Puma Rifles (who mostly import firearms and put their name on them, and are distributed by Legacy Sports Int'l.) also makes a replica, which they call "Bounty Hunter". unlike most of Puma's stuff, it's actually made in the Chiappa USA factory and not imported from their Italian factory (although the price reflects that: MSRP is $1372!) it's available in .45LC, .44/40 and .44Mag.

http://www.legacysports.com/products/puma_BH-M87.html

given that it's designed to fire offhand and not from the shoulder, i don't know that the .44Mag version would be very pleasant to shoot!

given Rossi's occasionally spotty quality over the years, i'd much rather go with the Puma...but that Henry .22 looks like it would probably be the most fun!

@number1guy : hah! that's exactly how i learned! a long time ago, i worked customer service at a grocery store. when we'd get returns, they'd usually be put in the "Reclamations" area, where they'd be sent back to the manufacturer for a replacement or refund to the store. but some products were so cheap (a lot of the store-branded merch), they were just thrown away or recycled.

so one evening this lady came in with one of our store-branded disposable cameras, which didn't go to Reclamations. i replaced it for her, and she went on her way. this was an especially slow night, so i grabbed a screwdriver out of our junk drawer and began prying the plastic casing of the camera apart. well, the screwdiver slipped and jammed itself way into the camera, and touched both leads of the flash capacitor. i got a nasty jolt, i must've jumped three feet in the air, and threw the camera across my little customer service booth!

in hindsight it was probably pretty funny to see, and didn't hurt THAT much, although i could feel a small electrical burn under my skin for the next day or so.

now i'm not trying to play Devil's advocate, but the capacitors used in disposable cameras generally aren't that harmful (notice i said "probably"...meaning if you're a healthy adult without a heart condition or something). remember, it's not volts that kill, it's amperage, and considering disposable cameras usually just have a couple AA batteries in them, they don't have nearly enough amperage to really injure someone. IIRC, a AA battery put out around 2500mA (2.5 amps), and that's only if they're brand-new. certainly not enough to be lethal, and disposable cameras lack the kind of circuitry needed to boost that level up to something that would land someone in the hospital (let alone kill them).

now i'm not saying people should randomly go around shocking people with charged capacitors, especially if you have no knowledge of how electricity works or how it could effect the person you're playing a prank on. but as stupid as this home-made "taser" is, it's hardly lethal (in fact, it won't even do what real tasers do, which is incapacitate someone for a short period...it'll most likely just scare someone and cause them to chase you around the room for being a dick).

it's refreshing to see so many people who are actually aware of WHY DDT was banned, and that it wasn't actually the scourge that so many people were led to believe it to be (under mostly false and factless claims).

the fact of the matter is that almost ANY pesticide can cause health issues, but it depends on how it's used. scientifically speaking, there should've been no reason that DDT was banned, and there are plenty of pesticides still readily available at Home Depot that are just as dangerous, if not moreso. take a look at Sevin (carbaryl): it's available in pretty much every garden shop in the US. but it's also directly related to one of the worst industrial accidents in world history (the Bhopal Disaster) and it's STILL causing problems 25 years later.

sure, if you're going to blanket-spray urban areas on a constant basis with any pesticide, there's a huge risk of health problems...which is why we don't do things like that. but if you're spraying the perimeter of your home while wearing rubber gloves and a face mask, the health risks are pretty minimal. certainly in places like Africa, the benefits FAR outweigh the very slight potential health risks as long as the product is used carefully and responsibly.

the World Health Organization considers DDT to be extremely important, but more and more countries are banning it (and again, with a huge lack of truthful data). and like others have said, there is has been a resurgence of malaria-carrying mosquitoes over the past several years, and now they're becoming resistant to DDT (it's kinda like using an antibiotic: unless you use ALL of it and take it exactly like your supposed to, there's a good chance that it won't work anymore in the future. i learned this first-hand, and amoxycillan doesn't work on me anymore).

i also fully believe that the ban on DDT is the primary reason that the bedbug population has exploded, and trust me, those things are almost impossible to get rid of! and now they're finding bedbugs that are extremely resistant to most other pesticides as well. luckily they're not considered disease vectors, but they say that could change too.

the article about fire breathing is slightly incorrect in a few spots. i was a professional fire breather for several years, although i rarely do it anymore due to the health risks.

as far as fuel goes, i don't know any professional who's dumb enough to use naptha/Coleman fuel/ etc. the flash point is far too low, which makes it extremely dangerous. there is also a MUCH higher risk of blowback, and most of the video footage of people experiencing blowback are using naptha (or even worse, some kind of alcohol).

on the other hand, the proper fuel (liquid paraffin) has an extremely low risk of blowback, and only ignites if it's aerosolized, or soaked into something like a wick. dropping a match into a puddle of it will not ignite it, and big globs of it certainly DON'T remain on fire when they land on the ground. this is one of the reasons it's the preferred fuel (and i don't consider this to be giving away a trade secret, since it takes about three seconds to find it on Google anyway). however, the article is a bit confusing: liquid paraffin IS lamp oil, but lamp oil isn't always liquid paraffin. there are certain grades of "lamp oil" that are 99% pure, and then there are cheaper lamp oils, such as the colored ones commonly available, that have all sorts of other stuff mixed in. these can make you very sick if swallowed, as well as cause kidney damage. "pure grade" oils are safer if small amounts are occasionally swallowed, although they can certainly cause problems of their own.

like i said, i don't perform fire breathing anymore. i did it for several years without major incident, but i kinda figured i'd tempted fate long enough. the thought of contracting chemical pneumonia (which can turn fatal real fast) is what made me finally stop. Pele's story is a good example of what i consider to be one of the biggest dangers with fire breathing. i did get burned a couple of times, but luckily they were mostly just singed hair and feeling like i had a minor sunburn (as well as a bruised ego). but it's scary to see a huge fireball coming straight at you when the wind suddenly shifts. you don't really have time to react. i also got fuel in my eye once, and my vision was blurry for about an hour; it's hard to rinse foreign substances out of your eye with water when that substance is oil.

i've only been to Vegas once, but i think you overspent a bit. when me and my (now ex) went, we spent 10 days in Vegas and spent maybe $500 and were very comfortable. here's how:

you're right, casinos want to get the most money out of you as they can. so don't stay at casinos (or at least, don't stay on the strip unless you pre-pay for your hotel room!) i should also add that we drove (it was ten years ago, gas was like $1.15 a gallon), and there are probably things that have changed, but this should still help for the next time you go:

we stayed off the strip for all but the last two nights we were in Vegas. Fremont Street, which is kinda like the "old" strip, has awesome deals on rooms. we stayed for a few nights at the Las Vegas Club, which is an old-school casino (it's been there for a LONG time). the rooms were VERY clean, great service, and we paid $25 a night for a room with a king-size bed. the thing is, most casinos off the strip aren't really "themed"...but they're WAY cheaper and just as clean and hospitable (they still want you to stay and gamble, after all!) the last two nights we were in Vegas, we stayed at the Luxor because we wanted to stay in the cool slanty pyramid rooms: we booked and paid ahead, so the room was only about $75 a night for two nights.

also, avoid paying for amenities: hotels in Vegas are used to comping people (ie, giving them a ton of cool free stuff), so many times just asking about something like their spa will get you free admission. it's not abnormal to ask about this in Vegas, so don't feel like a cheap-ass to ask. we got comped two $100 spa treatments just by asking where the spa was at Luxor. and look in that Vegas coupon-book-thing everyone gets when they get to Vegas, it's got some awesome deals! we got two steak-and-lobster dinners for $8 each, with the coupon. seriously, everyone in Vegas expects everyone else to be a cheapskate, so take advantage!!!!

also, if you can hold out, go to dinner later: we'd wake up late (around noon) and wouldn't end up hitting the dinner buffets until around 11pm, at which time it was only $12 a person. most of the buffets actually have pretty good food (the casinos are billion-dollar-a-year businesses and they know that food puts asses in seats. seriously even though it's a buffet, that food is NOT the bottom-of-the-barrel stuff and quite often is very good quality. $100,000 per buffet is nothing to a casino that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year!) but other than buffets or coupon deals, try NOT to eat at the hotels, because they'll screw you. and try not to eat on the strip: even McDonald's will overcharge you unless you go a few miles off of the Strip.

also, we learned a trick: sit at the nickel slot machines and get free drinks, and be nice to the waitstaff! the waitresses work their asses off for mostly tips, and if you treat them well (good tips but mostly just BE NICE!) they will treat you well! we would sit at nickel slot machines, because you don't really LOSE money, even though you never really win anything. but the waitstaff will bring you free drinks, and it's usually good liquor. we would generally tip the waitress $2 for every drink because it was top-shelf booze, and that tip goes right into her pocket because we weren't actually paying for the drink. our waitress at Paris ended up bringing us free sandwiches, cigarettes, and all sorts of other consumables because we treated her well (and she deserved it!) i mean, if you're not actually paying for what you eat or drink, you can afford to give a dollar or two to the waitstaff for their work!

yes, Vegas is designed in a very specific way. but there are plenty of free or low-cost options to get around. there are free monorails that go between many of the hotels and i'm kinda surprised that you didn't mention them. also, the Strip really isn't that long (two or three miles maybe?) Vegas is kinda like New York, you've got to find some people to share a cab with: if your destination is half a block from theirs, just figure out who's is closer and all get out there. i think the most we ever paid, per person, for a cab ride was about $3. and we were staying on Fremont Street, which is a few miles from the strip! i will say though, that a comfortable pair of shoes goes a long way in Vegas! also i should mention that we drove to Vegas from Denver (gas was only about $1.25 at the time), and we found out that you can park in any of the casinos parking garages for free and then walk, which is what we did. we'd just pick a parking garage (i think it was the Bellagio because it was fairly central on the strip) and then just walk or use the monorails most of the time.

oh, and be wary of shops within a couple blocks of the strip...they'll overcharge you for all sorts of stuff. i thought it was cool that i could go to a liquor store at 2am and buy a 250ml of Stoli, except that it cost me $18! (here in Denver, it would cost me under $10).

i know some of these are viral marketing (ie, fake) but some are not. a lot of the bicycle footage is of Danny MacAskill, who is an amazing dirtjump/freeride/trials rider from Scotland (seriously, just type his name into Youtube and watch the video! i've seen him in person and if i could put into words how amazing he is, i'd probably get banned just for the amount of f-bombs i'd have to use to describe his riding!)

the human body is an amazing piece of machinery!

that iPhono flip looks pretty sweet...except for the fact that it's completely missing the "T" and "Y" keys! the new QWERU keyboard layout looks like a real time saver, what with less letters to have to worry about!

electric option?! nothing says "kitchen safety" like three electric heating coils mere inches away from your sink!

the term "hermaphrodite" is considered derogatory. the correct term is "intersex", because there has never been a proven true case of "hermaphrodism" in a person (someone who has all functioning sex organs of both sexes.)

@Ted: there are a lot of people with an intersex condition that have either functioning ovaries or testes. many intersex conditions are external, with the internal bits functioning along what most people consider "normal", either male or female. every person is unique though, and sterility is quite common (although not a given.) there has never really been a definite case of "hermaphrodism" in humans, where the person has fully functioning sex organs of both male and female. it's usually somewhere in between.

as an aside, i think most people would probably be really surprised at just how common intersex conditions are. the whole "XX" and "XY" chromosome thing is isn't very accurate, since there is a WHOLE lot of in-betweens!

nuclear power is extremely safe. the biggest problem with Chernobyl is the way it was handled by the plant staff and the Soviet government. the firefighters that arrived weren't even told it was a reactor meltdown, and went in without proper equipment. in an attempt to provide some sort of coverup, the nearby towns weren't even notified or evacuated until a full 24 hours later, when radiation sensors in Sweden (over 1000 miles way) went off. the USSR tried to cover up the whole thing at first, and endangered the lives of tens of thousands of people. not only that, but the tests being performed that led up to the meltdown were known to be unsafe and weren't even supposed to happen.

as for Three Mile Island, there have never been any deaths or sickness in or around the plant that have ever been attributable to the partial meltdown. there are several independent studies that support this. one of the reasons the TMI incident was such a big deal is because the movie "The China Syndrome" had just come out and people were freaked out by it. the fact of the matter is that The China Syndrome is a Hollywood movie and as such, contains a lot of fictional stuff to make it more entertaining. and keep in mind that Three Mile Island has been operating safely (save one VERY minor incident in the 90's i believe) ever since.

the newer version of nuclear power (Very High Temperature Reactor) are super-efficient and super-safe. in fact, the plants won't look anything like the stereotypical Simpsons-styled reactors. because of their high level of safety and the way they operate, which is MUCH different than the older style, they don't require the large reinforced concrete towers. with the newer designs, a meltdown is virtually impossible. they also have completely clean emissions and spent fuel isn't a problem like it is with the older reactors. in fact, here in Colorado, we used to have one at Fort St. Vrain, although it was converted to conventional power in the 90's mostly due to budget problems and internal company problems with the company that ran it at the time. my uncle worked their for many years when it was nuclear, but retired shortly before it was converted (i think it runs natural gas now.)

the main problem with the newest VHTR type reactors is cost. they're more expensive to build and maintain initially, and a lot of city and state governments want to build cheaper natural gas, coal and hydro plants, despite the proven track record of VHTR and the fact that ultimately the end up being far more cost effective in the long run. but dozens have been operating in Europe and Asia for decades with no problems. these aren't your daddy's nuclear reactors! (and that's a good thing!)

don't let the past issues, outdated technology and unfounded fears cloud your judgement before at least reading up on the current state of nuclear power, which has changed dramatically over the past 30 years or so.

CYBret: actually, you can dry silica out in the oven and it will "reactivate" it. i can't remember the exact temps or time, but IIRC, it's something like 200 degrees F for about 3 hours. you can reuse it pretty much indefinitely. just make sure you take it out of the little plastic baggie first (the baggie will melt.) once it's "dehydrated" again, you can put it in a ziploc bag that has some holes poked in it and use it again.

Sininen: you're kind of right about silica being dangerous to breathe BUT....that only applies to silica that is super-fine (ie, dust-size.) the silica packets in food and clothing contain nuggets that are far too large to inhale (it's usually almost gravel-sized) and are perfectly safe, aside from any chemical additives (as the article states.) silica by itself is perfectly safe as long as you're not inhaling a dust version of it. even if you somehow manage to eat some of those "nuggets" of silica, the worst that's going to happen is MAYBE an upset stomach if you eat enough of them (although most likely they'll just pass through your body and you'll never know and be no worse for wear.) and as far as silica causing "burns" on the skin?!?! i don't know where you got that from, but that's completely false. silica is basically just sand, pure and simple.

i'll admit that i find a lot of stuff in the Neatoshop kinda "meh", but I NEED THIS!!!! who cares if the cup is clear or not? you'll have a FRIGGIN' SHARK FIN in your tea!!!!

i think Twizzlers taste far better than Red Vines, at least as far as red ropey candy goes. Red Vines are just...gross; they've got no real particular "flavor" to speak of, and they're dry and mealy. i would imagine that adding sugar to plastic would taste about the same. having said that, i'm a black licorice girl (i'm the person that will go through the easter candy and steal all the black jelly beans!)

oddly enough, my 80-year-old grandfather and i just had this debate last week, and he loves Red Vines (grew up on them) but i think Twizzlers taste much better (according to him, they taste too much like raspberries or cherries.) interestingly, we both agreed that neither Twizzlers or Red Vines taste nearly good enough to be worth $4.50 a box at the movies. (incidentally, i call Milk Duds "filling-pullers", after a rather painful incident that happened to me about fifteen years ago. Dots fall under the same category and i'm convinced both were invented by dentists to get extra work!;)

i suppose i'll state what everyone else is thinking in that i always brought/bring my own snacks to the movies. having worked in a theater when i was about 16 and observing the sanitary conditions (or lack thereof), i don't trust ANYTHING that doesn't come in a box. i can honestly say that fast food restaurants are about 10 times more sanitary than movie theaters. also FYI, movie candy boxes actually have LESS candy in the package than what you'd buy everywhere else! srsly, compare the printed weights on a comparable-sized package from the grocery store to the one you buy in a movie theater; movie candy boxes can have up to 50% LESS candy by weight than what you'd buy at the grocery store, yet the markup in the theater is like 400%!

Thomas Edison's dialup modem (that he "borrowed" from Nikola Tesla.)

I Blame Hipsters T-Shirt, black, ladies M.

i'm not anti-milk (or meat or anything of the sort), although i do believe that once humans hit adulthood, dairy has very little nutritional value. there are several studies that show adults absorb very little of the vitamins in dairy, and that something like 80% of the world's adult population is lactose-intolerant to some degree (i fall into that category, especially with milk and ice cream, although i'm fine with most cheeses and yogurt.)

i drink lactose-free milk pretty regularly because it tastes good, and i still loves me some chocolate milk. but soy milk doesn't sit well in my stomach and cooking with it usually makes the food taste "off". if i were to drink 3 full glasses of regular milk a day, though, i'd be in a perpetual state of stomach cramps and explosive diarrhea, so something tells me it's not particularly beneficial to my health. almond and rice milk both taste good, but they don't taste like real milk and are pretty limited when it comes to cooking with them.

i don't think drinking milk is any more "bizarre" than mashing grains, fermenting them and then turning them into beer, vodka or bourbon. or soaking a paper baggie with dried plant leaves in hot water to make tea. or how about injecting water with CO2, pumping it full of sugar and carmel coloring and drinking it out of an aluminum can? that seems far stranger to me than drinking milk! by the good Doctor's assertation, it seems like he thinks we should all be drinking water and nothing else (although i have a strong suspicion he drinks beverages other than water.) hell, some culture regularly drink the blood of the animals they slaughter for food! he needs to be reminded that one culture's "bizarre" is another culture's "perfectly normal" and to stop pushing his own personal beliefs as science.