison gases have been used in Japan. Other poisons exist that could have been added to drinks or food. Sharp edged or pointed weapons like swords, battle axes or spears can kill as well. Sufficiently well trained martial arts practitioners can kill in hand to hand combat. It is true certain kind of guns make killing faster easier but Artillery and explosives kill more people on the battlefield than rifles and other guns.
Except, in most mass-shootings, we're not talking about well-trained militias, instead we're talking about single individuals with an agenda walking into a gun store and purchasing whatever weapon they want. At least with chemical weapons, the purchase of the base supplies set off warning bells. With gun purchases, the police and FBI are forbidden from investigating or questioning the sale.
The NRA hasn't been about gun rights for a long time, now they're a marketing arm for gun merchants, striking up fears of nonexistent 'gun confiscations' whenever gun sales slip marginally.
As for guns allowing people to protect themselves, look at the stats. In almost all cases, the leading cause of death by guns is by that person's own guns (either via suicide, the use of their own guns against them, or more rarely, gun battles with others in the open streets (rather than defending their homes). In almost no cases have guns prevented any mass shootings. Instead, most recent 'right to carry laws' guarantee your right to kill whoever you want based solely on whether you're a racist or not!
@DS
According to the current reports, the shooter was known for making comments about wanting to join ISIS and attack Americans, but since he never made an attempt to travel to the mideast, and hadn't killed anyone, law enforcement was unable to charge him with anything. They knew he was a threat, but due to the NRAs efforts of these past 12 years, there was nothing they could do to prevent his walking into a bar with an assault rifle! (Note: That one act was illegal, but purchasing it and carrying it in public in Florida wasn't.)
and hadn't killed anyone, law enforcement was unable to charge him with anything.
They couldn't have charged him with anything criminal. They damn sure could have gotten him fired from a security company doing government contract work. He was doing Armed Security work on a government contract with DHS.
If they knew he was such a threat, why did he still have a job?
Because we have LAWS that PROTECT you from discrimination or Illegal search and seizure based on Religion, origin, sex, or sexuality. Until you DO something to be fired or locked up nobody can do s@@t about what was said or preached or overheard or anything else to stop what happened in Orlando or what might happen anywhere else. Otherwise think POLICE STATE!!!
BTW the US government REALY enforces the anti discrimination laws when issuing federal contracts even on small companies. You must have a racial mix or no contract.
BTW the US government REALY enforces the anti discrimination laws when issuing federal contracts even on small companies.
All employees working on federal contracts also have to pass FBI background checks. Do you honestly think they would give a pass to someone on the terror watch list just because "diversity"?
All employees working on federal contracts also have to pass FBI background checks. Do you honestly think they would give a pass to someone on the terror watch list just because "diversity"?
YES because of the anti discrimination laws.
My 40 yr old niece blond hair blue eyes in on NTS watch list because after a 3 hr hold on a plane. She demanded to be let off to use the toilet. After another hour on the plane they were returned to the terminal. When let off NTS took her in for questioning as to why she wanted off the plane. kept her in isolation until she ended up dropping her paints and peeing in the floor. They then locked her up overnight while they "investigated" her. It takes her about 5 hrs now to pass through Airport security. They put her on a 'watch list' for her 'actions' on the plane and while she was being 'questioned'.
They quietly paid her $ 5,000.00 dollars for 'humiliating her while detained' But she is still on their 'Watch List'. She applied for and received 2 pistol purchase permits last week.
because as a muslim he was a peace loving man that was just trying to be a good muslim by killing gays. everyone knows only Christians kill other people and gays and muslims should be friends to stop them. if I made threats against the president I would be stopped from doing anything til it was cleared up unless I am a gay, illegal or muslim then it is not talked about since that would be profiling.
because as a muslim he was a peace loving man that was just trying to be a good muslim by killing gays.
There are multiple reports that he was a regular at the club. If he was just trying to be a good Muslim, he wasn't doing a very good job of it.
because as a muslim he was a peace loving man that was just trying to be a good muslim by killing gays. everyone knows only Christians kill other people and gays and muslims should be friends to stop them. if I made threats against the president I would be stopped from doing anything til it was cleared up unless I am a gay, illegal or muslim then it is not talked about since that would be profiling.
That's a bit harsh. It's not like it's OK to be anti-American, but we do have laws against free speech, which is sometimes used against us as well. Nothing assures that every stupid act us commit will be for the best. The key, for us Americans, is to continually stop, ask if this is the best policy, and then try the best approach if the one we've using continually fails. Face it, we're not winning hearts and minds at the moment!
stupid acts that sometimes don't work out? like forcing girls to share the bathroom with grown men? or forcing a Christian to go against their religion but not a muslim? or forcing a butcher to stop selling pork because a muslim moved into the neighborhood? or better yet allowing a person in the military to wear a non-uniform head gear or facial hair for religious reasons? does anyone know why the military says to be clean shaven? not just for giggles it so IF a gas is used the mask will seal to your face and keep you from dying, but some ass monkey decided his beard was more important then the rules and sued to keep it and won. until we stop giving into these fuckers that want to be special we will never be the country we used to be. we had don't ask don't tell for what 20yrs which to me was a good thing. I don't care who you are banging legally so don't demand I have to say well done you for being gay. if you are gay fine fuck you bf/gf but don't shove it onto me or my kids. I don't demand you praise me for being straight. if you want to practice a religion that demands you grow a beard 5ft long then don't be a pussy a cry when a job you want says it is not allowed for safety reasons. if you want to practice sharia law then take you camel riding ass back to a country that does it don't fuck up my country with it I like a woman that can read, write, and have a job or even defend herself from some dickhead rapist. long live the ideals of the founding fathers which simply put says fuck up you country but stay the fuck out of mine, or come here for a better life without the ignorant views that fucked up your country.
and any handgun no matter where you buy it can be reloaded just as fast and better concealed. plus as a federal contractor he had access to better guns then an ar15
Sarcasm ahead. I think the gun control advocates may be on to something. Anything that can be used to kill massive amounts of people should be outlawed. Now we just need for our beloved and never wrong government to come up with the number of victims that constitutes mass numbers. Lets see, guns can kill alot of people so they should all be taken. I'm sure that all the criminals will obey the new laws and give them up. Also the police should give theirs up as well since they wont need them anymore. Humm... knives kill so those are gone as well. Hey, the boston bombers hid their bombs in backpacks so that means all the scooby doo and spongbob backpacks have to be destroyed. Now that we've solved all the United States problems we can start on the middle east. I've got some great ideas for that region. It involves the making the muslim clerics, the jewish rabbis, and the wwe.
Lets see, guns can kill alot of people so they should all be taken. I'm sure that all the criminals will obey the new laws and give them up.
Again, NO ONE has suggested confiscating any guns. What people are asking is to start a national conversation about responsible restrictions, like banning sales to those on Terrorism Watch Lists, or those with violent criminal records or even (gasp) eliminating the gun show exemptions to ID checks for gun purchases.
Instead of discussing sensible restrictions, instead each time there's a mass shooting in this country, instead we repeal our paltry existing restrictions. If we keep going like this, we'll never reduce these mass killings.
I'm not suggesting that a complete ban on AR-15s is justified, but we need to address the situation somehow. Shutting down the entire discussion is NOT in anyone's best interest (other than the gun dealers).
The problems are made much worse as a result of how its done.
If you will notice any laws or other regulations are always done in a panic mode. That causes more harm than good as has been proven by all the idiots who will yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or maybe yell "BOMB" at a concert. Everyone seems to panic and actually cause more deaths.
The problems are made much worse as a result of how its done.
The current argument is not to restrict who can purchase an AR-15, since the manufacturers would just make a few adjustments to get around the law, and instead limit who can buy (eliminate sales to watch-list subjects or those with criminal histories) large capacity weapons (anything with more than 4 or 10 bullets, depending on who you ask).
Again, cranking out laws because of public pressures produce bad laws. But in the current legal environment, no one's going to take any action unless there's some incredible pressure to act! :( It's almost as difficult as passing a Federal Budget!
What people are asking is to start a national conversation about responsible restrictions, like banning sales to those on Terrorism Watch Lists
There is zero transparency or due process to the terrorism watch lists, no way to appeal being placed on the list by mistake.
Without drastic reform to how these lists are compiled and maintained it is neither reasonable nor responsible to limit an enumerated constitutional right on the basis of someone being on those lists.
This is no longer a story discussion, and is outside the scope of this forum. I ask that those that want to continue the discussion take it somewhere else and stop taking up space here. Thank you
When we have the government saying that gun control is a homeland security issue I get nervous. Call it my suspicious nature but like a lot of citizens I don't trust our elected representatives. That's why trump and sanders have done so well. I dont blame the people voting because the two parties have taken over and will not relinquish the power willingly. Our main problem is that we continue voting for people that we would not trust to babysit our dogs much less our children.I have no major problems with gun laws that make sense if we combined it with laws that dealt with letting crazies own guns. And maybe, just maybe making mandatory sentences for gun crimes so that the judges wouldn't let criminals out early.
letting crazies
Are we talking legal definition or anyone who for whatever reason gets one of the hundreds of labels used by psychologists among other mental health professionals. Of course you have to understand their labels are mainly an educated guess.
Are we talking legal definition or anyone who for whatever reason gets one of the hundreds of labels used by psychologists among other mental health professionals. Of course you have to understand their labels are mainly an educated guess.
The definition currently being bandied about is "committed to a hospital by a judge for mental issues". That would eliminate anyone with depression or ADHD, but would include anyone with a history of abuse and/or criminal activity.
@D.S.
They've been broadcast reports of one woman who demanded to be let off a plane in order to pee (her plane was restricted from taking off until the toilets stopped working). The TSA gave her the third degree, refusing to allow her any leeway until she peed herself, and then they penalized her by putting her on the 'no fly list' for embarrassing them (refusing to cooperate). She's now been on the list for 6 years with no avenue to have the decision overturned by a judge.
I agree the watch list is a problem, but it's not as big a problem as having NO controls on who can purchase those weapons. Eventually, some judge will find the entire TSA incompetent and force them to overhaul how they process restrictions. But even if they do, there's no way to restore all the lives lost in the interim!
The definition currently being bandied about is "committed to a hospital by a judge for mental issues". That would eliminate anyone with depression or ADHD, but would include anyone with a history of abuse and/or criminal activity.
Maybe the reason I am against that kind of labeling, is I have personal experience with the ways it can be abused. Resulting in the loss of rights by individuals. All a psychologist or psychiatrist has to do is Swear to a judge that you are unable to manage your problems, thus making it dangerous for the prospective patient to live. Judge will automatically in most cases sign commitment orders with guess who in control. Many times the so-called experts will just add new labels when the ones currently applied don't fit the patient. Forget about making a note as to the ones which have proven not to fit the case. The labels over a period of time can be as huge as your catalyst stories per volume (happened to me).
Legal definition is fairly simple supposedly: "Can the person tell the difference between Right and Wrong at the time the act occurs?" Notice that doesn't cover the show the defense attorneys put on.
Legal definition is fairly simple supposedly: "Can the person tell the difference between Right and Wrong at the time the act occurs?" Notice that doesn't cover the show the defense attorneys put on.
I don't think (the proposed legislation) would count in your case, as it would (supposedly) be limited to 'dangerous to others' rather than either 'dangerous to themselves' or 'unable to care for themselves'.
@D.S.
Sorry, I think using the terror watch list as one of those controls would be the bigger problem because it sets the precedent that the government can restrict enumerated constitutional rights with no due process.
I agree, it's a problem. But, so far, the Judiciary isn't as hamstrung as the political legislature. It'll take time, but the courts will eventually throw the law out and force a more meaningful resolution, whereas if nothing continues to happen, we'll lose hundreds more and breed thousands of more terrorists.
Bad legislation is terrible, but no legislation is pointless. Why put the entire free world through this kind of election nonsense if nothing ever gets accomplished.
Normally I'd object to this 'pass it and it'll run until it doesn't' mentality, but right now, we've got a crisis that few have any desire to resolve, while 80% of gun owners say they don't object to the restrictions we're talking about.
I think I smell a new book idea? "Stupid Ideas 107: Planned Unconstitutionality!"
I agree, it's a problem. But, so far, the Judiciary isn't as hamstrung as the political legislature. It'll take time, but the courts will eventually throw the law out and force a more meaningful resolution
I'm not willing to trust the courts to do the right thing here. Federal district judges and the judges on many of the circuit courts make strained interpretations of existing SCOTUS 2A precedents to uphold questionable laws.
That said however, I found an article about the existing proposal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/16/heres-how-the-new-proposal-to-block-guns-to-terror-suspects-would-actually-work/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na
It's not based on the existing terrorism watch list, it's not automatic, the decision is made at the highest level of the DOJ and there is an appeals process.
I still think it's a dubious proposal in terms of both constitutionality and effectiveness, but if the article is accurate, the existing proposal is not "were not even going to discuss it" bad.
I agree the watch list is a problem, but it's not as big a problem as having NO controls on who can purchase those weapons.
Sorry, I think using the terror watch list as one of those controls would be the bigger problem because it sets the precedent that the government can restrict enumerated constitutional rights with no due process.
If you think the government won't try to expand that precedent beyond guns, you are a fool.
watch lists are useless, since the last 4 attacks were carried out by people that were on them to begin with. Orlando had family that knew he was a fucked crazy and did nothing. san bernadino had family that knew the feds knew about them also. boston marathon again the were known by the feds. if we wanted to find a better reason to vote for ANY person not from the democrat party it would be hard. the same could be said for most of the current republicans as well it seems. blame everyone that is killed by the gunman or the gun itself just don't blame the fucked wackadoo muslim that just killed them. for every gun sold LEGALLY in America 5-10 are sold illegally and 4x as many people are killed every year by blunt force trauma (baseball bats, hammers, rocks, or just falling on something hard)then guns.
This thread is hopelessly off-topic, but whatever. All threads drift.
Back to the original story. The story was getting progressively harder for me to enjoy. I abandoned it a few days ago when the author made a mistake on the speed of light by a factor of 1,000!
This thread is hopelessly off-topic, but whatever. All threads drift.
Speaking of unbelievable science-fiction, getting the current Congress to pass ANYTHING at all is utterly unbeliveable. I hate to say it, but virtually anything either Trump or Sanders tries to pass is unlikely to survive court challenges. The fear is if Trump pulls an Andrew Jackson: "If you object to my enforcement of the law, then the court can enforce their ruling themselves!" With no enforcement guidelines, that's always been a major flaw in the U.S. Constitutional Balance of Power.
if you ignore the facts and enjoy the fiction you might actually find it fun to read. you know read it like a democrat, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I really enjoyed how prolonged debut tied the stories together. Made good use of some very colorful characters.
This whole thing makes me think of the way they treated Viet Nam .the vc would set up a 50 cal in the midle o a village and gather all the people around the gun then open fire on the Americans .The U S troops could return fire and protect them self and get hell from the politisions , news and ect .OR try to retreat and maybe die in the process .how is this like what we have to day is simple .we having people up and down he latter blaming every thing except the truth on what is going on .
if only we just gave up our guns the terrorists would try to kill us. so says hillary I lie all the time Clinton.
if only we just gave up our guns the terrorists would try to kill us. so says hillary I lie all the time Clinton.
OK, we all know your position. Now, wasn't there a discussion about sci-fi stories in here somewhere (after I helped bury it)?
Now, wasn't there a discussion about sci-fi stories in here somewhere (after I helped bury it)?
IIRC, I was being criticized for my inability to ignore the really stupid mistakes over the real science in the story. It's not that hard to get the speed of light correct. I had managed to ignore the part about pushing sound faster than light through space...
if only we just gave up our guns the terrorists would try to kill us. so says hillary I lie all the time Clinton.
Funny part is guns are not the only thing which will kill if desired. I learned many different methods utilizing all types of things including but not limited to common household products. I learned those things just so I would have the knowledge available if I could find "I A Thomas" kindly retired early from the Atlanta Georgia P.D. after being caught in the act raping a young girl by her Mother.
Funny part is guns are not the only thing which will kill if desired.
Back in the late 1980s I was living in Meadow Bank in Sydney, Australia. On the same weekend a fellow started shooting up a shopping centre in Strathfield a guy in Meadowbank went crazy with a large knife stabbing people at random in the street and a party he gatecrashed. The knife stabber killed and wounded many more than the gunman, but it was the shooting that got all the media attention. That's the news people for you.
Its funny how the only professions I was ever given a chance at making a living. I had to refuse because of the answer to that little question: "Is it right or wrong?" One of the major operations at that time was interstate transport of "drugs", no street sales. Same group had other operations as well that I was also given a chance to join in on. Couldn't keep a Legal Job to save my life. But man did I have offers from the other side of the law. pity I had to turn those down. Maybe I should have gone that route instead of trying to stay legal.
Maybe I should have gone that route instead of trying to stay legal.
I once had an offer of a great job back in the mid 1990s. Average salary for someone my age then was around the 28K to 30K mark and I was on 50K, but was being offered USD$195K to work as a clerk with twelve weeks leave per year, on a 3 year contract. Didn't take it when I found out the perks included them supplying my very own body armour, combat helmet, the combat rifle and pistol of my choice with training in their use. No, it was NOT a combat job, it really was as a clerk at a works depot in the middle of the sand where the locals objected to having an International company building a major road through the area. The perks were to see you lived long enough to be useful when (note: when, not if) the depot you were at got attacked by the local rowdies. You worked 4 weeks and then got a week off at their facility on the French med. I didn't like the idea of dodging incoming rounds while doing paperwork.
edit to add: I forgot to mention a friend got offered USD250K as a truck driver on the same job, seems the drivers were more at risk. Also, the jobs were through the UN and were paid direct into Swiss bank accounts for you and tax free. Not sure about skirting the taxes, though.
Its funny in a way. I hold no secrets about not trusting cops or government in any form. But my own personal code of ethics is worse at times than any of the laws they might try and enforce. No excuses accepted from me if I break one of those rules. The drug part definitely broke my personal rules, since I had already seen the potential damage done by even legal drug usage.