How on Earth does someone discover that? What possible series of events or hypotheses would lead someone to perform such an experiment?
The guy had studied animal husbandry and he told my co-workers and me that if you inserted a foreign object (about the size of a quarter) up into the reproductive area of a hen at _just the right time_, the hen would often lay an egg with the foreign object trapped inside.[1]
Our business plan:
* get a bunch of hens
* have guys mail $500 + engagement rings to us.
* insert engagement ring into hen
* ship back ring-encased egg to the dudes.
* dudes ask girlfriends to cook an omelette...
I still wonder how anyone figured that out.
[1] There might have been surgery involved. Can't remember.
So it was clear that a foreign object planted at the right place and right time could induce the animal to form an egg around it. I'm just not sure if this is reliable enough to create a business around the idea.
Besides, slightly modified kinder eggs are sold in the US.
Also known as: "quite logical and sensible comparison everywhere else in the world".
>but the story itself is nonsense. The US didn’t specifically ban them, they simply fall under a (sensible) pre-existing law and no one gives enough of a crap to change it.
Which doesn't change the essence of the story, which is not that the Kinder eggs where purposefully banned themselves, but simply that Kinder eggs are banned (and in general, that they'd ban something like Kinder eggs and co).
US version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Joy
"Kinder Surprise eggs are legal in Canada and Mexico, but are illegal to import into the US. In January 2011, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) threatened a Manitoba resident with a $300 (Canadian dollars) fine for carrying one egg across the US border into Minnesota.[43] In June 2012, CBP held two Seattle men for two and a half hours after discovering six Kinder Surprise eggs in their car upon returning to the US from a trip to Vancouver. According to one of the men detained, a border guard quoted the potential fine as US $2,500 per egg.[44]"
Not putting inedible stuff in candy does make sense to me in the general case.
But frankly, so does basic gun control so what the fuck do I know.
I would also like to add I am of the personal view gun control is very much so unconstitutional. But I also don't think that wanting some basic gun control is a wrong thing. All that contradiction means is that we need to have a very careful discussion before drafting a very careful amendment.
It's pretty easy to permit the right to bare arms while still preventing the sale to anybody off the street. It won't fix everything, but it gets us a hell of the way there.
Being worried about a slippery slope is a concern, that is why I said careful amendment.
and also that hCG induces ovulation in frogs.
If injecting frogs with urine is cheaper than other methods of detecting signaling horomones.. well, there ya go.
Unrelated, but as for the origin of the latin term "vacca", it may come from vedic, with the meaning of "the animal that moos"
Edit: made my answer more to the point
Just mentioning this for other people who like looking up words. And yes it's obvious... unless you're one of those people who sometimes overthinks search terms.
the author actually followed some alchemical recipes which were thought to be nonsense. yet under the right conditions (using iron implements, bad control of temperatures, impure materials) they produced results that must have seemed miraculous at the time — fluorescent materials, elaborate crystalline structures, and so on.
openasocket says>"How on Earth does someone discover that? What possible series of events or hypotheses would lead someone to perform such an experiment?
Whoa! No one said that anyone "discovered that", or that "such an experiment" was performed. The article merely said that someone speculated that possibility. To further speculate on hearsay of mere speculation is not wise.