Slashdot Mirror

WHAM-O Backyard Water Slides Are Dangerous For Adults And Teenagers

About as surprised as the agency that was voted for by congress and given funds by congress as a response to the loan practices that caused the housing bubble to collapse in 2008, has no direction or head, and is as powerless as ever.

You voted for republicans? You got your wish. Fuck you for buying our stuff, too bad if it has poison in it, affects your health long term, or we are dumping in your favorite river. Fuck you if what we say is different from what we do. Fuck you, because buyer beware is the Republican belief.

http://www.cpsc.gov/
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/
None of which do shit because the laws are such that they are terrible.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests $107,000,000 for fiscal year 2010

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2010plan.pdf

and still they miss this

Maybe if they really DID have a two trillion dollar budget, they could afford to test every single object ever sold anywhere in the US.

Until then, buy yourself a $30k x-ray gun and trust nobody.

You invalidated your own statement and didn't even know it. Here, let me show you the utility of basic reading comprehension.

The point was, the federal budget is around $2 trillion. In case you find that confusing, this means more than just the one agency called the CPSC. See how the GP never once claimed that the CPSC alone gets that $2 trillion all to itself? Good, so now you realize you aren't actually contradicting the GP and certainly aren't pointing out anything useful. You should have known that since the CPSC's $107 million budget that you mentioned yourself is less than $2 trillion. That should have been your cue to notice that maybe you misunderstood the GP and are about to make a completely redundant post. But that'd be far too sensical.

The point the GP was making, my dear Special Education student, was that CPSC is such a low priority for the feds that it only receives a small share of that total $2 trillion budget. For comparison, the trillion dollars given to bail out banks is almost 9,346 times more money than what we spend towards making sure people don't get poisoned by defective products. Therefore, public safety is no longer the number one concern of our government. THAT was the point.

Most voters think like you do. Therefore we have the government we know today. See the connection?

Why?

Is McDonalds going to hire a hit man?

Why would the tipster contact an elected official rather than the CPSC directly? After all, they have a web page just for this process: http://www.cpsc.gov/talk.html

Was there some political motivation in going thru an elected official? Is this an insider?, a Competitor? Does it matter?

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests $107,000,000
for fiscal year 2010

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2010plan.pdf

and still they miss this

Maybe if they really DID have a two trillion dollar budget, they could afford to test every single object ever sold anywhere in the US.

Until then, buy yourself a $30k x-ray gun and trust nobody.

Ah, you're that person companies have to write stupid shit like: "Don't get in the bath with this laptop", for indemnity, and because you're retarded.

Remember what home power tools were like before GFI and double-insulation?

How easy it was to set yourself up for a severe electric shock?

Fast-forward to 2010 and you will see maybe 20 or 30 electrocution deaths a year. Use a Ground-Fault Circuit-interrupter With Every Power Tool

It is always easier to re-design the machine than the user.

This website gets posted front page again ?

The content is from: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10103.html

lame!

Is that a UL emblem I see circled on one of the 200,000 stoves being recalled due to fire hazard?

I think we can all agree that given the number of iPhones/iPods that are out there, somewhere, some moron said "Hey y'all, watch this!" before he poured gasoline on the phone and lit it on fire... Yes, we can agree on THAT as an "External Force."

However, in this instance, it seems that Apple is more than happy to classify these "External Forces" as normal phone usage! What's that? You talked on the phone for more than an hour? We are sorry, Apple cannot be held responsible for these external forces which are beyond our control.

"But, it's a phone!" you'll reply. What's that, you turned the device on? We are sorry, Apple cannot be held responsible for these external forces beyond our control.

Clearly, I am being sarcastic, but in all honesty, Apple could admit to some culpability in this instance... As other posters have mentioned, it's not like Apple was not already involved in a Recall of Batteries Used in Previous iBook and PowerBook Computers Due To Fire Hazard

Did I stress the part about FIRE HAZARD enough there?

Maybe in some regards, but the electrocuting ATM isn't a great example.

Oh, I dunno, it's not like there hasn't been precedent for companies systematically ignoring lethal electrocution hazards in their work.

There exist numerous product safety laws that could affect the criminal culpability of decision makers in a company who refuse to address serious known safety concerns in their products.

As of 2008, with the passing of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, the criminal penalty for "knowing, willful violation" is 5 years instead of only 1 year per the original 1972 Comsumer Product Safety Act. So yeah, the risk of imprisonment is something company officers have to consider, outside of a simple cost/benefit analysis. But realistically, if you play the game right, you may be able to stonewall and obfuscate well enough to make "willful, knowing" violation unprovable, taking that risk off the table. After that, consumer protection penalties are just another number in the "cost" side of the equation, with a "probability of occurrence" value that gets artificially deflated (because that stuff never happens to us).

140 is lukewarm. i take baths in water hotter than that.

Unless your baths are less than six seconds long, no you don't.

Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds. Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water or with a thirty second exposure to 130 degree water.

Tax law is an excellent way to go after the RIAA in response to these kinds of cases. Some RIAA activities could fall into the category of racketeering. They have certainly committed violations of anti-trust laws. (price fixing...) I can even imagine cases where an individual is hurt on a shattered legally purchased CD, forcing the RIAA to decide whether the consumer buys the content (in which case, fair use laws apply), or whether the consumer purchased the media (in which case the record companies should be liable for damages caused by defective, dangerous products.) If the RIAA says, 'we own both' then consumers should be able to sue upwards of $2 million for damages arising from the content as well as any possibility the media itself is unsafe. Are they willing to take back millions of CDs worth trillions of dollars (using their math) if it is found, for example, that the aluminum and plasticizers in the CDs are found to be hazardous to human health? This sounds far fetched, but anyone who understands CPSIA, the typical badger-brained congressional response to the issue of chemicals in imported children's toys, this may be a possibility. From the CPSIA FAQ:

Does the new requirement for total lead on children's products apply to children's books, cassettes and CD's, printed game boards, posters and other printed goods used for children's education?
In general, yes. CPSIA defines children's products as those products intended primarily for use by children 12 and under.

And Tesla is near-unique in using laptop cells rather than the "automotive" li-ions which use different chemistries and don't have the fire risk.

Laptop batteries do catch on fire.

Falcon

Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want...

Yeah! Bring back Lawn Darts!

god forbid kids toys reflect real-world dangers.

If your kid is incapable of hurting himself with the toys he owns, he will not learn proper self-restraint.

Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want...

Yeah! Bring back Lawn Darts!

Anyone with a smattering of economics education would understand that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling.

But the assertation was not that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling. The claim was that government was not involved in them.

1) if you pitch your tent, you are trespassing. Do you want to do away with private property?

Property is defined by government force - if (and only if) you can get the state to protect your right to it, you own it. And this is an initial use of force; when I lay down on that golf course to take a nap, I'm not the one using force, the cops who drag me away are.

If one calls for "getting the government out of the economy" or for "no initial use of force", one is calling for the abolition of private property. Do you want to do away with private property? Or, are you willing to have the government initiate the use of force in order to enforce property rights?

Properly understood, property rights are not primary; they are a means of securing other rights. With no private property, no private choices are possible. On the other hand, when control of property is concentrated, then those without property cannot make private choices. Some degree of democratic control of certain types of property is needed to maximize the choices, the freedoms, of all.

The swoosh is a copyrighted trademark

You are speaking nonsense. A copyright and a trademark are completely different things. Both are artificial government creations, so the government is definitely involved there.

If you doubt a free and unregulated market in fishing tackle, please visit www.cabelas.com, www.llbean.comand report back on the limited offerings, fixed prices, and government control of the offerings.

I've already given you a citation of one state's regulation of fishing tackle.

The CPSC has issued recalls on fishing poles and worm probes. There is definitely government involvement in the market for fishing gear.

Your claim that the lack of limited offerings and fixed prices implies no regulation, rests on incorrect assumptions about the results of government intervention.

I fish with 8 to 16 ounce lead sinkers here in Washington.

Please stop polluting the environment we all share.

Women's clothing? You can even make this argument with a straight face? You need to increase your meds dosage.

Ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that the government interventions of copyright and trademark play a huge role in the fashion industry.

Anyone with a smattering of economics education would understand that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling.

But the assertation was not that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling. The claim was that government was not involved in them.

1) if you pitch your tent, you are trespassing. Do you want to do away with private property?

Property is defined by government force - if (and only if) you can get the state to protect your right to it, you own it. And this is an initial use of force; when I lay down on that golf course to take a nap, I'm not the one using force, the cops who drag me away are.

If one calls for "getting the government out of the economy" or for "no initial use of force", one is calling for the abolition of private property. Do you want to do away with private property? Or, are you willing to have the government initiate the use of force in order to enforce property rights?

Properly understood, property rights are not primary; they are a means of securing other rights. With no private property, no private choices are possible. On the other hand, when control of property is concentrated, then those without property cannot make private choices. Some degree of democratic control of certain types of property is needed to maximize the choices, the freedoms, of all.

The swoosh is a copyrighted trademark

You are speaking nonsense. A copyright and a trademark are completely different things. Both are artificial government creations, so the government is definitely involved there.

If you doubt a free and unregulated market in fishing tackle, please visit www.cabelas.com, www.llbean.comand report back on the limited offerings, fixed prices, and government control of the offerings.

I've already given you a citation of one state's regulation of fishing tackle.

The CPSC has issued recalls on fishing poles and worm probes. There is definitely government involvement in the market for fishing gear.

Your claim that the lack of limited offerings and fixed prices implies no regulation, rests on incorrect assumptions about the results of government intervention.

I fish with 8 to 16 ounce lead sinkers here in Washington.

Please stop polluting the environment we all share.

Women's clothing? You can even make this argument with a straight face? You need to increase your meds dosage.

Ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that the government interventions of copyright and trademark play a huge role in the fashion industry.

[an unregulated market where the government doesn't have its hands in it in some way]...

Golf courses. Sporting goods. Fishing tackle. Women's clothing.

What, the government's not involved in golf courses? Who drags me away if I want to set my tent up on the green at the 12th hole? All land claims rest on government issued deeds.

What, the government's not involved in sporting goods? So I can put a swoosh logo on my new line of baseball bats and not be dragged into court, right? And that lawn darts ban was just a dream?

What, the government's not involved in fishing tackle? So I can drop all the lead sinkers I want into ponds and rivers and poison wildlife?

What, the government's not involved in women's clothing? So I have no worry of being sued for putting decorations on a purse similar to someone else's?

In the U.S., consumer fireworks are regulated - and legal purchases in "incredible amounts" is difficult and expensive.

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, prohibits the sale of the most dangerous types of fireworks to consumers. These banned fireworks include large reloadable mortar shells, cherry bombs, aerial bombs, M-80 salutes and larger firecrackers containing more than two grains of powder. Also banned are mail-order kits designed to build these fireworks.

In a regulation that went into effect December 6, 1976, the CPSC lowered the permissible charge in firecrackers to no more than 50 milligrams of powder. In addition, these amended regulations provide performance specifications for fireworks other than firecrackers intended for consumer use, including a requirement that fuses burn at least 3 seconds, but no longer than 9 seconds. All fireworks must carry a warning label describing necessary safety precautions and instructions for safe use.

The Commission has issued a performance requirement to reduce the risk of potentially dangerous tip-over of large multiple tube mine and shell devices. Tip-over of these devices has resulted in two fatalities. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Fireworks Fact Sheet

The fact sheet summarizes state regulations as of June 1, 2008.

If you want to do chemistry, why not do not do within the framework of a chemistry club - associated, perhaps, with a local high school or community college?

This is - after all - how many dangerous sports and recreational activities have been organized for a century and more.

You want to work with antique sporting arms?

Join a black powder gun club. You'll learn more and learn it more quickly - while still keeping your eyebrows intact and all ten fingers.

The CPSC notice page is here, and it makes no mention of Lenovo or Acer.

Mod parent up. Neither Lenovo or Acer are mentioned in the official recall notice: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09035.html

The UL without the backing of government regulators is useless. Their certifications are nice but there are classes of electrical devices sold today with impunity that are not physically able to be certified because they are knowingly built outside UL standards. The fact is that consumers are not paying attention to UL certification. And that is when the manufacturer doesn't just place counterfeit UL markings on the equipment.

Any statements that private certifications like UL can take the place of regulatory agencies is total nonsense.

Without something like the CPSC to back up UL we would be flooded with dangerous electrical equipment and have no idea what is real and what is not.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07185.html

Why do these terrorists (people who employ "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" - see wikipedia article on Terrorism) still abuse the term piracy? Neither the United Nations, nor the International Maritime Bureau define piracy as the downloading of files (see wikipedia article on Piracy).

The legality/illegality aside, the way they are handling physical piracy sure makes me confident they'll succeed in removing internet "piracy" in no time (here, here, here and here - I bet you didn't even hear that is a problem in other businesses, maybe with the exception of fashion and software).

Here's something to think about, dear G8. All of these products being copied have artificially high prices. Could it be that those prices should be adjusted down to make it non-profitable to copy them instead of using lots of taxpayers' money (who do you think will fund these new action programs against "piracy"? You thought it was the businesses involved? Wrong!) to fight an uphill battle (War On Drugs anyone?).

Smart move; they'd set your papers on fire.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011.html

Are they a fire hazard?

Some light bulbs have design flaws that cause them to be a fire hazard. As a matter of economics, if a light bulb will save me $100 in electricity over its lifetime, but has a 0.1% chance of burning down my $400,000 house, it's not going to save me any money.

"imagine if the battery somehow breaks starting to leak acid all over the guy's skin."

Or worse yet, imagine if the batteries were made by Sony and the battery bursts into flame during combat. Bad news...

Interestingly enough you're sort of (plumb?) wrong on both counts...

The problem with lead paint was twofold. Yes, children did in fact eat paint chips. However, the most common source of lead poisoning was breathing dust around the house associated with the paint.

Here's a link talking about it.

You have to admit, red spaceships are going to be pretty cool.

Sure but how will they handle the recall when the Moon People find out there is lead in the red paint?

Companies only care about their bottom line. Brand identity and other priorities are all directly related to their profitability and thus everything comes down to the bottom line.

Looking at an extreme example such as our children's welfare, the USCPSC (http://www.cpsc.gov/) deals with product safety but does have a focus on children. If it wasn't for this commission the toy industry would be in far worse shape with respect to safety than it already is. Mattel isn't the only company using cheap Chinese labor with little to no QA to keep their profit margins up. They, too, have a team of actuarial dorks showing them how their bottom line is dramatically improved using this model and risking the occasional big hit (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07257 .html.) The USCPSC keeps them in check to ensure even cost-prohibitive measures are taken when it comes to protecting consumers. Then again, we are talking about injury, death and mitigating a $700 billion/year loss in the US attributed to defective products so I do recongnize it's an extreme example. However, it illustrates that even when the stakes are high companies still only care about the bottom line so don't expect software companies to be any better.

The NIST put together a report in 2002 outlining the cost of software errors to the US economy and recommending some next steps (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-1 0.htm.) They estimated a third could be elminated through improved QA. Companies compared the cost of improving QA to the anticipated reduction of product-defect related expenditures and when the numbers weren't there they passed.

Granted, a commission would only be a start and apply solely to US companies. However, you can bet that consumers will remain at least as ignorant about their software as they are about the chemical composition of the toys their kids are chewing on. You can also bet that software companies will remain at least as irresponsible as their toy industry counterparts. Seems to me a third-party is the only way however it has to be legitimate, centralized, credible and well communicated. I think the MoAB, MoKB and other LMH projects showed how these principles could work even if a number of fixes came from the community and not the companies themselves.

Until then I say responsible disclosure is the way to go with full disclosure after 30 days if it's not fixed or at least officially communicated to the public by the developers. If you drive over a failing bridge as part of your commute would you want the city to withold this information for fear terrorists will exploit it? Sure, you say "close it" but that's like saying a company should "recall the software" until it's fixed. You say "don't use the bridge" but that's like saying a company should stop using the software. Sometimes these are options... sometimes they're not... but if you're not for disclosure it's like saying the city should keep quiet until they're ready to fix it.

Companies only care about their bottom line. Brand identity and other priorities are all directly related to their profitability and thus everything comes down to the bottom line.

Looking at an extreme example such as our children's welfare, the USCPSC (http://www.cpsc.gov/) deals with product safety but does have a focus on children. If it wasn't for this commission the toy industry would be in far worse shape with respect to safety than it already is. Mattel isn't the only company using cheap Chinese labor with little to no QA to keep their profit margins up. They, too, have a team of actuarial dorks showing them how their bottom line is dramatically improved using this model and risking the occasional big hit (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07257 .html.) The USCPSC keeps them in check to ensure even cost-prohibitive measures are taken when it comes to protecting consumers. Then again, we are talking about injury, death and mitigating a $700 billion/year loss in the US attributed to defective products so I do recongnize it's an extreme example. However, it illustrates that even when the stakes are high companies still only care about the bottom line so don't expect software companies to be any better.

The NIST put together a report in 2002 outlining the cost of software errors to the US economy and recommending some next steps (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-1 0.htm.) They estimated a third could be elminated through improved QA. Companies compared the cost of improving QA to the anticipated reduction of product-defect related expenditures and when the numbers weren't there they passed.

Granted, a commission would only be a start and apply solely to US companies. However, you can bet that consumers will remain at least as ignorant about their software as they are about the chemical composition of the toys their kids are chewing on. You can also bet that software companies will remain at least as irresponsible as their toy industry counterparts. Seems to me a third-party is the only way however it has to be legitimate, centralized, credible and well communicated. I think the MoAB, MoKB and other LMH projects showed how these principles could work even if a number of fixes came from the community and not the companies themselves.

Until then I say responsible disclosure is the way to go with full disclosure after 30 days if it's not fixed or at least officially communicated to the public by the developers. If you drive over a failing bridge as part of your commute would you want the city to withold this information for fear terrorists will exploit it? Sure, you say "close it" but that's like saying a company should "recall the software" until it's fixed. You say "don't use the bridge" but that's like saying a company should stop using the software. Sometimes these are options... sometimes they're not... but if you're not for disclosure it's like saying the city should keep quiet until they're ready to fix it.

Maybe it's just me, but perhaps the fact that they normally shit on their customers whenever they get the chance to. Must I remind you about the rootkits, exploding batteries, or shutting down Lik-Sang? There are probably more examples, but these three are the ones that come to mind almost immediately. Oh I almost forgot - the marketing isn't too great either.

Then again, maybe I'm just cynical too.

Okay, here are the july 2007 Consumer Product Safety Commission recalls:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prereljul07.htm l

All American companies.

A few choice quotes:
"the battery can explode and pose a laceration hazard"
"The recalled metal jewelry sets contain high levels of lead."
"cause intestinal perforation or blockage, which can be fatal."
"The blower's impeller, which is a rotating component on the blower, can break, resulting in pieces of plastic flying out of the blower. This poses a risk of serious injury to the user or a bystander."

The chairman of that Chinese toy company who were recently found to have lead paint in one product?
He's committed suicide:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6943 689.stm

Now please reconsider your remark.

Just because a battery has Li in it does not mean it's dangerous to handle. (at least, not if it's designed sensibly) Most laptop computer batteries nowadays are LiIo which is not too different.

I was just relaying the recommendations placed in the instruction manuals by the company that made the batteries. Oh, and it's not like laptop batteries have a perfect safety record either.

They may be similar, but from my understanding, laptop LiIon batteries still use electrolyte, of with the presumably exploded battery didn't have.

As for the high voltage stuff - you're right, it does have some interesting effects, yet personally, I'd prefer to see them in lab videos. Still, this cabinet shouldn't see anything more than 240 volts at max, and 120 would be more likely. Fuses should blow long before voltages get to the levels needed to make even a bang audible outside the cabinet.

Will Amazon or CVS or Wal-Mart sell unsafe products?

They do all the time

I used to keep one of these in my carry-on bag. It was about the size of a can of Coke.

But, they were recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06144. html

Apparently, they weren't as effective against carbon monoxide as was claimed. They were probably still better than nothing at all, but the product was pulled off the market and the company is out of business:

http://www.evacsafety.com/

I found another smoke hood for sale here (ironically, from the same place I bought the last one):

http://www.aeromedix.com/product-exec/parent_id/1/ category_id/12/product_id/1074/nm/Safe_Escape_Smok e_Hood

But, I don't know if it's small enough to easily pack in my carry-on bag. The images only depict the hood on people that are wearing it.

The Water Wiggle was a toy which would attach to the end of a garden hose, and jet the water out of a plastic hood looking thing in such a manner as to chaotically fly around the lawn. Responsible for at least one death according to this page.

I am not old enough to have experienced this thing myself, but have heard horror stories both from my parents and a and the mother of a friend of mine. She actually knew someone who was seriously messed up by one when she was growing up. Surprising it wasn't mentioned in this particular article.

A recall actually requires the old product to be returned

A recall actually requires the old product to be returned

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2006
Release #07-061

Firm's Hotline: (800) 859-4519
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

Nintendo of America Initiates Replacement Program for Wrist Straps Used
with Controllers for the Wii Video Game System

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in
cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary
replacement program for the following consumer product.
Name of Product: Wrist Straps Used with Controllers for the Nintendo Wii
Video Game System

Units: About 2 Million

Distributor: Nintendo of America Inc.

Issue: If consumers swing the hand-held "Wii Remote" game controllers
using excessive force and accidentally let go, the cord connecting the
controller to the wrist strap can break, potentially causing the
controller to strike bystanders or objects.

Incidents/Injuries: Nintendo has received reports of cords on wrist
straps breaking, including three reports of minor injuries not requiring
medical attention. All of these incidents occurred when consumers were
playing the game, "Wii Sports."

Description: The wrist straps are sold with Nintendo's Wii video game
system (pronounced "we"). Its controller, called the Wii Remote, is
shaped like a TV remote. Sensors determine the Wii Remote's position in
3-D space, which means that a tennis swing, for example, is done through
movement of a consumer's hand rather than by just fingers and thumbs.
The cords on the wrist straps included in this program are 0.6mm in
diameter. The replacement cords are 1.0 mm in diameter (see photo
below).

Sold by: The Wii video game systems have been sold since November 19,
2006 for approximately $249. The Wii Remote has separately been sold
from November 19, 2006 for approximately $39. All Wii video game systems
purchased after December 11, 2006 should have the new 1.0 mm cord. All
individually sold Wii Remotes purchased after December 18, 2006, should
have the new 1.0 mm cord.

Manufactured in: Japan and China

Remedy: Consumers should contact the firm for a replacement wrist strap.

Customer Contact: For more information, contact Nintendo toll-free at
(800) 859-4519 between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. PT, or visit their Web site at
www.support.nintendo.com

To see this Press Release on CPSC's web site, including a picture of the
product involved, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07061. html

He was killed when he was loading a tube and 'something' (theories abound, from static electricity to a short in the wiring... what caused it was never proven) caused the firework to ignite. These are not your average 'buy at the indian reservation' roman candles. They are class B explosive devices, which require a special permit from ATFE, so yes, what he was doing was mortally dangerous. Fluke? His friends and family think so, as he was known to be very careful on the job. But, when dealing with high explosives, things can happen. Warning: PDF!!! Consumer Protection Safety Commision 2005 fireworks report. He was one of the 4 who died last year. There was an article in the daily rag about it, trying to find it online...

More often, the high-power device will simply not function, or will simply its battery much slower, or won't be able to charge at all while in-use...

Incorrect, I believe you are thinking of voltage. The adapter would overheat for the same reason as an overloaded extension cord would overheat, excessive current draw.

They were banned in 1988 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5053.html

Effective December 19, 1988, all lawn darts are banned from sale in the United States. Lawn darts, used in an outdoor game, have been responsible for the deaths of 3 children.

A set of lawn darts usually includes four large darts and two targets. The darts typically are about 12 inches long with a heavy metal or weighted plastic tip on one end and three plastic fins on a rod at the other end. The darts are intended to be grasped by the rod and thrown underhand toward a target. While the tip may not be sharp enough to be obviously dangerous, these darts can cause skull punctures and other serious injuries.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission urges parents to discard or destroy all lawn darts immediately. They should not be given away since they may be of harm to others.

Consumers who find lawn darts still being sold, should contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission on the toll free hotline: 1-800-638-CPSC (2772). A teletypewriter for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-638-8270. Consumers also may write to: Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207.

Sapphire has just released their liquid-cooled Radeon X1950 XTX card, the Toxic X1950 XTX.

Bah, that's nothing. You should see my liquid-cooled Dell laptop.

There are gyros that model helicopters use that are cheaper than $100, and an RC chopper is a whole lot twitchier than something with the mass of a human being in it. If your flight only lasts for a couple of minutes, then you hardly need high-precision gyros that won't drift more than a degree per hour.

1. Open up a shell
2. Type: cat /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info
3. Look for the line labled model number:

My output is listed below and does not appear to be affected ...

cat /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info
present: yes
design capacity: 84240 mWh
last full capacity: 79610 mWh
battery technology: rechargeable
design voltage: 10800 mV
design capacity warning: 3980 mWh
design capacity low: 200 mWh
capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh
capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh
model number: 92P1133
battery type: LION
OEM info: Panasonic

The list of recalled models is here.

Actually, HP/Compaq did recall many notebook batteries this year (April) due to fire hazards. I'm not sure if the batteries recalled were made by Sony, but the flaw seems to be the same.

Some info on the HP recall:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06145. html
http://bpr.hpordercenter.com/ebpr/landingpage.aspx

No, actually. The reason for the "voluntary recall" is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission gives manufacturers an option. They can either do a "voluntary recall", or the CPSC can do it the hard way, with injunctions, orders, fines, and bans on further sales of the product. That results in announcements like Dynacraft To Pay $1.4 Million Penalty for Failing to Report Hazard with Mountain Bicycles. "The forks, which are part of the steering column, can break apart and separate from the front wheel, causing the rider to lose control and suffer serious injuries."

Most manufacturers take the voluntary option. A few try defying the recall order. Doesn't work. "John Rasmus, of Hallstead, Pennsylvania, the owner of Pyrotek, was sentenced to 5 months in prison, 5 months home confinement and three years of supervised release."

No, actually. The reason for the "voluntary recall" is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission gives manufacturers an option. They can either do a "voluntary recall", or the CPSC can do it the hard way, with injunctions, orders, fines, and bans on further sales of the product. That results in announcements like Dynacraft To Pay $1.4 Million Penalty for Failing to Report Hazard with Mountain Bicycles. "The forks, which are part of the steering column, can break apart and separate from the front wheel, causing the rider to lose control and suffer serious injuries."

Most manufacturers take the voluntary option. A few try defying the recall order. Doesn't work. "John Rasmus, of Hallstead, Pennsylvania, the owner of Pyrotek, was sentenced to 5 months in prison, 5 months home confinement and three years of supervised release."

Apple claims one of the serial number ranges for the 12-inch iBook batteries is:

6C519 to 6C552

While the same row on the government's web page reads:

6C510 to 6C626

Which one is right?

https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batterye xchange/index.html
http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06245.html