Slashdot Mirror

I've never heard of a gasoline engine car's battery bursting into flames

Really?

https://www.google.co.uk/searc...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa...

Here's a Scholar link which gives more relevant results.

If I google "California rainfall reconstruction" (because there weren't many rain meters out in California in the 1800s) I get a pile of articles on the subject showing data going back over 1000 years:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=california+rainfall+reconstruction

Good for you, frankly.Like I said, I'm not naive about it, nor am I trying to moralise- I personally wouldn't want to be involved in weapon design, because I don't like the thought that I have no control over what is done with my work. I am enabling others to do bad (and good) things, and have absolutely no say in it after I put down my tools; considering the nature and implications of weapon design (over and above other forms of product engineering), that doesn't sit well with me. Instead, I work in a field where my work can only really be used for good, neutral, and extremely minorly bad things- and I find that more comfortable. But each to their own.

For the record, I'm not a complete pacifist- I'd be willing to change my views if the situation were other. If we were at total war, for example, I'm sure I'd change my tune.

PS: What's wrong with "therefore"? https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=therefore&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&gws_rd=cr&ei=grS8UvKKIpGThQfFwIGABw

The rules of humor state that simply linking to a porn site is too plain and crass, but variations can be acceptable: - Linking to something that looks like a porn site from the address, but is actually not. Eg, penisland.net - Linking to something that is porn, but not in the sense most would expect. Eg, fchan.us, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wetriffs&tbm=isch

Got it. In a single go, like this porn site.

The rules of humor state that simply linking to a porn site is too plain and crass, but variations can be acceptable:
- Linking to something that looks like a porn site from the address, but is actually not. Eg, penisland.net
- Linking to something that is porn, but not in the sense most would expect. Eg, fchan.us, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wetriffs&tbm=isch

"The people in the video were not wearing uniforms."

So you ARE saying the Apache pilots could determine whether these guy's clothing had any insignias on their clothing but couldn't possibly differentiate between a camera and an RPG?

I mean, let's just be clear here, you're saying you can determine that people in these pictures both have weapons, and aren't in some kind of uniform? -

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=collateral+murder&source=lnms

Some of them clearly don't have weapons, some are clearly unarmed. That alone means collateral damage of what could only be determined to be civilians was guaranteed by pulling the trigger - that alone breaches both the Geneva convention and the US' RoE as you have to try to avoid civilian casualties, even if it means not making the kill.

Your argument has just entered the realm of complete absurdity at this point, and you seem to be completely making stuff up to the point I wonder if you've even seen the video in the first place, let alone seen it recently.

You talk on about how these guys somehow did something right under the Geneva convention yet still seem utterly oblivious to the rules of engagement direct from the US military that these pilots were operating under earlier which these pilots clearly breached. Rules of engagement that are based on the Geneva convention (something you clearly don't understand - your incorrect definition of unlawful combatant includes US special forces operatives for example).

But what's particularly telling about the fact I'm not sure you've even seen the video is that even the troops on the ground these pilots were supposed to be protecting show disgust at the fact one of them is carrying a dying kid in his arms. The tone of the pilots response when they find out says it all - they're clearly aware that they got far too carried away and know full well they engaged civilians when they shouldn't have.

So when even the people involved know that shit went wrong it's quite telling, and shows how far removed from reality your viewpoint is.

Come back when you've watched the video, come back when you realise that you can't possibly tell if the people killed were militants from what they were wearing, come back when you hear the tone of the marine medics voice as he carries the wounded kid.

Perhaps then you'll have a point, until then you're still just making stuff up. You're still ignoring the fact that the people in the van were unquestionably not confirmed as combatants, you're still ignoring the fact that the Apache crew broke their own nations rules of engagement.

You can't escape these things, as much as you desperately try and make stuff up, creating your own fanciful definitions of the Geneva convention and the term unlawful combatant - a term that the very article you linked points out doesn't actually exists anywhere within the Geneva convention in the first place.

The Geneva convention is clear, above all else you can't kill civilians, and you must er on the side that an unidentified person is a civilian. The Apache pilots very clearly did not do this with the van driver if nothing else. You're still parroting the myth that these guys were actually engaging in war rather than simply acting as a vigilante neighbourhood patrol performing the role of policing and that's where your argument that these guys were combatants falls flat on it's face. Even ignoring the first round of guys there's just simply no argument that the guy in the van was somehow engaging in combat - you just can't argue that no matter how hard you try - the argument isn't about uniforms or non-uniforms, it's about whether these guys were engaging in war - the first ones, maybe if you make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions (which you have done) you can argue were, but the second lot? you just can't. There's just no argument there.

This is precisely why the "do not fire until fired upon rule" came about i

Except google expects others to do that. http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/chrome/business/devices/

"Modern Country Band" is the name of my Mumford and Sons cover band.

Was "Trust Fund Wurzels" already taken?

What if it just makes them persevere at attempting suicide?

I'm not entirely sure how (if at all) tongue in cheek this was, but I do recall hearing that starting anti-depressants can *increase* the risk of suicide. This is supposedly because one of the first symptoms of depression to improve (before the suicidal feelings have cleared up) is the loss of motivation- and ironically, it was that lack of motivation that was stopping them from carrying out the suicide.

Typical result from a quick Googling to confirm my memory:-

Doctors admit there is always a risk of suicide when treating a severely depressed patient.As patients start to feel better, energy and motivation sometimes return before the suicidal thinking has faded.

"You get patients who are too depressed to commit suicide," says Dr. David Fassler, a trustee of the American Psychiatric Association who is testifying about the antidepressant safety at the FDA hearing."Patients start treatment and then they feel just better enough to go through with it."

Take your pick https://www.google.co.uk/#q=joe+decuir+usb+atari

The bubble is extraordinarily pervasive and it is VERY difficult to break out of without a geographic change(Proxy/VPN).

Try your search with the following URLs and see what you get:
www.google.com
www.google.co.uk
www.bing.com
www.duckduckgo.com

I never log in to Google, always clear cookies and cache and generally try to avoid being tracked. I know that it's pointless because they still use geolocation, IP address, and browser signatures to track me. But I still try to avoid the bubble. Searching for BP gives me company/stock/investment information only! On all of the above search engines. But, searching BP from my hippie sister-in-law's house(on my own device) gives me a first page full of oil spill links.

It's REALLY startling when I travel overseas. Working remotely, I try searching for my "usual stuff", that's always right there at the top of the page. But, at the Caribbean resort, all I get is links to Philippine and Malay centric stuff and not at all what I'm looking for. It has been literally impossible for me to Google certain things that I normally do back home, even with very explicit search terms including location. It's been very annoying sometimes, but it drives home that I'm inside a bubble. It is not at all unlike being inside the Matrix and unable to wake up. You're not even aware that you're inside the bubble/Matrix.

You'll discover, by reviewing the relevant journals, that "The domain-experts on homeopathy", which you'll know as, "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.", are in broad agreement. There is a clear consensus on the issue of the efficacy of homeopathy.

That is a lie. The clear scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it works no better than placebo.

Now stop wasting my time. You're now trolling.

Now that you've taken some time to examine the relevant journals and discover what the consensus is yourself

Not at all, I have of course confirmed for myself what the scientific consensus is. By consulting reputable sources, not by reading your links, which I have not and will not be clicking on. They have nothing to do with my point that you are disputing.

Whilst my Google search proves no more than yours, at least I can show an honestly unbiased search term, with the top links confirming my point of view, not yours.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=scientific+consensus+homeopathy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=iSGSUtblBY6whAeAsIDIDg&safe=strict#q=scientific+consensus+homeopathy&rls=en&safe=strict

You can't win this. We both know you are wrong.

Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"?

It is irrational to think otherwise. You think otherwise. Ergo, you are irrational.

You wanna learn this? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview#!q=london&data=!1m4!1m3!1d69887!2d-0.1009979!3d51.5125128!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75%3A0x52963a5addd52a99!3m8!1m3!1d279450!2d-0.1015987!3d51.5286416!3m2!1i2560!2i1351!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.5112139!4d-0.1198244
Yup, simple...

Also, please mark on the map which areas are dangerous. Oh, what, you can't can you because you don't know that ahead-of-time?

"ABSes have saved many lives when drivers slammed on the brakes to avoid a collision, or started slipping on ice." [citation needed]

If anything, the evidence is somewhat to the contrary. Studies on taxis with and without ABS (the cabs are otherwise very similar vehicles), showed that ABS equipped cars did not have lower accident rates overall. Indeed, certain types of accidents, e.g. in snow, where significantly higher for ABS equipped cars. Cite:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rI4c24VTriEC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=Aschenbrenner+and+Biehl+ABS&source=bl&ots=RgRKvw7Qnx&sig=1hNW1rAyzlSw5hpcGjgFnpn4Qpc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3xmPUrDcOYX40gXHm4DYDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage

Occasionally, this comes at a cost to human life, such as Thatcher's deliberate underinvestment in the railways, followed by Major's spinning off of Railtrack without any clear identification as to who is responsible for maintenance. But usually it's just a huge fucking waste of money, and the privatised industry ends up enjoying multiple subsidies and regulatory capture.

Ooh... you're so cynical, but be fair- it's resulted in a far more efficient and low-cost railway system that's affordable by everyone in the country.

Oh wait, no it hasn't. It's given us railways that cost far more than comparable systems in other countries, resulting in obscenely priced tickets that are only affordable to well-paid professionals. You know it's bad when the first result from Googling "British railways expensive compared" is a f*****g Daily Mail article making this point.

Whereas since banning handguns in the UK, handgun crime has gone up (that is, crimes involving handguns, not possession of one), and all firearm crime has gone up by more. Look at the graph on this page. about 1/2 the way down. Handguns were banned in 1997, when gun crime was on a downward curve.

Also, see this(PDF, sorry about the google cruft, can't be bothered editing) police statistics report. It shows that serious handgun crime more than doubled in the 4 years after they were banned, despite having been dropping for the previous 10 years or so, when they were legal.

I don't own a gun, probably never will, but I dislike the government telling me what I can and can't have based on poor logic. Also, It had been demonstrably shown that in the UK, barring other factors (and I doubt there were _that_ many other factors), banning handguns increased handgun crime.

Almost everything they publish is about Samsung. It's shameless:

Pages about Strategy Analytics that mention Samsung.
Pages about Strategy Analytics that don't mention Samsung.

Almost everything they publish is about Samsung. It's shameless:

Pages about Strategy Analytics that mention Samsung.
Pages about Strategy Analytics that don't mention Samsung.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+to+block+esoteric+sites It's not a typo, and it's not "to drum up support within the pagan/alternative communities".

Have you got any good readings you can recommend on the subject =)?

Registration and Purchase required? PDFs from the New Cambridge History of Islam. There's an amazing maritime section here:
http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139056137

Blow your mind, with the journal of the travels of 14th Century adventurer, Ibn Batutta. He makes Marco Polo look like a homebody.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Battuta

1929 abridged translation of Ibn Batutta's journals:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zKqn_CWTxYEC

More books? Warwick Ball is an accessible archaeologist and historian, who effectively destroys the case for "Clash of Civilizations", and the entire dubious taxonomy of "east and west".
http://www.amazon.com/Rome-East-Transformation-Warwick-Ball/dp/0415243572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382201303&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Arabia-Phoenicians-Discovery-Europe/dp/1566568013/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382201303&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/Towards-One-World-Ancient-Persia/dp/1566568226/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382201303&sr=1-3

Nice, "pro-Nabatean" writeup on the late-antique origin of Arab maritime trade, after the breakup of Alexandrian east. You will have to go farther back, to the Phoenicians of Tyre and Carthage, 'tho! This author begins with Nabatean emergence. There are many links on this site... Quite fascinating.
http://nabataea.net/who1.html

Oman and maritime history. Nice to overlay this with the Nabateans. These things met and mingled - especially out in the Indian ocean, away from home:
http://www.maritime.om/Oman-Maritime-History

The sections on Ancient Indian and Chinese maritime development is slim, but worthwhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_maritime_history#Indian_subcontinent

An Indo-centric, but factual and entertaining page:
http://www.aseanindia.com/navy/maritime-history

Summary of "silk-routes":
http://www.silkroutes.net/SilkSpiceIncenseRoutes.htm

Genoa in the Crimea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_colonies

Technology of early Islamic ship-building - mostly focused on Mediterranean, not Indo-Persian
http://www.academia.edu/1596791/Early_Islamic_Maritime_Technology

"A grand unified theory of X" is a very standard English idiom used to refer to a broad and extensive theory of a subject "X". It does not mean that the subject involves grand unified theory, but rather something that is the metaphorical equivalent of GUT in a different field.

It boggles my mind that you would be able to make such a misapprehension. It's not a particularly complex sentence to parse. If the article was about how tuna is the "beef cow of the sea" would you be complaining that tuna don't have hooves and aren't made of beef?

Of course we "confirm" things in science, we just don't use the word to mean that something is unambiguously stated to be true. When we use that word (and it's used ubiquitously) we mean that we're providing new evidence for a previously-accepted hypothesis.

Let's see what Google has to offer for "doggy".

Well, top link for me is the Wikipedia article on "doggy style", but that was almost too easy.

What else on the first page... ah, an animation of a woman ripping the head off a man during sex.

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooOOOooOooOoooo.

Anyone been to Shetland? Look at Runway 09/27 and the main A970 road on Streetview - straight onto the runway!

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=fairbanks+alaska&safe=strict&client=safari&ie=UTF-8&hl=en

It's plenty big enough an airport that it should be completely surrounded by a fence, with vehicle access only to those with passes or keys.

If two unauthorised automobiles have driven this route recently, it's the airport's fuck up for not having suitable barriers.

And if you look closely, the BBC photo of the Apple Maps route starts on a Taxiway in between 2 runways. If you're starting there, you HAVE to drive on the taxiways, both of which cross one runway or the other. But non-airport vehicles wouldn't be starting there.

Well, some blogs and such don't play nice with long links.
Also people sometimes needs to copy and paste them.
As such, google offers a link shortening service right in google maps (click the chain link icon).

Note the url has /maps/ in it - he couldn't send you to something evil unless it was on google maps, which I suppose there might be stuff here and there.

He could also have trimmed some of the junk in the URL tho...
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=21.401534,72.199316&t=h&z=15

I don't know why you used a shortened link, but I hit it despite the possibility it might be goatse. Here's where that link takes you: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Alang,+Gujarat,+India&hl=en&ll=21.401534,72.199316&spn=0.023614,0.027723&geocode=+&hnear=Alang,+Bhavnagar,+Gujarat,+India&t=h&z=15

No, that's no problem. The problem was not installing/using a suitable signalling system, which is present on high-speed lines in most other countries.

It seems to me that it would have been (and still is) possible to include a GPS receiver, a maximum-train-speeds database, and a speed-limiter on each train as a fallback. With that, as long as the GPS was working, even the dumbest/craziest engineer would not be able to make the train go faster than its maximum specified speed at any given location.

GPS wouldn't work in tunnels, and very often higher speed lines are adjacent to lower speed lines. here's an example, which I used to walk past sometimes. The fast lines have a 110mph limit, the "slow" lines 70mph, and the siding for a factory 20mph. The tracks are about 4-6m apart. Also, the maximum safe speed is much lower if there's a train ahead on the line -- the capacity of the line is much reduced if you have to enforce 10km distance at all times.

There are very safe signalling systems, like The TGV signalling system and ETCS. However, it seems they didn't properly implement the transition from high-speed to normal line in Spain. I don't know if that's a lack of investment, a lack of regulation, or a technical oversight.

Try reading any news source that isn't American based.

Just today Putin was calling your Foreign Sec a liar because he claimed Al Qaeda are definitely not in Syria - http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-interview-ap-387/

The French have apparently contributed to the "rebel cause" in a rather unplanned way

And the recent (5 days ago) claims that the sarin gas attack was a rebel mistake and the weapons were provided by the Saudis, also mentioned numerous Saudi fighters in the region. No link here, as there isn't a single source that I would actually subject my browser (or eyes) to - but a quick google has a seemingly endless list of conspiracy sites touting the story.

Doesn't kill people, why would you say that?

White phosphorus victims looks like many dead to me, warning - very graphic.

And what about MK77 Napalm v2.0.

The American military used white phosphorus in Iraq, Fallujah. Perhaps Obama should deal with the extremes committed by his own military before killing thousands more innocent men, women and children.

And what's with using munitions that are radio-active, cue idiots claiming depleted uranium isn't dangerous.

Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=methane+global+warming&hl=en&authuser=0
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=methane+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=methane+global+warming&hl=en&authuser=0
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=methane+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

The issue with paper isn't an outside breach, it's someone throwing a two-inch stack of papers out in the recycling bucket, which might be a few hundred to a thousand records.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=records+found+in+bin&oq=records+found+in+bin&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i60j69i65l2j0l2.2171j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

For Google it does not stop with just the notice. e.g. I did a search on harry potter filetype:torrent and at the bootom I get:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

If you read the DMCA complaint, you can find the URL (and many more) that you wer looking for. Hilarious, I think.

Popular Mechanics is a different magazine, although they're of a similar vintage. You might enjoy:

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Popular_Science.html?id=Ok8XtrhowscC&redir_esc=y

No, but saying the word "cunt" bothers some men.

Firstly, the parent and grandparent had it asterisked out. Secondly, while I'm quite happy to use that word in the right social grouping the fact remains that- rightly or wrongly- it's considered highly offensive by many people (*) and I'm happy to moderate my own language of my own volition in that context.

whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.

A misleading comparison; "dick" is more on the level of "pussy" in terms of offensiveness (or otherwise). "Johnson" is so inoffensive they got it twice into the name of a major medical supplies company. ;-)

The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Cunt.

And you being able to say it like that makes you a Big Man. Congratulations! (Thinks: What a c**t...)

(*) And let's not get into that pseudo-logical rationalisation that some geeks try to use when discussing swear words; the fact is that the human brain and social behaviour are quite complex, and trying to reduce it to a purely dictionary definition level is misleading. If that were the case, why does swearing have a painkiller effect on the human brain? This shows that whether or not the words are arbitrary and theoretically the same as other "less offensive" words, they *do* have socially wired associations that can't be ignored.

I caved. The relevant passage. Tread lightly.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QIcSojmQT4UC&lpg=PT614&ots=4d7HfdrA1J&dq=%22dyson%20motor%22%20revelation%20space&pg=PT614#v=onepage&q=%22dyson%20motor%22%20revelation%20space&f=false

Three of the British warships sunk in the Falklands war ... had aluminium superstructures. At the time, the press stated that ... the aluminium had actually burnt. This was completely untrue. The aluminium structures lost strength and distorted, but did not burn. Aluminium sections, plate, sheet, foil and wire will not support combustion. Only in the form of very finely divided powder or flake can the metal be made to burn, as can finely divided steel.

First off Orca's don't kill humans in the wild because they swim in cold waters that don't have humans.

Are you sure? From the site http://www.orcasafari.co.uk/ :
See Orcas or Killer Whales in their natural environment and still be home for bed ! Your day trip destination to see the Orcas or Killer Whales is in the fjords to the far north of Norway, and one area in particular where every year large numbers of Orcas congregate.

Come to think of it, if the tendency for PR firms to arrange for an "equation for the best sandwich" etc. suggests that an equation is actually quite an easy way of getting the public's attention.

Reluctant is the right word. This is what your kid might be doing:
1) Turn off the showing of images in the browser.
2) Google for e.g. adult stories
3) start reading e.g. this (NSFW !!!!) and with the search, you find much more.

Hey, perhaps you run Linux, so he can use lynx or any other text based browser, so you, on the couch, won't be able to read it. ;-)

I used to get around the age restrictions at the movies by buying the book. When I later saw the move, I can tell you that the book was WAY worse (or perhaps just my imagination).

That said, you are doing the right thing: parenting.

Now when that didn't work, this becomes a "degenerate" case?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=degenerate+case&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&redir_esc=&ei=I7nyUdXMBsGrhAfE94H4Dw&safe=strict

For which capacity one would need to use iCloud in the degenerate case on some SD-card-less devices.

Again, you demonstrate you still don't know what iCloud is. It's NOT extra capacity. Not even in your misunderstanding of what degenerate case means.

Keys for discs can be revoked if I'm reading the last line of this section correctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System#Encryption

Software players get revoked from time to time as their keys get discovered.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bluray+player+revoked&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

http://news.slashdot.org/story/07/04/07/1417253/first-aacs-blu-rayhd-dvd-key-revoked

Hardware players can be revoked just by putting a newer disc in the player, the player updates its firmware from the disc and effectively commits suicide.

while a nuclear plant takes on semi-trailer I think every two years or so.

That does of course completely ignore the amount of ore you need to rip out of the ground to extract that small amount of uranium.

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6169924
0.4v, 250ms pulses.

Not the brain. That was figured out years ago - the optimal place to zap isn't the brain, but a certain branch off the spinal cord.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=235788&page=1#.Ubq0U5wavRg

He patented it too. For once patents are actually acting as they should, so you get to see exact instructions on how to build your own:
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6169924

Well, that's great, apart from the fact that I can find only one source of that story (and a huge amount of forums linking to the same story).

I'll google it for you. Not even the Daily Mail has a story with that headline.

I get this kind of shit emailed to me every day from colleagues. I've debunked every single email that I get, and have now set up a rule that deletes any email from certain people that are sent to the office.

The one this morning that I heard about was "Nigel Farrage's - Tory party's worst nightmare". If the man has such great policies, why do his supporters need to attribute thirteen year old diatribes to him?