Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1194036)

What happened?

Originally Posted by jimbuna (Post 1192715)

Is the grub (steaks and submarines) really that good in Finland!! :o

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring (Post 1194135)

Well we've got reindeer stew if you're into that.

http://frozenreindeer.com/2007/05/21...w-with-photos/

And "mämmi" (a kind of malt pudding).

http://www.ahousecallednut.com/a_hou...ng-recipe.html

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1193235)

In any program, government or commercial, there will always be people trying (and succeeding) to scam the system. That should not be a reflection on the system but on the criminal.

The question is: What percentage of people taking part in the program are "good people" and what percentage are "bad people"?

If a government/commercial program has 99.99% of the participants playing by the rules and 0.01% scamming the system, oh well, no need to cancel the entire program.

Even if it is 99% vs 1%. Shoot, lets really go wild 90% good vs 10% scumbags, what difference does it make? Especially if it will cost more to monitor the system to catch the few scumbags and it would cost to let them in. The program is helping 90% of the good people. Yeah it sucks that 10% are scumbags scamming the system but in any system there will always be scumbags scamming the system.

The goal should be to take reasonable precautions that are economically sound to keep the number of scumbags as low as practical. The ones that slither through, let em. Concentrate on helping the vast majority of good people that need work.

Any system that excludes 100% of the scumbags guaranteed will also be allowing well deserving good people slip through the cracks.

My opinion: It is worth allowing a few scumbags to scam the system in order to ensure that we help all the good people we can. Cost of doing good work.

YMMV