Slashdot Mirror


Microwave Experiments Cause Sponge Disasters

gollum123 writes "Reports about a study that found microwave ovens can be used to sterilize kitchen sponges sent people hurrying to test the idea this week — with sometimes disastrous results. A team at the University of Florida found that two minutes in the microwave at full power could kill a range of bacteria, viruses and parasites on kitchen sponges. They described how they soaked the sponges in wastewater and then zapped them. But several experimenters evidently left out the crucial step of wetting the sponge. "Just wanted you to know that your article on microwaving sponges and scrubbers aroused my interest. However, when I put my sponge/scrubber into the microwave, it caught fire, smoked up the house, ruined my microwave, and pissed me off," one correspondent wrote in an e-mail to Reuters."

517 comments

  1. Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    3
    2
    1

    1. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by nomi42 · · Score: 1

      in that case, couldn't anyone file a lawsuit against the stupidity of the people who just tried it at home without thinking nor reading the full experimental protocol... I think Darwin's theory does not apply to human beings ... ;) Next user manuals for microwaves "please do not put a sponge in your microwave" ...

    2. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Incoming lawsuits in: 3..2..1..

      Actually it should be the opposite. Anyone who convinces the stupid to sterilize themselves or remove themselves from the gene pool through other means certainly deserves our hearty congratulations. In fact, they should be allowed to sue the stupid bastards they convinced to kill themselves.

      I can see it now, billboards with signs saying: "a microwave is a great way to get a tan," "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes," and of course "it is cool to operate power tools--in the nude! Buy Budweiser!"

      Truly, we need the stupid to start killing themselves again. With the advent of birth control, human evolution is starting to go backwards. In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    3. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Skrynesaver · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Truly, we need the stupid to start killing themselves again. With the advent of birth control, human evolution is starting to go backwards. In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.
      You raise a very interesting point, those who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in western society tend to reproduce at a much lower rate than those who get hammered and start breeding while the more capable are still in education.

      The fact that educated women want to establish a career before becoming mothers means that they start a family in their late thirties and consequently have fewer kids, sometimes they have no family at all as it is too late for treatment when they discover infertility issues. Basically the smart people aren't replacing themselves.

      Fuck, I sound like some Eugenics Nazi but really stop running yourselves down, have a shower and go out and breed people!

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    4. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by BlueLightning · · Score: 0

      I can see it now, billboards with signs saying: "a microwave is a great way to get a tan," "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes," and of course "it is cool to operate power tools--in the nude! Buy Budweiser!"

      Don't forget "did you know: used motor oil can be used to fertilize your lawn".

    5. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Truly, we need the stupid to start killing themselves again. With the advent of birth control, human evolution is starting to go backwards. In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.

      You obviously didn't get the memo. The plan is to get enough stupid people to join the army by showing them in the movies how cool it is to blow things up, then to send them to Iraq to remove them from the gene pool. All hail George Bush the Wise.

    6. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Oxygen99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      *Ping*

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    7. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by LordVader717 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone who convinces the stupid to sterilize themselves or remove themselves from the gene pool through other means certainly deserves our hearty congratulations

      Perhaps, if they're clever, they could sterilize themselves with their microwave.

    8. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "zero" in your score makes me laugh. Super patriotism of others for the win. But seriously, joining the military is quite interesting...on one hand you have the people who obviously have all the right reasons: nuclear technicians without enough money or high school GPA (which doesn't mean your dumb by the way...the fact I was 11th in my class means nothing) to get education from a decent college, people down on their luck because they got laid off and can no longer afford schooling, etc...etc... In both cases, and many others, a good reason for military conscription is in fact a lack of college. Which isn't saying your too stupid or poor to get into the college mind you. A good example would be my own father-in-law: extremely smart man. Never graduated high-school and dropped out after reading every decent book they had in their library (never went to class and the principle didn't know what to do with him; took him a good year and a half to read everything that interested him). Yet he joined the military AND went to college (3 PHDs and more masters and Bachelors than I can count). On the other hand, you have gang members who want a legal excuse to shoot people. I know, that sounds horrible, and my karma will hurt after this post. But, honestly its true. My father was in the military, and my best friend is in bootcamp right now, and they'll agree with me. Gangs since the beginning of war have been formed after wars were over by soldiers with too much extra aggression... Why am I replying to a "0" scored post? I dunno, perhaps I wanted to talk about my dad. Perhaps I'm waiting for a virus scan to end on my laptop before driving out to the lab to get some late-night work done. Or perhaps I felt that the moderation system of slashdot is such that one ticked off guy who copies and pastes: "I for one..." into every biology post can turn your essay into troll-bait. And so I say "farewell to karma..."

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    9. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Brummund · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, this is Darwin's theory hard at work, doing its best to keep the gene pool strong. Watch out for the next Reuter article "The oven, gasoline and you!"

    10. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next you'll be hearing about this incredible new winner take all game: Russian Roullette.

    11. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The traits you may think are useful and great may not be the traits mother nature approve of, but the nice thing about mother nature is that you know her judgement's not personal, whereas if it's a person deciding, it's just his selfish genes being especially despicable, and wanting to get rid of its competitors.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    12. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by tedgyz · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck, I sound like some Eugenics Nazi but really stop running yourselves down, have a shower and go out and breed people!

      While all you are doing is observing what is happening in the world, I'm sure there are plenty of fucktards that would try to burn you at the stake for stating the facts.

      I did my part - I have 4 kids of my own.
      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    13. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by FST777 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reuterian selection?

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    14. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our .... oh never mind

    15. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Elm+Tree · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used to work for an environmental engineering company, where one of my co-workers had a clipping from a 1960's Popular Mechanics article suggesting the the best way to dispose of used motor oil was to pour it into a hole in the ground. I'm not sure if it was up there to show the difference in how we view things over time, or to give clients ideas so as to drum up more business, but either way I found it amusing.

    16. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by zrobotics · · Score: 1

      "I did my part- I have 4 kids of my own"

      Which, when you think about it, may not in fact be all that great. We are already struggling with overpopulation, so the last thing we need is even more kids. Think about it. If every family had 4 kids, then in about 18 years or so there are 12 billion people on the planet. Sounds like a good idea to me.

    17. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Brummund · · Score: 1

      I smell a rat, or at least a fried sponge.

    18. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Nutria · · Score: 1
      in that case, couldn't anyone file a lawsuit against the stupidity of the people who just tried it at home without thinking nor reading the full experimental protocol...

      Why not then just convert www.cnn.com/health to a simple list of links to interesting journal articles?

      Still, as others have stated, it's always useful to have a basic knowledge of how your appliances work...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    19. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by SaDan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, wah. We're not overpopulated, not by a long shot. Growth of the population is a good thing, especially since most "western" countries are actually facing a declining population (birth rates are too low). The only reason the US has a growing population is because of immigration. Go look up birth rate statistics for countries in Europe and North America.

    20. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...those who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in western society tend to reproduce at a much lower rate than those who get hammered and start breeding while the more capable are still in education"

      I understand what you are saying and largely agree but I kind of object to the "more capable" tag, perhaps "more mature", "more fortunate", "more materialistic" or just plain "wiser".

      Wisdom and comfort are the twin goals of many humans, and often the reason for desiring wisdom is that it's seen as a path to comfort. Evolution does not have goals, it has survivours called "genes" who's lineage goes back billions of years, these "genes" are actually just patterns of interacting atoms originally created in exploding stars. "Strong people", "loyal people", "pious people", "educated people", ect, are the result of conceptual tools that humans use for dealing with each other, the deep rooted tribal tendencies found in our genectic makeup appeared long before our particular species did.

      "....but really stop running yourselves down, have a shower and go out and breed people!"

      I did that while my "more capable" friends finished high school, some went all the way into thier thirties totally clueless about kids or the value of a buck. I am now 47, my youngest is 21 and is getting married next year. Having worn collars of both colurs for a minimum of 15yrs I can attest that a good education can buy you time via a healthy paypack, intellectual satisfaction via interesting work, and the comfort of not fighting the checkout-chick to the death over a 50 cent overcharge. Personally, formal education doesn't rate highly with me in a relationship - after all, even the most "retarded" red-neck can teach you something.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who lives on a pineapple under the sea?.......

    22. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since a microwave does a great job of restoring a piece of dried bread to something edible (by heating and expanding what little water is present in it), Careful here. Dried bread does catch fire when left in the nuker for too long. And sometimes that too long is not long enough to make it soft (I made that experience years ago with a dry piece of French baguette... maybe different kinds of bread behave differently...)
    23. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by michrech · · Score: 1

      "The fact that educated women want to establish a career before becoming mothers means that they start a family in their late thirties and consequently have fewer kids, sometimes they have no family at all as it is too late for treatment when they discover infertility issues. Basically the smart people aren't replacing themselves."

      What you just described is what was depicted in the movie Idiocracy. Most of the movie was pretty funny and I could already see our society moving that direction. :(

      "It's got stuff plants like!"

      --
      bork bork bork!
    24. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by steveo777 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I knew a guy back in hi school who tried to take apart a microwave in electronics. When the teacher came back, he almost emptied the room and let him turn it on with everyone else safely on the other side of the locker bank outside. But figured it would bite him in the ass later in life and decided to prevent him from powering the thing up.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    25. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by LokiSteve · · Score: 1

      I don't see much of a problem with 12 billion people as long as you put those extra 6 billion in the right places. Farming methods keep getting better and with most Western nations getting warmer and wetter productivity will probably keep going up for quite some time. So long as the population increases in areas which can support it (which is not the current trend)I really don't think there is a problem.

      --
      END OF LINE.
    26. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I call BS. Darwin's theory of purging the gene pool requires that people lack common sense.

      No, common sense is not part of Darwin's theory. Natural selection is based on an organism's fitness to its environment. Since these people live in an environment that includes microwave ovens, sponges, and Reuters, their ability to interact with these elements without removing themselves from the gene pool is part of being 'fit' for their environment.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    27. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      I see someone just watched Idiocracy.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    28. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by mike2R · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Basically the smart people aren't replacing themselves.

      To play devil's advocate, that's a very subjective definition of "smart." From the point of view of your genes, not having children is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

      Rather than saying the human race is selecting for stupididy, you might well say that we are selecting for a willingnes to have children, even in adverse conditions (ie modern developed society, with its multitude of distractions from procreation).

      Given that the human race will hopefully live in these conditions for a long time to come, having our gene pool strengthening the instinct to have children may be no bad thing, even if other desirable trits decline.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    29. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by SonnyJimATC · · Score: 1

      Then you are extremely lucky. The problem with using a magnetron outside of it's shielding is that the microwaves can burn out your retina. Because you do not have pain recepters in your retina's, you end up going blind (almost) without noticing. That's why pretty much EVERY microwave has a hardware interlock to prevent anything like this from happening.

    30. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by IAmTheDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ya know what they say on Jackass - "If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough." By more dumb, yet hardened people breeding than us 98 lb weakling nerds, we're assuring the survival of the species past the next major disaster, be it meteor or nuclear.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    31. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.

      HA HA HA LOL HAHAHA LOL ROTFFL ROTFL TEE HEE

      HAHAHAHA

      ROTFL

    32. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      (which doesn't mean your dumb by the way...the fact I was 11th in my class means nothing)

      Which isn't saying your too stupid or poor to get into the college mind you.

      and the principle didn't know what to do with him;

      I don't mean to be a spelling/grammar Nazi, but this was just too hilarious!

    33. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      spoken like someone trying to salvage dignity after frying their oven.

      What part of kindergarten did these "common people" skip? Follow directions, the directions state what is to be done clearly and concisely. Laziness is the problem here with a touch of arrogance. These are the same "common people" who refuse to read maps, basic instructions for a swingset, or distinguish between bake and broil.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    34. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by nasch · · Score: 1
      I call BS. Darwin's theory of purging the gene pool requires that people lack common sense.
      You're right, but for the wrong reason. No purging the gene pool, because nobody died.
    35. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by jandrese · · Score: 1

      You can see where they were coming from at least. I mean it came out of a hole in the ground, it might as well go back in there when you're done with it. :)

      The best part is that back in the 60s a lot of those shadetree mechanics would have had well water instead of city water.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    36. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Why in the world anyone would get 3 PhDs is beyond me...

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    37. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by fireslack · · Score: 1

      Of course its Darwinism. The scientist are just helping the idiots along. I say keep it up.

      --
      This sig only exists because you are observing it.
    38. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by spun · · Score: 1

      I've got an even better idea: anyone who convinces the stupid to remove themselves from the gene pool gets to breed with a super model. Who's with me?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    39. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Spinalcold · · Score: 1

      "a microwave is a great way to get a tan," "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes," and of course "it is cool to operate power tools--in the nude! Buy Budweiser!"

      "A Microwave is a great way to get high!"

      The scary part about that is that it's been done...many, many times. There's been a lot of deaths here in Saskatchewan by people sticking their heads in microwaves to get high...*shudder*

    40. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      because they enjoy it and are either rich enough to pay for it or have the connections/repuatation to not have to pay for it?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    41. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by operagost · · Score: 1

      Think about it. If every family had 4 kids, then in about 18 years or so there are 12 billion people on the planet.
      Did the Grim Reaper go on hiatus or something?
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "stupididy"

      Haha

    43. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by operagost · · Score: 1

      I suppose if surviving a meteor involves skiing nude or jumping off roofs, we're set!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i am glad you have a +5 insightful.. i didn't have any points today and well you deserve them because you are dead on the point with that..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    45. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by linguizic · · Score: 1

      -Why don't you try using water on the crops?

      -You mean, like, from the toilet?

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    46. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by papik · · Score: 1

      I think that it is Darwin's theory. In this technological world, those who don't understand technology will be purged.

    47. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1
      Given that the human race will hopefully live in these conditions for a long time to come, having our gene pool strengthening the instinct to have children may be no bad thing, even if other desirable trits decline.

      Eventually, our descendants will become too stupid to operate the technology which sustains them. Then, a fuse will blow somewhere...

    48. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate paradox resulting from this is that some of said stupid people would probably include said supermodels. Although not all them are dumb as fuck. There has to be some who are reasonably intelligent. Law of averages if nothing else.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    49. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by floydvoid · · Score: 1

      well now it all depends on what kind of "power tool".

    50. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      With the advent of birth control, human evolution is starting to go backwards. In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.

      You are assuming five generations hence that they comprehend, let alone study history with an average IQ of 70. Hell, I think you could make the argument that today's voters don't comprehend, let alone study history. Who was President 100 years ago? Quick, no google!

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    51. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on. In a localized sense there is nothing wrong with that. Have you ever read a MSDS for motor oil? You can drink the stuff and the worst that'll happen is you'll get the shits. It came out of the ground in the first place...

    52. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by weasel5i2 · · Score: 1

      Microwaves tend to manifest their damage in the corneal epithelial cells first, rather than the retinal receptors.. As one is exposed to microwave radiation (specifically, the 2.4GHz frequency of water molecules) they will begin to experience opthalmic effects similar to cataracts. By the time your retina is past the point of no return, you're likely already trying your damnedest to see through some extremely cloudy (and incidentally irreparable) corneas.. Microwaves bad. Magnetron bad. Klystron bad. Radiant EMF energy is bad for our meaty shells.

      --
      [BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY]: X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIR US-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
    53. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by tompee · · Score: 1

      there needs to be more than just "5" for comments like that...

    54. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Actually, used motor oil, after having being heat-reformed (ie: hydrolytically burned, aka 'thermal conversion process') can be divided into carbon and minerals (which can be used to fertilizae your lawn), methane (used in the heat-reformer), and diesel oil (which can be used to fuel your disel vehicle).

      Sorry, but it's funny how inserting a step between an unlikely pair (used oil - fertilizer) can make it viable.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    55. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's from a small town. There were 12 in his class.

    56. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

      Not just the magnetron. The capacitor inside a microwave can hold a lethal charge for days or even weeks. If you ever have to do anything inside a microwave discharge the capacitor first. Besides, it makes a very impressive spark when you do it.

    57. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      And I always thought "Dr. kitsunewarlock" was just a nickname! You know, like "Dr. Dre"? East si-hide!

    58. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kitsunewarlock
      th
      Bomarded withg thoughts on how to comment to your post.

      Although I empathise with your ideas and sympathise with your need for emotional councelling - I am way to full of Jack Daniells to articulate a coherent addendum.

      Power to your elbow and a damp flannel to your brow.

      Later (and more sober) dude

      Banghead

    59. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Eil · · Score: 1

      "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes,"

      Wait, it isn't?

    60. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      Why look it up when I can just click on this map:

      http://www.breathingearth.net/

      Click on "about" to see their sources. I could find only one country where deaths outnumbered births.

      Watch it for a while...

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    61. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      Yeah...Los Angeles was a small town alright...actually Santa Fe Springs, but it was the only Catholic Prep school in the area (save for Servite really). I probably would have got higher if my dad didn't die in the summer before senior year. But yeah, I didn't even get auto-acceptance into the UC system...only top 10 got that...kinda a downer. But I was the only person left in AP Latin (Virgil) who wasn't practically kicked out...good times... Oh, and sorry for the typos. I was awfully tired when I wrote that. I didn't even change the formatting to "Plain Old Text" (no matter how much I love putting
      over and over again...).

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    62. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by SaDan · · Score: 1

      How about looking at some real numbers instead of a pretty flash animation that may or may not be correct?

      http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0502-rhett_butler.ht ml

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-peop le-birth-rate

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

      http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/ch ap1.htm

      I'm not too worried about having a large family right now.

    63. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Growth of the population is a good thing, especially since most "western" countries are actually facing a declining population

      No, a declining population would be a good thing, since we are approaching or have already exceeded the planet's sustainable carrying capacity for industrial humanity.

      A declining population means more land, more water, and more energy per capita.

      The fact that our economic system requires an ever-expanding population just shows that our economic system is fscked up, is divorced from reality; not that the underlying principles of biology and physics have been repealed for the human race.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    64. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Played with an automatic, not a revolver.

    65. Re:Incoming lawsuits in: by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      I understand that your reproductive actions or lack thereof will not affect world population trends significantly. Nevertheless, I don't think your data indicates that population growth is not a problem. It is still increasing, albeit linearly. The exceptions are few. It was interesting to see the reduction of rate of increase in recent years, however, and if that trend continues, perhaps you are right.

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
  2. As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    However, when I put my sponge/scrubber into the microwave, it caught fire, smoked up the house, ruined my microwave, and pissed me off.
    The stupid shall be punished.
    1. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still killed the bacteria didn't it?

    2. Re:As they say by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      If I did something that damned dumb, I sure wouldn't admit it.

    3. Re:As they say by ViaD · · Score: 0

      Too bad he was not stupid enough to be glad he killed all the bacterias in his sponge.

    4. Re:As they say by ack154 · · Score: 1

      If you didn't realize how dumb it was to begin with, you probably wouldn't care if you were admitting to it.

    5. Re:As they say by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      The stupid shall be punished.
      Stupidity should be painful.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  3. Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ...for while, in the case of the bacteria, only the strong will survive, there is no corresponding negative feedback mechanism to remove those people (and I use that term loosely) from the gene pool that microwave dry sponges and complain that they should have been warned about the terrible, terrible consequences.

    Wankers.

    And this qualifies as a story? Next up, NEWS FLASH: People are stupid!

    1. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In case of human IQ, the evolution feedback works in the wrong direction.
      Generally, the more intelligent, well-educated and well-established couples get children at a later age, and get fewer of them.
      The "dumber" and lower-class people reproduce faster, and there will be more and more of them.

      This effect is clearly visible both on a global scale (developed/developing countries) and locally (lower/upper class).

    2. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Is clearly a natural balance. Predators don't reproduce a lot.

    3. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by hasmael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are implicitly supposing that IQ is a genetic trait, which may not be the case. Intelligence (or the develoment of) could be more related to social or monetary issues.

    4. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In case of human IQ, the evolution feedback works in the wrong direction.
      Evolution does not have any right or wrong directions. That's devolution fallacy.
    5. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by jnieuwen · · Score: 1

      So you are trying to say that people with lower IQ's are more succesfull? Time to take another beer to kill those unnecessary braincells.

    6. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The evolution feedback, in case of human IQ, has worked just fine till now. Almost all human institutions are organized in a pyramid-like structure: the more intelligent, well-educated people will be more at the top, leading. The "dumber" and lower-class people are more near or at the bottom, doing more of the menial work.
      Now, until we have robots (or other technological solutions) that can take over most of the unskilled and lower-skilled work, we do need these "dumber" and lower-class people or the entire economy and our way of life will come to a standstill. Or do you really think, that if everybody was more intelligent and well-educated, that we'd have enough people with PhD's who would find satisfaction in working at the checkout of a supermarket or cleaning toilets or ...?

      The question then becomes: what if we do get to the point where we have robots (or whatever) to do most of the unskilled, lower-skilled and maybe even medium-skilled tasks? We'd have 5 billion people in the world, "mostly" not well-educated and due-to the evolutionary feedback up till now a "big" percentage would not be intelligent enough to be well-educated. What should become of these people? What would they do all day if they're all unemployed?
      Even if natural selection would step in hard at that point and we'd be left with only with 1 billion people, all well-educated, what would THEY do all day? I mean, can you imagine 1 billion well-educated people working on innovations or being "artists"? Soon enough there would be little left to invent, or at least not enough to keep 1 billion people occupied, and then what? Spread out across the universe and colonize other planets? Sure, but seeing as everybody would ofcourse take all the knowledge with them there'd be nothing "real" to do on those planets as well, apart from just living. .... So, we'd have 1 billion people, of which 99.99% have nothing to do, except to just try and enjoy themselves. My guess is most of them would get really bored really fast...

    7. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Of course it's a genetic trait. Perhaps not entirely, but there's a significant genetic component to it, that's why we're humans after all, you can't take a chimpanzee and raise him in IQ promoting environment and get Einstein.

    8. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by eiddam · · Score: 0

      plus, evolution is a rather slow process in the first place.

    9. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a point regarding this - I think governments should encourage people to freeze sperm/eggs when they are fairly young, to avoid the effects of mutations.
      Said intelligent people who avoid having children early would also possibly be the ones to pick up on it the most.

    10. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      This effect is clearly visible both on a global scale (developed/developing countries) and locally (lower/upper class).

      What you're missing is what "developing/developed" means.

      I've also been busy with such data, and I can tell you people were multiplying like rabbits in the likes of Germany, France, USA and so on, before they 'developed'.

      Also don't confuse being massively ignorant (mostly a cultural phenomenon) with being genetically stupid.

      Let's kill this stupid theory.

    11. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Gldm · · Score: 1

      Actually evolution's still working just fine, the problem is lack of selection pressure.

      For a while, intelligence was favored as the smarter people had better health and survived longer and thus reproduced more, and more consistently. Now that more of the population is living "comfortably", there's no longer a favorable selection for that trait. This suggests the level of intelligence has been optimized for the current environment.

      What's going on now is that since there is so little pressure (i.e. the environment isn't really harsh enough to consistently select for a specific favorable set of traits) the gene pool is moving back towards a more neutral stance. I.e. the gene pool is getting more diverse in this environment. This is normally a good thing. It means when the next environment change brings in a pressure that selects for a different favorable trait, more of the population will survive because of this diversity. If we kept evolving for intelligence and suddenly the environment changed to say, high UV radiation resistance as being the next favorable trait, those additional intelligence refinements would likely be fairly useless (neglecting the effect of technology that could be invented to artificially maintain a stable environment). So the current trend now is to randomize the genetics of the population so hopefully some part of it will be able to survive no matter what happens next. You'll still see more intelligent people pop up now and then, as part of the normal variance. But the mean value won't move until there's a reason that becomes an advantage to survival and/or reproduction, and yes it may in fact backslide a bit as it stabilizes.

      People keep assuming that being more intelligent is consistently an advantage. It may be from a societal view of how we define "success", or maybe "potential", or even "progress". But from natural selection's point of view, it isn't. Bigger brains require more resources in terms of food, complicate births, take longer to mature to adult level, etc. The system is designed to quit once "good enough" has been reached, so it doesn't waste resources on overkill.

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    12. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by SpanishArcher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I mean, can you imagine 1 billion well-educated people working on innovations or being "artists"?

      Sure. According to Mr Jobs, that's what's happen inside their Cupertino HQ.

      --
      640KB of virtualized ram will be enough for everybody
    14. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by permaculture · · Score: 1

      "Generally, the more intelligent, well-educated and well-established couples get children at a later age, and get fewer of them.
      The "dumber" and lower-class people reproduce faster, and there will be more and more of them."

      I saw that film, too

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    15. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by xoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ": the more intelligent, well-educated people will be more at the top,"

      I presume you're not an American?

    16. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if natural selection would step in hard at that point and we'd be left with only with 1 billion people, all well-educated, what would THEY do all day? I mean, can you imagine 1 billion well-educated people working on innovations or being "artists"? Soon enough there would be little left to invent, or at least not enough to keep 1 billion people occupied, and then what? Spread out across the universe and colonize other planets? Sure, but seeing as everybody would ofcourse take all the knowledge with them there'd be nothing "real" to do on those planets as well, apart from just living. .... So, we'd have 1 billion people, of which 99.99% have nothing to do, except to just try and enjoy themselves. My guess is most of them would get really bored really fast...

      Errr, what the hell are you arguing? Seriously, I can't figure it out. That there's a finite limit to our intellectual pursuits and/or technological achievements? That existence itself is pointless? That smart people don't know how to have fun?

      Society as a whole will always figure out something to itself occupied. Individuals that don't see the point anymore will inevitably withdraw from society and/or commit suicide--either way, removing themselves from the gene pool--leaving only those individuals who are able and willing to find a purpose. I don't see how intelligence or lack thereof has anything to do with it.

    17. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Zeek40 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's seems to really be a moot point whether IQ is genetic, social or monetary as an individual's children will (generally) be raised in the same social and monetary situation as the parents. No personal experience, but my father has been a guidance counselor at a High School since he retired from the military,(about 7 years) and he swears it's genetic. According to him, 95% of the time, if the kid is an idiot, when the parents come in for a meeting they're going to be idiots too, and the same thing holds true for the smart kids.

    18. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Society as a whole will always figure out something to itself occupied

      Translation: It's 8 AM and I haven't slept yet.

    19. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by inviolet · · Score: 2, Informative
      Evolution does not have any right or wrong directions. That's devolution fallacy.

      Humans set goals which evolution can work for or against. In the case of the goal "All humans become smarter and more peaceful, and achieve worldwide safety and comfort, and stop shooting each other over which hand the invisible man in the sky wants you to wipe your a** with", the goal is nearly universal, at least among men who have thought at all about the optimal future state of mankind.

      It is implied, and obvious to everyone except for pedantics like yourself, that value judgments about evolution are using that goal as the standard of value. And therefore evolution can move in 'right' or 'wrong' directions, relative to that goal.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    20. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by BluBrick · · Score: 1
      Evolution as a system, has clearly not failed... Yet.

      As long as, somewhere in this vast universe, there is even one strand of DNA replicating or about to do so, evolution will continue to be a success.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    21. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Note that the current American president has degrees from two of Americas top universities, so the theory could still stand.

      You could argue that perhaps it needs to be clarified slightly eg. "the more intelligent, or well-educated" to account for places where education is purchased rather than provided by the state on merit.

    22. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      We'd have 5 billion people in the world, "mostly" not well-educated and due-to the evolutionary feedback up till now a "big" percentage would not be intelligent enough to be well-educated. What should become of these people? What would they do all day if they're all unemployed?

      They are consumers. They buy stuff. This appears to now be of fundamental importance to the economy (no one cares what you produce as long as you buy...).

    23. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The link between intelligence and the receipt of higher education degrees has never been conclusively proven to my mind; British life is littered with Oxbridge graduates who are quite demonstrably dense in everything but a narrow field, and usually only pull that off by force of will.

      The link between wealth and power is well established and easily demonstrable.

      I don't know who's dumber really: people who can't follow simple instructions when sterilising a sponge in a microwave, the people who were surprised that superheating water in an object killed off bacteria. I've been sterilising soil from the garden for indoor plants in the microwave for years; kills all bacterial and fungal spores stone dead (and provides a heady scent of cooked worm).

    24. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Actually, the biggest problem with eugenics theories is this: the gene pool is too large for any multi-gene cluster (as must be needed to influence anything so nebulus as intelligence) to become dominant in any reasonable amount of time. If you want to see results on the order of a tens of thousands of years, you'd have to cut down the number of people, or at least segregate them into small breeding pools.

      In any case probability is that even the stupid have excellent genes, the best results of millions of years of genetic pressure on small breeding groups of human ancestors. They may have drawn a bad "hand", or have had the hand they were dealt badly played (poor environment and education), but it goes too far to blame the individual cards.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not describing evolution, you are looking at the supply and demand of learned trade skills. A very smart CEO of a fortune 100 company has no more life maintaining skills then an inner city homeless bum.
      Evolutionary changes typcially take place over many thousands of years. In that time, many governments, economic cycles, wars, outbreaks, and comets will have come and gone. If a comet hits the earth tommorrow, those that are small, weak, and have lived in a clean room bacteria free lifestyle in lower Manahattan will be the first to die off. No amount of law school or money handling skills is going to help in that situation.

      Just about anyone can take the job of anyone else in the world with very few exceptions. All it would take is the devotion, time, and money to get the specialized training to fill that role. The training required is nothing more then the same training the people filling those roles right now went through. A farmer could be a DC lawyer and the NY CPA could be an auto mechanic. The only thing that really seperates any of these positions is the amount of money you recieve for doing that type of work. Fair enough that they are different amounts but the actual IQ required to do each of the jobs the work is such a very small part of the equation. Of course none of these jobs has anything at all to do with evolution which is the ability to adapt to changes in your environment, not to adapt to your local economy. The squirrel with the "best job" and most prestige is not always the one that will survive the harsh winter.

    26. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Woek · · Score: 1

      Watched Idiocracy lately?

    27. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by raduf · · Score: 1

      Very very good point, wish I had mod points. That's the way society naturaly evolved: few intelligent people at the top and the "unwashed masses" doind the menial works. Always the evolution of the more complex structure (society) takes precedence over the evolution of the individual.

      As for the second part, the problem is pretty much solved, isn't it? Most of the developed world already runs in a rat-wheel, working to satisfy created needs (like a new car every five years). So no, they won't die of boredom, unless they already are.
      As for the few who gave up the idiot box and try to find interesing things to do - well there is still huge work to be done for at least a couple of hundred years. Just in programming - if I had a spare year or so I'd work on this and for 5-10 years or more there is still a good open source Common Lisp distribution missing. And then the whole meeting girls in bars thing to work out... Come to think of it, life is actualy short, isn't it?

    28. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by jackbird · · Score: 1
      I see your point, but once humans evolved language and writing, a single human could leverage the experience and intelligence of just about every human that ever lived. Intelligence at a sufficient level trumps most selective pressures (in your UV example, knowing to wear a hat, stay inside, and use sunscreen, as well as knowing how to make hats, sunscreen, and buildings).

      Incidentally, this is what leads to humans' tendency to crap up ecosystems with inventions that bypass 'the natural order of things' by using exotic, nonobvious properties of the materials in their environment (like the difference between a bird building a nest and manufacturing Portland cement) and put intolerable selective pressure on other species.

      This also means that once we're on this path, more intelligence is the trait most advantageous to advance, absent really extreme selective pressure on our ability to maintain homeostasis (e.g. asteroid impact, nuclear war, runaway Venus-like global warming, etc.). Even then, evolving the ability to colonize other planets seems like our DNA's best shot at continuing to propagate.

    29. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      In case of human IQ, the evolution feedback works in the wrong direction.
      Generally, the more intelligent, well-educated and well-established couples get children at a later age, and get fewer of them.
      The "dumber" and lower-class people reproduce faster, and there will be more and more of them.

      This effect is clearly visible both on a global scale (developed/developing countries) and locally (lower/upper class).


      This is unlikely to be anything new. Very intelligent people have a tendency to get distracted into doing other things that distract from their "real" business (evolutionarily speaking) of increasing the representation of their genes in the gene pool. On the other hand, intelligence can benefit survival, so while the number of offspring may be smaller, they may survive longer, compensating for their lower average fertility.

      So we may already be pretty close to steady state insofar as evolution of intelligence is concerned. The notion that there is some kind of evolutionary driving force toward ever-greater intelligence is probably wrong, but fears about degradation of the gene pool because of less intelligent people having more children are probably also misguided.

      Whether it would be a good thing for us to get smarter is another question entirely. And one that we will have to answer eventually, because genetic studies will inevitably lead eventually to identification of genes that limit intelligence, making it possible for parents to control, at least to some extent, the intelligence of their children.
    30. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      And everybody loves DEVO!!!

      Whip it Good!

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    31. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by nasch · · Score: 1
      This also means that once we're on this path, more intelligence is the trait most advantageous to advance, absent really extreme selective pressure on our ability to maintain homeostasis (e.g. asteroid impact, nuclear war, runaway Venus-like global warming, etc.). Even then, evolving the ability to colonize other planets seems like our DNA's best shot at continuing to propagate.
      I'm not really sure what you're going for here. Evolution by natural selection doesn't "care" about advancing (whatever that is). It only cares about propagating genes. Does higher intelligence lead to a greater chance of passing genes along in today's world? I don't see how. Are the smart people having more kids than the dumb people? Seems like the reverse, if anything. As far as colonizing other worlds, that will be true when we start having trouble reproducing on Earth for some reason. I'm wondering if you're thinking of intelligence as the species' best chance for survival. That could very well be true, but that doesn't mean it's being selected for. Only the things that lead to a better chance of reproducing more are selected for, which means we could have selection pressures that are working against our species' long-term survival, since selection pressure cannot foresee any upcoming changes in the environment and plan for them. Bummer (if true).
    32. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are implicitly supposing that IQ is a genetic trait, which may not be the case. Intelligence (or the develoment of) could be more related to social or monetary issues.

      It has a correlation to monetary issues, but is not "caused" by monetary issues. Diet has a bigger factor in IQ than anything you list, but then you could claim "societal or monetary" could affect diet. Perhaps you should have just said "environmental." That's the real buzz word for the debate. Is it genetic or environmental? And the answer is probably the same as height and many other things. It is 100% genetic, except where affected by the environment. That is to say, genetics sets up the baseline. The environment can cause deviations from he baseline, but the environment does not set the baseline. 1000 people from the same environment will vary wildly. 1000 people with the same genetics are quite close together. This has been shown with twins separated at birth and raised in vastly different environments ending up more similar than different, for hobbies, traints, and yes, results on IQ tests.

      The people that imply enviroment has anything to do with IQ or height are trying to come up with excuses for differences between people. Why is it so bad that someone is "dumber" than someone else and it can't be changed? It is people that claim environment that imply a low IQ is a failing that must be explained away.

    33. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Evolution does not have any right or wrong directions. That's devolution fallacy.
      Humans set goals which evolution can work for or against. In the case of the goal "All humans become smarter and more peaceful, and achieve worldwide safety and comfort, and stop shooting each other over which hand the invisible man in the sky wants you to wipe your a** with", the goal is nearly universal, at least among men who have thought at all about the optimal future state of mankind.

      It is implied, and obvious to everyone except for pedantics like yourself, that value judgments about evolution are using that goal as the standard of value. And therefore evolution can move in 'right' or 'wrong' directions, relative to that goal.


      Um, you are confusing breeding and evolution. You'd like to breed humanity into some communal loving sheep species. God gave us free will to screw with our selves how ever we choose. That applies to our species as well. Your communal loving sheep will be slaughtered or enslaved or just governed by 1-5% of humanity that goes down the other route. They are actually both morally equal. To say one side is morally better than the other is just to apply our own standards on it. I'm not part of the ruling class, but I'd like to be. I'm not ruthless or crave it enough though. I'm quite happy being a bottom rung sheep. So as long as I don't get slaughtered in a war, I'll be happy.

    34. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Even if natural selection would step in hard at that point and we'd be left with only with 1 billion people, all well-educated, what would THEY do all day? I mean, can you imagine 1 billion well-educated people working on innovations or being "artists"? Soon enough there would be little left to invent, or at least not enough to keep 1 billion people occupied, and then what? Spread out across the universe and colonize other planets? Sure, but seeing as everybody would ofcourse take all the knowledge with them there'd be nothing "real" to do on those planets as well, apart from just living. .... So, we'd have 1 billion people, of which 99.99% have nothing to do, except to just try and enjoy themselves. My guess is most of them would get really bored really fast...

      O.k. say an economic purge just leaves those not employed to starve to death as low level jobs are all done by robots and those jobs that are left are all very high skilled jobs. Um, I don't quiet buy that. I'd think that the human labor would be redirected. We'd use them as entertainment before just allowing them to die off. Think wars being refought and televisied for the fun factor to see who wins. The elite don't take part it just a common lower class thing, but say every major war in human history is refought with period weapons, just to see if that nation's team could now win. If you get bored or tired of life, you die off so you won't make it as an immortal. Immortals don't get bored easily. They might start building a ring world just to take up the time.

    35. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by ramsun · · Score: 1

      It is implied, and obvious to everyone except for pedantics like yourself,

      Pedants like myself, please. Being pedantic is what we do.

      O
    36. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      As for the second part, the problem is pretty much solved, isn't it? Most of the developed world already runs in a rat-wheel, working to satisfy created needs (like a new car every five years). So no, they won't die of boredom, unless they already are.
      As for the few who gave up the idiot box and try to find interesing things to do - well there is still huge work to be done for at least a couple of hundred years. Just in programming - if I had a spare year or so I'd work on this [sourceforge.net] and for 5-10 years or more there is still a good open source Common Lisp distribution missing. And then the whole meeting girls in bars thing to work out... Come to think of it, life is actualy short, isn't it?


      There is a few thousand years of things that I'd like to do. But for some eason, I still put have daily/weekly sex in there with learn every human language and Phds in every existing human field of knowledge. Actual reproduction, I don't want. I just want the sex. Maybe 50, 100, or 500 years of daily or weekly sex as ordered would be enough for me to get bored with it, but then there is all the science and tech things that I'd also be able to play with. I think having a society where we become immortal would chage us more than anything. I'd life with my current wife for 50-100 years, but after the house was paid for, the kids moved into lives of their own, and I'd still have hundreds of years to live in the future? We both might get bored with just each other after 200-300 years.

    37. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what is wrong with the statement then?

      I don't think developed/developing is a permanent stamp on a country that has always been valid, do you?
      Many countries have been developing countries, and now can be considered more developed. You will see birth figures dropping, as well as young age mortality etc, in those countries.

      Sure there are cultural factors as well.

    38. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      I thought they used oompa-loompas.

    39. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by hempola · · Score: 2, Informative
      I wish there was a negative comment modifier called: "Stop with the overused, paranoid theory that robots will ruin the economy by unemploying uneducated people".

      **(For the record, I don't downmod comments)**

      The whole robots/unemployment thing has been hashed out repeatedly, argued even before there was a term/name for "robots". The following is the outline of personal notes i used for a speech i had to give in speech class a few years ago:


      WHY ROBOTS WON'T TAKE ALL JOBS.txt

      first, if everyone loses their jobs and have no money, there will be no one buying anything the robots make or services the robots offer, and then the companies won't be able to get any money to build and maintain the robots.

      --------------------

      nor will we loose all the current type of jobs, like service jobs.

      why? people will not allow this to occur. we need to be able to talk to an actual person. computers can't tell if you are getting frustrated.

      like ATMs didn't replace all the bank tellers, computers can't replace the personal touch. how many of y'all get pissed-off using those automated call systems? "press two if business, press three if residential, press four....."

      Arby's offered automated ordering - touch screens where you could order your own food. a lot of people did not use it. it was not successful.

      --------------------

      automation will only be used where it can reduce costs, wich means lower prices, which means we can buy more stuff. it makes us all richer.

      7000 years ago... the invention of the hammer unemployed a lot of people who used rocks (they prolly went into farming).

      printing presses wiped out the hand copied manuscript industry, but made books available to everyone.

      people always find something else to do, or else we would all be unemployed already!

      for example: the robot industry will create millions of new jobs to program/design/manufacture the robots

      --------------------

      funny: how about buy your own robot and then have it go to work for you, while YOU get paid. now THAT's labor saving!


    40. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1
      This is unlikely to be anything new. Very intelligent people have a tendency to get distracted into doing other things that distract from their "real" business (evolutionarily speaking) of increasing the representation of their genes in the gene pool. On the other hand, intelligence can benefit survival, so while the number of offspring may be smaller, they may survive longer, compensating for their lower average fertility.
      I once considered this question: "How do you evaluate the success of a trait/species/whatever numerically?" At first I thought it was (Number of members) * (time). But the main thing that matters is if the species is still around (since evolution is based on who survives after all), so that means its only time that needs to be accounted for. I'm not sure if I'm being completely redundant or not, but I think that success = (delta)t is probably the only way to go. I'm not a biologist so maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The nice thing about a formula like that is if someone gets confused (like if some aspect of intelligence vs whatever) you can just point to it and say increase or decrease on the whole?
    41. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      The only way of evaluating the success of a trait that really makes sense evolutionarily is the fraction of the population of that species carrying the trait as a function of time. But that doesn't take into account survival of the species, or of what you might call its "evolvability" -- it's ability to continue to evolve or to give rise to other species. That is probably appropriate from an evolutionary point of view, since in most circumstances natural selection doesn't really much "care" about survival of the species. It will quite happily paint a species into a corner where extinction is inevitable.

      It is important not to fall into the trap of confusing evolutionary success with value. While natural selection may have replaced the hand of god as an explanation of the origin of species diversity (at least for educated people), it is easy to fall into the habit of presuming that because something has evolved, it must be good. But natural selection is not a god, and it doesn't care about us. While we may of course be happy that we have evolved, that doesn't mean that natural selection has our best interests at heart. And there is no reason why we shouldn't interfere with natural selection, so long as we make sure that we know what we are doing.

    42. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      > "In case of human IQ, the evolution feedback works in the wrong direction."
      > Evolution does not have any right or wrong directions. That's devolution fallacy.

      I believe you're mistaking his grammar. "Wrong direction", in this statement, doesn't apply to any inherent goal of evolution, but to a goal of the race that evolution applies to, specifically enhancing human IQ.

      If he had said, "We're devolving", I'd agree with you, but in this case, what quite clearly states is that the process of natural selection appears to be moving an attribute of humankind in a direction that is counterproductive to its apparent goal. In essence, the 'wrong direction'.

      He actually states the intent of the devolution fallacy in the correct form, by not attributing a set of goals to an undirected process.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    43. Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      My guess is that you're not intelligent enough to know that, even counting a huge database of All Human Knowledge as part of your own, no one can know everything. There will always be something new to learn (and if there's not, there's always something new to try).

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  4. cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I tried to use the technique to sterilize the cat, and that did not work very well either!

    1. Re:cat by lahvak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you soak the cat in water first?

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Did you soak the cat in water first?

      Ah, so that's why they throw witches in the lake before microwaving them.

    3. Re:cat by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did. But cats don't like water, so he scratched my eyes out. Now I'm blind. Any more suggestions?

    4. Re:cat by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      Sue euters and the university, for not warning you about the dangers. You are a wlaking gold-mine and you don't knwo it.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    5. Re:cat by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      figure's that I hit the submit button before I spell-checked....

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    6. Re:cat by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Did the cat bite off some of your fingers too?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. A bit silly? by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Informative

    How else did they expect it to work? Of course you need the god-damn water in the sponge. Microwaves have a wave length measured in the centimetre. The size of a bacterial spore is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller The size of a bateria is a lot smaller than this again.

    This means that if you wanted to destroy the blighters with radiation alone you have to choose a frequency a lot higher than microwaves, otherwise there will be areas in the minima of the standing wave that won't heat sufficently to kill the microbes.

    The mechanism for steralisation is through the formation of steam that kills the majority of the nasties - not the microwave energy itself.

    Simon

    1. Re:A bit silly? by zaydana · · Score: 1

      Because the average joe always takes into account the wavelength of radiation, and how the bacteria is going to be killed. And they especially know that microwaves have a wave length measured in the centimetre.

      Common people, cut the laymen a bit of slack. They were just following instructions the best they knew how.

    2. Re:A bit silly? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the article is absolutely non-clear. I quote (from the original article): " Writing in the Journal of Environmental Health, Bitton and colleagues said they soaked sponges and scrubbing pads in raw wastewater containing fecal bacteria such as E. coli, viruses, protozoan parasites and bacterial spores. ".

      Emphasis mine.... Draw your own conclusions, but I say it was pretty damn clear that the sponges should be wet. Apart from that, for the last 20 years, microwaves have been explained in basic high school physics class. Anyone under 30 should know how they work.

    3. Re:A bit silly? by mlk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Taking just that one line
      Writing in the Journal of Environmental Health, Bitton and colleagues said they soaked sponges and scrubbing pads in raw wastewater containing fecal bacteria such as E. coli, viruses, protozoan parasites and bacterial spores. ".

      You could easily read that as if the soaking in wastewater was just to add some nasties to zap.
      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    4. Re:A bit silly? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      You don't even need to that to have some nasties to zap. Just take the sponge next to the sink, it'll have all the nasties you need to zap: it's a bacterial breeder paradise. The researchers were going for overkill, which is very evident.

    5. Re:A bit silly? by mpe · · Score: 1

      How else did they expect it to work?

      To the average person a microwave is a magic box which makes food hot. In theory without heating the container. (Except that heat can travel by conduction and some materials can be heated perfectly well by microwaves.)

      Microwaves have a wave length measured in the centimetre. The size of a bacterial spore is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller The size of a bateria is a lot smaller than this again.

      I'm not sure about bacterial spores being larger than live bacteria. A spore has no cytoplasm, just DNA in a tough shell.

      This means that if you wanted to destroy the blighters with radiation alone you have to choose a frequency a lot higher than microwaves,

      You also need a much higher radiation flux, bacteria (espcially inspored ones) can be quite tough. As well as there being a risk of mutating something harmless into something dangerous. The vast majority of bacteria cannot survive inside mammals in the first place.

    6. Re:A bit silly? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I read it as the soaking in bacteria was necessary setup for the experiment, not that it was a requirement for it to work.

      Nowhere is soaking in clean water mention either, if you want to be that pedantic about it.

      Luckily I never tried this... I wouldn't have soaked the sponge in water.. guessed it might have worked because bacteria cells contain water but the articles were so vague as to contain no details whatsoever.

    7. Re:A bit silly? by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      Microwaves have a wave length measured in the centimetre
      So? The circumference of the Earth can be measured in the centimetre -- if you can count to 4 000 000 000!
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    8. Re:A bit silly? by zanderredux · · Score: 1
      isn't it just easier to put the sponge in a pan full of water and let it boil for two minutes?

      I mean, why microwave oven? Does it get hotter than boiling water?

    9. Re:A bit silly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't it just easier to put the sponge in a pan full of water and let it boil for two minutes?

      Probably not. Using the microwave to boil the quantity of water in a soaked sponge would be much faster than boiling an entire pot of water to immerse a sponge in.

      I mean, why microwave oven? Does it get hotter than boiling water?

      Yes. Microwaving water has the potential to heat it beyond its normal boiling point (superheating.)

    10. Re:A bit silly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, you can only superheat water if it is extremely pure. (no contaminates at all, I'm sure waste water has plenty of that :P)

    11. Re:A bit silly? by SirMeliot · · Score: 2, Funny

      None of that matters. If you don't wet the sponge, the resulting fire will kill the bacteria just fine.

    12. Re:A bit silly? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      A-ha!

      So because the surf thingy is measured in centimetres they should have used a European microwave and since little germ-people are too small to see, they should have placed a magnifying glass over the sponge first.
      And because the radiation is too high, they should put something under the sponge too, to lift the sponge higher and closer to radiation.

      Got it!

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    13. Re:A bit silly? by collectivescott · · Score: 1

      The water might not get hotter, but the steam sure will. If the sponge is immersed it won't get the benefit of the steam factor.

      Also, water doesn't need to be very pure to be heated slightly beyond boiling in my experience, it happens frequently in non-turntable microwaves.

      PS - When I tried this I didn't forget to wet the sponge, but I almost burned my hand on the cup I placed it in. So much for intelligence.

    14. Re:A bit silly? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      The waste water will likely be ionized, which will generally result in a boiling temperature of greater than 100*C at sea level.

      I've been sterilizing sponges using the microwave for years now; it was obvious before I even started doing this that it should first be wet. More recently I've been putting them in boiling water on the stove instead, and add a few drops of bleach after I turn the burner off and it cools down a little bit.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    15. Re:A bit silly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now we're going to have people getting mad because they accidentally flushed their sponges down the toilet trying to follow the exact instructions in the article
      More lawsuits in: 3, 2, 1...

    16. Re:A bit silly? by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      I consider myself a geek, but I do try the simpler thing first, such as say, rinsing grime from the sponge with soap&water, then dipping&rinsing it with a roughly 10%/90% bleach/hot water solution. This tends to work better in my experience.

    17. Re:A bit silly? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      You're wrong about the wavelength in this case. If you don't believe me stick an ant in a small-microwave transparent container to stop it running around, add a small cup of water beside it, to avoid overloading the magnetron, and turn it on.

      The ant dies, because the microwaves cause the water molecules to oscillate at 2.5Ghz, and they bounce off each other, generating heat, cooking the ant. But the ant is *much* smaller than the wavelength of the oven (~12cm)

      You can't use 12cm microwaves to locate the ant precisely (radar-style), but they cook it just fine.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    18. Re:A bit silly? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      *hands you a medal*

      For being a dumbass. Thanks for playing!

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    19. Re:A bit silly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apart from that, for the last 20 years, microwaves have been explained in basic high school physics class."

      The average US high school student doesn't take a physics class. They take only one or two science classes and those are usually an "earth sciences" type of class and maybe "biology for burger flippers".

  6. lets be clear about this by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    However, when I put my sponge/scrubber into the microwave, it caught fire, smoked up the house, ruined my microwave, and pissed me off,

    He wasn't using one of those Sony battery-operated microwaves, was he?

  7. Stupid People, Stupid Method by StarWreck · · Score: 3, Informative

    The microwave steralizes the wet sponge because it makes the water hot enough to kill anything living. The same effect can be had by dunking the sponge in a pot of boiling water.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    1. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yea, but then it would take longer then 2 minutes, would make us look super smart by using teknoligy to do something and we wouldn't have the scifi like atmosphere were the microwave oven "zaps" someting into being cooked.

      It is kind of like putting your socks in it to dry them. because it can and somewhere i was told it was cool.

    2. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by mpe · · Score: 1

      The microwave steralizes the wet sponge because it makes the water hot enough to kill anything living. The same effect can be had by dunking the sponge in a pot of boiling water.

      Using a pot of boiling water would need the sponge to stay in for quite a while, probably held down with a wooden spoon, then you need to safely remove a sponge soaked in boiling water. Using a microwave uses less energy and probably carries less risk of personal injury.

    3. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need to be able to spell and show some knowledge of grammar to look Super Smart.

    4. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by nbert · · Score: 1

      Not as effective, but viable (and convenient): Just put the sponge in the dishwasher from time to time.

      Replacing them at regular intervals works miracles btw. Afterall sponges are not that expensive...

    5. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Using a microwave uses less energy and probably carries less risk of personal injury. Unless you're a putz who forgets to wet the sponge and burns your frelling house down, that is...

    6. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by plumby · · Score: 1
      then you need to safely remove a sponge soaked in boiling water.
      Presumbaly, letting the water cool down before removing the sponge would achieve that.
      probably carries less risk of personal injury.
      Only if you don't count "house might burn down" as a possible cause of injury.
    7. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, your dishwasher is not going to sterilize anything, and besides, it uses water very inefficiently.

      What's funny, is that in TFA, it specifically mentions people who put them in the dishwasher. It will clean the sponge of debris, but not disinfect it. Perhaps both would be the right treatment to properly clean the sponge.

    8. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, your dishwasher is not going to sterilize anything,

      Just because you don't know how to work a dishwasher doesn't make your false statements true. My dishwasher has a little button marked "sterilize." I don't have the manual in front of me, but I believe that when that button is pressed, the wash cycle hits >160F for no less than 5 minutes. Perhaps you should stop buying your dishwashers at Wal-Mart and you'll realize that there are other settings than just "on" and "off" on dishwashers.

    9. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, this isn't really a reply, but up to this post I had misread 'sponge' for 'spoon'.
      I actually was thinking "Why do they only sterilize spoons, and not forks and knifes?"

      So much for stupidity .....

      I actually feel stupid now ....

    10. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what if you're a putz who forgets to wet the sponge before putting it into the boiling water.
      What then, huh?

    11. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      The microwave steralizes the wet sponge because it makes the water hot enough to kill anything living. The same effect can be had by dunking the sponge in a pot of boiling water.

      True, but if your example was the article in question, you forgot to mention:

      The stove's burner will be on, and hot, and not touched and should be turned off when done.

      The water, and the pot, will be hot and to use a utensile, not use your hand to submerge the sponge.

      You also forgot the standard boiler-plate "do not try at home" (work is better, early day off and such) and
      "not responsible for x, y, z and unforseen events" which usually means "Do it, but don't blame us if/when
      something goes 'boom'...c'mon, we dare you!".

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    12. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you miss the irony or humor tags or did it fly past you supper fast while just missing your head by about ten feet?

  8. You're being naive/optimistic by 246o1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People do not understand microwaves. Berating them for not using their understanding of microwaves is like watching a Spiderman movie and saying "Why doesn't he just fly out of there?"

    --
    Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    1. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that analogy needs a bit of polishing.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    2. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by 246o1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's all about expecting people to use abilities they don't have, like the ability to fly, or the ability to understand something complex they know nothing about. But just for you, I'll do a political version:

      People don't understand microwaves. Expecting them to use their understanding of microwaves would be like asking President Bush to use his understanding of diplomacy.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    3. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Funny
      Berating them for not using their understanding of microwaves is like watching a Spiderman movie and saying "Why doesn't he just fly out of there?"
      Could this be the worst analogy on /. , ever?
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. that was funny. incorect but funny. Not to pick, but bush probably has an understanding of diplomacy, just not in a way as some would like.

      But that was probably one of the best bush jokes I have seen yet.

    5. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by jrumney · · Score: 4, Informative

      People may not understand microwaves, but the original article I saw gave the following advice:

      • Wet the sponge first. Dry sponges will not heat evenly and may catch fire.
      • Keep an eye on the sponge while it is in the microwave and stop the microwave immediately if there is any sparking.
      • 2 minutes should be enough for most bacteria, but never microwave your sponge for longer than 10 minutes.

      Maybe some news sources edited the article down to a short filler piece and left out some of these crucial details.

    6. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by OlivierB · · Score: 1

      Thought I was being a little slow before my morning coffee not getting the point.
      If this isn't the worst analogy ever, I think it definitely makes it in the Top 5 funniest analogies.

      --
      Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
    7. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Barny · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, one from bash.org is the best....

      TriPod11: bush ain't THAT bad...he kinda knows what he's doin
      idaredbeet08: Please, Monica Lewenski had more President in her than George Bush ever will.

      http://bash.org/?706281

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    8. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. I get it - Bush is like Spiderman because he got us tangled in Iraq?

    9. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      "Spider-man" is to "flying" as "Joe Average" is to "understanding how microwaves work".

      That "whooshing" sound you heard is not Spider-man flying over your head, but, rather, the joke.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    10. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's all about expecting people to use abilities they don't have, like the ability to fly, or the ability to understand something complex they know nothing about.

      Or even the ability to read instructions! Which is why the likes of Brainiac state "Don't try this at home" when demonstrating what not to put in a microwave. (Though they might consider having someone other than Richard Hammond do the warning.)

      Expecting them to use their understanding of microwaves would be like asking President Bush to use his understanding of diplomacy.

      The last two words of this sentence are most likely redundant.

    11. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Because he's stuck in his web, duh!

    12. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by StrahdVZ · · Score: 1

      Last, people should be careful when removing the sponge from the microwave as it will be hot.


      The fact that they even needed to state this restores my faith in stupidity.

    13. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      another top-relavent bash quote for this topic

      http://bash.org/?4753

        The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

    14. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Teun · · Score: 1

      Good!

      The first and the next articles I saw on this subject (in some main publications) left the wetting of the sponge out. What I'm so far missing in this discussion is that journalists / writers /editors of at least the serious press have an obligation as well.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    15. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by kurtis25 · · Score: 1

      the article I heard on tv (local news) said nothing about wetting first. Of course it said nothign about trying it at home, when they soaked it in filth I new it would be wet. I've been doing this for years, ever since college, I paid for sponges not electricity so a few minutes in the microwave saved me a few cents and my sponge smelled a whole lot better. Of course my idiot house-mate tride this and put it in for 5 minutes to which my become extra crisp. It's best to heat a cup water first in the microwave (like you do with popcorn)then do the sponge.

    16. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by OS24Ever · · Score: 1
      Could this be the worst analogy on /. , ever?


      No, You need to turn in your Uber geek card now. Thanks.
      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    17. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by tgd · · Score: 1

      Give me Kirsten Dunst, and I'll take care of some polishing...

    18. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Just don't heat an *empty* cup of the water in the microwave.. stick something in it. Even salt. Otherwise, you might wind up with a face full of exploding water.

      This is particularly dangerous if you've already microwave-boiled the water once.

      http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    19. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by AlHunt · · Score: 1
      Maybe some news sources edited the article down to a short filler piece and left out some of these crucial details.

      And yet everybody should know that microwaves heat things up by exciting water molecules.

      Dry sponges have no water molecules.

      The zero-thought society strikes again.
      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    20. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by TavisJohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He has no clue what he is doing! He has no idea what his stand on anythign is untill his speech writer hand's him a pice of paper. And he does not even try to HIDE that! Does he practice before any speech he gives? No Does he even read the speech before he gives it publicly? NO!

      G.W. Bush is really a meat puppet, everyone in politics seems to have their hand shoved inside him pulling strings. They seem to be taking turns with him now, but he is one of the worst presidents ever!

      Now if you will excuse me, I have to get ready for HomeLand Security to come over. Aparently they now think I am a terrorist (See above statements) and I am about to be jailed without being told why. And there is no telling how long I am going to be held.

    21. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      People do not understand microwaves. Berating them for not using their understanding of microwaves is like watching a Spiderman movie and saying "Why doesn't he just fly out of there?"

      Difference is, I don't expect Spiderman to be taught in high school science classrooms.

      Of course, I also expect high school science classes to know that "prolonged exposure to heat can kill many pathogens", so I guess I don't understand why this was newsworthy to begin with.

    22. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      Berating them for not using their understanding of microwaves is like watching a Spiderman movie and saying "Why doesn't he just fly out of there?"

      Could this be the worst analogy on /. , ever?

      The analogy didn't involve cars, therefore, it can't be that bad...

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    23. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by kimvette · · Score: 1

      It's not that Bush does not understand; it's just that he does not care.

      Or more accurately, he cares about how it benefits or does not benefit himself directly, regardless of how it impacts those he is elected to serve. This is true of most politicians, apparently.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    24. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by niko9 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Bad analogies are like leaky screwdrivers.

    25. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?

    26. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by jdroog · · Score: 1

      4. Make sure sponge contains minimal amount of soap

      The inside of my microwave sure is clean now! The article I saw suggested that the sponge be moistened. I tried it, no problem (mostly - I did use a plate).

      I think that providing reading comprehension refresher courses for adults would be a great boon to any industry that deals directly with the public. Then again, maybe that's why we have service contracts. hmmmm...

    27. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with Prez Bush's sense of diplomacy:
      "If you don't co-operate, there will be bombs coming in.
      You will be bombed back into the stone age..."

      Crude, but effective.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    28. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was able to decode the meaning of your analogy; however, it was worded poorly.

      Berating them for not using their understanding of microwaves is like watching a Spiderman movie and saying "Why doesn't he just fly out of there?"

      That sentence compares someone berating a microwave user who isn't savvy, with a someone who doesn't understand why Spiderman can't fly.

      Your sentence should read something like this:
      Berating an average consumer for not understanding how a microwave works is like berating someone who doesn't read comics for asking why Spiderman doesn't fly.

      The analogy should be between the two critics, not the critic and victim of criticism.
      Get it? :P

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    29. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Not clear enough! Should have said: wet the sponge first *with water*. I just tried it with various cleaning fluids (containing alcohol, various kinds of oils, chlorides etc.) and it did not go all that well.

    30. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Supermuttonpie · · Score: 1

      I had an idea for a spiderman film where he goes back in time, he would be on the great plains.....................

    31. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by Barny · · Score: 1

      Haha, I am not an american, I just posted it because I thought it was a good laugh (and it is, judging by the way the fucktard acts).

      In all honesty though, since your head of state is a "representative of the people" you can imagine what sort of picture this paints of the average american for everyone ;)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    32. Re:You're being naive/optimistic by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

      You are right, Bush does not paint a positive face on America, or it's people.

      I am tempted to make Shirts that say "I'm not with him" and below a hand pointing at a pic of Bush.

      (Oh as for being labled a Terrorist, they are running behind, Soo many anti-bush comments everywhere, they have decided to take them in the order they were posted online. SO I should be save for the next 50 years. I expect to be hear from them when I turn 83)

  9. What is he whining about? by Squapper · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the sponge caugth fire, the microbes are probably dead by now. Right?

  10. This just in... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    holding your breath underwater for 5 minutes cures stupidity. I take full responsibility for all results of home trials.

    1. Re:This just in... by AccUser · · Score: 1

      I can hold my breath underwater for just over 5 minutes. Does that mean I am not stupid?

      --

      Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

    2. Re:This just in... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 5, Funny

      No it means he missed a '0'. 5 minutes cures only some forms of stupidity. 50 minutes cures all forms.

    3. Re:This just in... by GMontag · · Score: 1

      LOL, I like your joke.

      Almost anybody can hold their breath for .50 min. so everybody is quite bright by your measure!

    4. Re:This just in... by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit! Unless your name is Threepwood.

    5. Re:This just in... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      No; the point was outside the speech marks, so by convention it was not part of the reported speech.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    6. Re:This just in... by AccUser · · Score: 1

      Please, call me Guybrush...

      --

      Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

    7. Re:This just in... by Lissajous · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded insightful? Funny, maybe, with the Monkey Island reference, but insightful?

      FYI, the world static apnea, or breathholding, record stands at over nine minutes. Herbert Nitsch set it at the end of last year. Last summer whilst working as a Divemaster in Cyprus I worked my way up to 3.5 minutes with comparatively little effort, so I can well believe GP capable of five.

    8. Re:This just in... by Geordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er, not really. Just look at David Blaine and his "fishbowl" stunt not too long back. He's still around

      --
      It is by caffiene alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire
    9. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the fishy kind.

    10. Re:This just in... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  11. Sounds like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lots of smoke? Smells like burning tires? Really pissed off? These people sound like Linux users trying to get their sound cards to work.

    1. Re:Sounds like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kekekeke, it's funny 'cause it's true.

    2. Re:Sounds like.... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      LMAO.

      Where are my mod points when I need them?

      Not like it matters, since +funny = no karma and AC = can't get karma anyway.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Sounds like.... by tranceyboy · · Score: 1

      There is always one bashful idiot that wants to draw lines between operating systems, but the way; Linux is better than windows. Ehh

      --
      "Too bad that bureaucrats' hunger for power is never matched by greater quantities of wisdom or intelligence!!--Could it
    4. Re:Sounds like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, i had less problem with a creative SB under linux then under Windows.

      Expecially becouse windows driver are for a single revision of the card, and u can get crazy in finding the right driver even when cards have the same chipset.

      So probably it's the sound of a PC with windows overloaded of virus or trojan.

    5. Re:Sounds like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is better than windows? That's like saying eating wood chips is better than eating dirt!!

    6. Re:Sounds like.... by killjoy966 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is just some level of meta-humor that went over my head, but isn't this joke incredibly dated (i.e. not funny)?

      --

      Sigs are for suckers.

  12. Expected results? by What+the+Frag · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Putting the sponge on fire killed the bacteria, viruses and parasites on the sponge, right?

    So why did he complain? I mean, many items do actually smoke when they're set on fire...

  13. stupidity by AndyST · · Score: 1

    From a darwinistic point of view, it would seam desirable that stupidity should kill (or sterilize, at least). I, however, have come the the conclusion that I'll need some stupid people around me to take care of some things. So I'll just be fine if stupid people identify themself as such from time to time.

    1. Re:stupidity by StarWreck · · Score: 4, Funny
      it would seam desirable that stupidity should kill
      Then it would "seam" time to meet your maker.
      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    2. Re:stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with stupidity is that you normally don't see it in yourself, only in others. I've seen countless instances of people thinking: I'm a computir programmor/mensa member/*so* intellectual/..., so it MUST BE the OTHER person who is stuuupid.

      On the other hand, for some people that isn't too bad - if it weren't for stupid people they would probably be the end of their gene line.

    3. Re:stupidity by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      it would seam desirable that stupidity should kill

      Then it would "seam" time to meet your maker.


      Weird times we live in. Are you implying that one typo is enough to put this guy in the group of people that burned their sponges in the microwave?

    4. Re:stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people speak of a Darwinistic point of view or the need for stupid people, why do they assume that they are one of the few smart people? It has been my experience that when someone speaks of how stupid a group of people are, that person has just identified himself as an idiot.

    5. Re:stupidity by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      no, a worse group. right alongside rapists, child molesters, and people who talk at the theatre.

    6. Re:stupidity by bdonalds · · Score: 1

      Then it would "seam" time to meet your maker.

      So they made a typo....Sew what!!??!?

      --
      The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
    7. Re:stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then it would "seam" time to meet your maker."

      Sew what?

  14. Now that's news by Life700MB · · Score: 1


    People trying an experiment involving using the microwave at full power can get into trouble!

    At least they didn't try to dry their dogs and cats.

    --
    Superb hosting 200GB Storage, 2_TB_ bandwidth, php, mysql, ssh, $7.95

    1. Re:Now that's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they didn't try to dry their dogs and cats. Been done before. I'd be more worried about people trying to sterilize their cats and dogs without soaking them first.
    2. Re:Now that's news by Zugok · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mrs Premise: Busy!? I just spent four hours burying the cat.
      Mrs Conclusion: Four hours to bury the cat?
      Mrs Premise: Yes, it wouldn't keep still, wriggling about, 'owling.
      Mrs Conclusion: Oh, it's not dead then?
      Mrs Premise: Oh no no, but it's not at all a well cat and as we're going away for a fortnight, I thought to better bury it just to be on the safe side.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
  15. Class Action Suit by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Funny

    Prepare for a Class Action Suit filed against Reuters, the Scientists who did this and news papers that carried it for the damages caused by the fires.

    Out of the $100 million that will be awarded, $80 million will go the lawyers, $10 million towards court fees, etc., and the class action plaintiffs awarded a $15 coupon each that can be redeemed for a Microwave at Wal-mart.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Class Action Suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omg that is so true.

      sad as hell, but true....

      can't we come up with a class action lawsuit against the class action lawyers?

    2. Re:Class Action Suit by wik · · Score: 1

      The lawyers soaked that one up like a .... sponge!

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
    3. Re:Class Action Suit by kisielk · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they'll get a $0.50 coupon redeemable for a new sponge.

  16. How about the cows by anagama · · Score: 1

    Irradiating sponges is ok but OMG, don't do it to beef!

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    1. Re:How about the cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, when was the last time you ate a sponge?

      Hmmmmm?

      Thought so.

    2. Re:How about the cows by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I don't eat my sponges. And I don't clean my countertop with ground beef.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  17. Reference to Soaking sponge in water by madbawa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's this method of execution shown in Tom Hanks' 'The Green Mile' in which the guy to be electrocuted is seated in the chair and a wet sponge must be placed on top of his head. Some guy (Percy) with sadistic intentions 'forgets' to do this and the poor convict burns to death in the chair.
    Forgive me if its off-topic, but you can learn a lot from the movies...

    1. Re:Reference to Soaking sponge in water by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Lol, I was just about to say, didn't they see The Green Mile?

    2. Re:Reference to Soaking sponge in water by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Except that they didn't dunk him and toss him in a microwave oven, although that would be a novel form of execution. The wet sponge in that event was to help conduct the electricity. The wet sponge in this example was to give the microwaves something to boil so the bacteria would be fried (or rather, boiled).

      Same item, but totally different process.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Reference to Soaking sponge in water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Except that they didn't dunk him and toss him in a microwave oven, although that would be a novel form of execution.

      But, of course, unless you are extremely patient (willing to wait hours, maybe even days) you can't kill anyone in a microwave. At best you'd give the convict cataracts or some burns from the sponge if you left him in there with in on his head for a few hours. Without the sponge, the convict, if he could get over his irrational fears, would probably find it relaxing.

    4. Re:Reference to Soaking sponge in water by zCyl · · Score: 1
      But, of course, unless you are extremely patient (willing to wait hours, maybe even days) you can't kill anyone in a microwave.
      ... Because people don't have water in them? Seriously, now there's something you should definitely not try at home.
  18. No matter what you do... by dtmos · · Score: 3, Informative
    Note that even the original University of Florida press release begins
    PLEASE NOTE: To guard against the risk of fire, people who wish to sterilize their sponges at home must ensure the sponge is completely wet. Two minutes of microwaving is sufficient for most sterilization. Sponges should also have no metallic content. Last, people should be careful when removing the sponge from the microwave as it will be hot.
    *sigh*
    1. Re:No matter what you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Simple. Ban all sponges. They are clearly dangerous.

      That bloody squarepants thing should be locked up too.

    2. Re:No matter what you do... by rsidd · · Score: 4, Informative

      From last paragraph of TFA --that's not the original release, that's the advisory the university issued after all these people burned their sponges.

    3. Re:No matter what you do... by Jacer · · Score: 1

      Don't just read Slashdot for your news fix. According to the CNN article those instructions were added later.

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    4. Re:No matter what you do... by dtmos · · Score: 1

      I guess the GP should read, "No matter what you do...life makes you look like an idiot on Slashdot."

      I had read the University of Florida press release on Wednesday at 1000 UTC, and the warning was already there, though there were as yet no media reports of the fires. So, naturally, I thought...

      Oh, never mind.

    5. Re:No matter what you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So putting Spongebob Squarepants in the microwave will sterilize him and render him unable to reproduce? Sounds good to me.

      Will this also work for starfish?

    6. Re:No matter what you do... by markana · · Score: 1

      No, the sponges are innocent victims here. What they really need to do is ban *bacteria*,,,,

      I'll bet you could get a state Legislator somewhere to introduce a bill banning bacteria...

    7. Re:No matter what you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a bulge on his perfectly-square pants?

      No.

      Spongebob has no dick. He cannot reproduce.

    8. Re:No matter what you do... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      There's this picture on the internet that contradicts that statement.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    9. Re:No matter what you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Last, people should be careful when removing the sponge from the microwave as it will be hot."

      HOLY ****, I WOULD NEVER HAVE GUESSED!!! WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO tell people these things, AUGH!

  19. Warning... Hot when heated. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    A sponge will be very very hot after 2 minutes at full power.

    Next.. who will post this dry sponge on youtube/google video. please? anyone? Or just a good video what else fun you can d with a microwave:
    -Light up a lamp.
    -erase your CD. (extra points for CD-RW discs, bonus for AOL disks)
    -Make it explode. mythbuster style... 8))

    KIDS... don't do this at home.... (use the microwave of someone else )

  20. People are just too damn stupid for their own good by OlivierB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in good old days, many centuries ago, there wasn't any kind of this Politically Correct stuff and neither was there protection of the idiots. There was one rule: survival of the fittest.
    If you made mistakes dumb enough to kill you , you didn't get anybody to pull you out and nature did its thing and eliminated the "idiot's" gene.
    Of course this had nothing to do with real accidents, but in the long term idiots would dissapear.
    Nowadays there is no personal responsibility. People do their own mistakes and blame it on somebody else.
    This idiot should have had at least his genitals burned so we wouldn't have anymore kids.

    Mind you, I am all about protecting and subsidising the weakest, the handicapped, the sick and al. I just believe that dumb people that bring it upon themselves deserve no attention and no compassion whatsoever.

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  21. Conversion error. by cuzco · · Score: 5, Funny

    We Americans measure our bacteria as fractions of an inch so the sponge fires were no doubt caused when people, in their germ kill potential calculations, screwed up while converting centimeter length microwaves to inches. Honest mistake.

    1. Re:Conversion error. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no, I measure my bacteria count as "Libraries of Congress per hogshead transported by station wagon over a football field"
      anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot

  22. Applications accepted... by Speed+Pour · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...for the Darwin Awards

    Sponges...............$1
    Microwave.............$60
    Reading the article...Free

    Burning down your house because you didn't read the whole article.....NOT Priceless
    ...but definitely stupid

    --
    - Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
    1. Re:Applications accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod -1, clueless attempt at humor

    2. Re:Applications accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia, -1, clueless attempt at humor mods you!

  23. Sterilising Baby's bottles by REBloomfield · · Score: 4, Informative

    of course, those of us with children and bottle sterlisers know that placing water and objects in a microwave leads to the steam cleaning them... "well duh" was my reaction when i saw this "news" item yesterday....

    1. Re:Sterilising Baby's bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be over estimating the chances of the average /. member to breed

      Most haven't realised yet that women do actually come in 3d

    2. Re:Sterilising Baby's bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the bottle sterilizer, but I never knew you could get the children sterilizer for the microwave. My kids are always dirty. I'll have to put them in.

      Come to think of it, they should have a microwave sterilizer for me. I really never should have had kids.

    3. Re:Sterilising Baby's bottles by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Same here. Everyone I know has been using microwaves as ersatz autoclaves since, well, microwaves became common. I use them to sterilize my bike shorts, frankly, which is probably a disgusting habit. At least that's my girlfriend's opinion, and I can't say I disagree, but it beats the alternative.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Sterilising Baby's bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but it beats the alternative."

      An alternative like, um, I don't know, washing the damn things?

    5. Re:Sterilising Baby's bottles by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      That works, too, but if you're commuting to work every day, you don't really want to let a pair of wet shorts sit for 8 hours and get manky and then ride home with them, do a bit of stuff at home, then go on a training ride that evening. If I ran the shorts through a washer/dryer cycle I'd either have to own about 24 pairs of bike shorts (at about $80 each) or run two loads of laundry a week. Or, microwave.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  24. If all else fails, read the instructions. by xav_jones · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Just wanted you to know that your article on nuclear fusion reactors aroused my interest. However, when I put my reactor into operation, it caught fire, levelled the neighbourhood, stained my carpet, and pissed me off."

    Perhaps if you can't follow all the instructions there are some things you really shouldn't be doing.

    1. Re:If all else fails, read the instructions. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Actually it was done.
      http://www.amazon.com/Radioactive-Boy-Scout-Fright ening-Homemade/dp/0812966600/sr=8-1/qid=1169721445 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4470053-8023658?ie=UTF8&s=boo ks
      Unfortunately it was not done by someone stupid. It was done by a brilliant guy, who, today would be "stored" in Gitmo until he confesses.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:If all else fails, read the instructions. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The article stated that by putting a sponge (one article I saw said dishcloths) into a microwave it would kill all bacteria.

      No mention of wetting it... just zap it and it sterilizes it.

      I really don't think that people were being stupid. They made the mistake of trusting the media to report the facts (which I guess could be considered stupid) and not leave out vital details like 'the sponge must be wet'.

    3. Re:If all else fails, read the instructions. by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      Don't coddle the masses, if they can't think for themselves it's their own damn problem. Expect the media to be retarded, leave out information and get things wrong. People should know this by now.

      I've you've had chemistry, physics, or even the slightest idea of how microwaves work you'd be fine.

      I know that microwaves essentially do three things:
      heat water, but only about 1-2cm deep (from too sides/corners, not just top down)
      cause dangerous pyrotechnics with metal
      melt virtually all forms of plastic without some water to absorb the energy (and water can take a LOT)

      Combine that with the common knowledge that extremely hot or boiling water will pretty much sterilize anything and it's pretty obvious that you should make sure there is ample water to prevent the sponge (which is probably plastic) from melting, smoking or burning, and does not contain metal.

      --

      Question everything

    4. Re:If all else fails, read the instructions. by nasch · · Score: 1
      I've you've had chemistry, physics, or even the slightest idea of how microwaves work you'd be fine.
      Most people in the US (maybe other places too) have not learned chemistry or physics or have the slightest idea of how microwaves work. So we shouldn't be surprised that more than one person set a sponge on fire.
  25. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

    Mind you, I am all about protecting and subsidising the weakest, the handicapped, the sick and al.

    I think Al would be hurt if he found out you categorized him that way.

    --
    Fnord.
  26. But do _you_ understand? by KnightTristan · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... how else did _you_ expect it to work?

    A simple question for you: water molecules, are they larger or smaller than the bacteria and spores to be killed?

    Last time I've checked, the wavelength used in the microwave is about 12.5 cm. Sure, the bacteria are much smaller than that, but is it at all relevant?

    KnightTristan

    1. Re:But do _you_ understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this dude up.

    2. Re:But do _you_ understand? by fernandoh26 · · Score: 0

      Uh...

      Water molecule = H20 = Two hydrogens, one oxygen. That's THREE atoms.

      Bacteria = cell wall, organelles, method of locomotion, nucleus, etc etc... = hundreds of thousands if not millions of atoms.

      So water molecules are 100,000 to several million times smaller than the smallest bacteria. Even viruses are made of thousands upon thousands of atoms. (protein coat + DNA material)

      --
      Chums up, let's do this!
    3. Re:But do _you_ understand? by slughead · · Score: 1

      how else did _you_ expect it to work?

      The bugs' DNA would be zapped by the microwaves, destroying it. Also, the water in the bugs would expand and maybe even boil, causing them to lyse.

      If the sponge were non-polar and nonreactive to microwaves, leaving the sponge dry would be perfectly reasonable.

      The water is needed to keep the sponge from catching fire, not to make the process more effective.

    4. Re:But do _you_ understand? by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last time I've checked, the wavelength used in the microwave is about 12.5 cm. Sure, the bacteria are much smaller than that, but is it at all relevant?

      Actually, the parent does say why it is relevant: there will be areas in the minima of the standing wave that won't heat sufficently to kill the microbes.

      The microwave radiation in the oven is a standing wave. This means there are areas where the radiation is (close to) zero, and the buggers there won't be heated, even if they contain water. Put a sufficiently large chocolate bar into the microwave oven for some seconds and observe the patterns of solid and soft chocolate. Then eat the chocolate, of course.

      The water (steam) is needed to average the heat out over the whole sponge to kill all bacteria in it.

      --
      Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
    5. Re:But do _you_ understand? by Woek · · Score: 1

      That's right... Furthermore, the wavelength of the microwave is not what heats water, it's the FREQUENCY: Water molecules are made to vibrate (heat) because they resonate with the microwave's frequency.

    6. Re:But do _you_ understand? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Haven't seen an oven without a rotating carousel being sold in many years now, chief.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  27. next time... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... i hope he sticks his fucking head in and rids us of his stupidity.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  28. Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 1

    Just a few months ago my friend put a bag of microwaveable popcorn into the microwave and left it for a few minutes. He came back and the microwave was smoking and the bag was on fire. Apparently the butter and kernels stuck together and burned. The apartment smelled for about 2 weeks (we could only open the windows a little at a time -- Canadian winter) and the microwave was ruined.

    I think it's pretty funny that people tried this without wetting the sponge, however, I know many people that do not realize the nuances of how a microwave actually works.

    1. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least around here the instructions on the microwave popcorn bags explicitly warn you against leaving the microwave unattended. Now you know why!

    2. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why you're not supposed to just walk away while making microwave popcorn. If it starts sparking, you're supposed to be there to stop it. This is not a microwave "nuance"; the microwave popcorn packaging explicitly says this. You and your friend did exactly the same thing as the guy in the article; you didn't read the instructions and ended up ruining your microwave. Congratulations.

    3. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Bob+Boswell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      About 4.5 years ago a guy I later worked for had a new office/factory built. This freshly decorated building included a kitchen area with, amongst other things, a combination microwave/oven. Someone put a jacket potato in and cooked it for 20 minutes on the microwave setting. The room stank of smoke for months afterwards. The potato allegedly looked like a barbeque briquette.

    4. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by mpe · · Score: 1

      Just a few months ago my friend put a bag of microwaveable popcorn into the microwave and left it for a few minutes. He came back and the microwave was smoking and the bag was on fire. Apparently the butter and kernels stuck together and burned.

      What did the instructions say? Could they have been along the lines of "open bag, put contents into bowl, put bowl into microwave"...

    5. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by eldepeche · · Score: 1

      "combination microwave/oven"

      Your story is the exact reason that's the dumbest appliance I've ever heard of. But where did the guy go for 20 minutes? It would have started sparking almost immediately.

    6. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the bag it says "THIS SIDE UP". Failure to complete this step results in exactly what you describe.

    7. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Bob+Boswell · · Score: 1

      She went downstairs back to her office. The 'phone rang and she forgot all about her lunch until someone said something along the lines of " 'ere, what's that stink?". Made her !*very* popular with her co-workers.

    8. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Why? It saves space. I know my parents have one. Never had a problem: there are two separate dials for the separate functions and you cannot turn on both at the same time.

    9. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The instruction would have rather said: "Do not leave unattended for 3 minutes."

    10. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1945 a young girl named kata lata kulu came to America on a grey boat from Africa. a mysterious man killed her by carving the word "LATUALATUKA" in her back. Now that you have read this she will come to your house on a full moon and steal your soul unless you follow these directions:

      Resend this message as a first post for three other articles.

    11. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by collectivescott · · Score: 1

      "Why? It saves space. I know my parents have one. Never had a problem: there are two separate dials for the separate functions and you cannot turn on both at the same time."

      What? Most of them allow you to do both at once. The quickest way to cook something short of frying. Good times.

    12. Re:Pop Corn Kills Microwave by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      They do? I must admit I never tried. I've used it as a microwave and as an oven. It never came in my mind to actually try both, I assumed it would be an "illegal operation" ;-) Should have read the manual, I guess.

      I'll look into it next time that I'm there. You're right of course: there is no technical reason not to allow both, provided you don't put metal into it.

  29. Reminds me of a movie... by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

    Anyone ever see "Idiocracy"?

    --
    www.isoHunt.com
  30. Not just the sponges.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Some people put a dry synthetic object in the microwave on high for two minutes?

    I don't think it's just the sponges that need sterilization...

    1. Re:Not just the sponges.. by Bronnac · · Score: 1

      Why do scientists come out with this crap? we've coped for years without putting a sponge in the god damn microwave, why now? do these Scientists have nothing better to spend other peoples cash on? Sack em!

    2. Re:Not just the sponges.. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      For 99% of people it's an oven. You put things into it and they get hot. For a microwave they get hot very fast, compared to a gas oven.

      People know not to put eggs into them and not to use anything with metal on it. As far as how they work... I'm fairly technical and there's no way that I would have assumed that you had to wet the sponge first.. bacteria cells contain water don't they (I'm not a doctor so don't know.. it seems maybe they don't from what others are saying). OTOH I wouldn't have put it in there for more than about 30 seconds, and I'd have been watching.

    3. Re:Not just the sponges.. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      btw. try convincing most of the population that microwaves don't cook from the inside out. That's how the media portrayed them as working for *years*. Because a man in a white coat told them 5 years ago they worked like that they will *not* believe it has anything to do with water - believe me I've had discussions along those lines and gave up.

  31. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    > Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following
    > question: Will the next word you say be no?

    This sentence I'm saying (writing) now is false.

  32. ROSPA has it right by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Funny

    They had this on the BBC yesterday too, I think in the morning they had suggested everyone microwave their sponges and then in the evening news they had a man with a ginger mustache from ROSPA who said that he wouldn't advise microwaving sponges because there is no setting on microwaves for sponges and that he for one didn't have the faintest idea what would happen if you did microwave a sponge except that whatever it was which happened would probably be unsafe and might cause an accident.

    I found it very reassuring that ROSPA ( Royal Society For The Prevention Of Accidents ) does its research so thoroughly before making announcements.

    1. Re:ROSPA has it right by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I found it very reassuring that ROSPA ( Royal Society For The Prevention Of Accidents ) does its research so thoroughly before making announcements.

      The attitude here is "I don't know what will happen, so don't do it", which I reckon is pretty solid advice for preventing accidents. Unfortunately, I have no idea what will happen if I get out of bed and leave for work. It might be unsafe and cause an accident.

    2. Re:ROSPA has it right by DaveCar · · Score: 1


      I heard about this on the BBC too, though I thought they ought to tell people to be very careful taking the things out of the microwave as they would be extremely hot (I could see someone putting a cloth on the tray directly rather than in a container like most foodstuffs and retrieving it with bare hands). Little did I realise that they would be falling well before they got to that particular hurdle.

    3. Re:ROSPA has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to congratulate you on your dry British wit, but I googled and saw that - holy smokes! - there actually is such a thing as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents!

    4. Re:ROSPA has it right by mpe · · Score: 1

      They had this on the BBC yesterday too, I think in the morning they had suggested everyone microwave their sponges and then in the evening news they had a man with a ginger mustache from ROSPA who said that he wouldn't advise microwaving sponges because there is no setting on microwaves for sponges

      The typical microwave has settings for two paramaters. How long to microwave something for and how much power to use (the latter usually done by turning the magnetron on and off with a certain mark/space ratio). If you had a button for everything you could cook the control panel would be huge.
      Maybe they should first get someone who has actually used a microwave...

  33. ironic for slashdot by fantomas · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... but maybe some of the people didn't read the article :-)

    1. Re:ironic for slashdot by funfail · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then there should be another safety note on microwaves: RTFA

  34. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by OlivierB · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure Weird Al Yankovick won't mind. I think he fits the category like a charm.

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  35. Ignorance != Stupidity by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Calling these people stuipd only makes you look like an arrogant asshole. For most people, a microwave is a black box contraption in their kitchen that makes food hot. Sure, they also know that you shouldn't put a fork or knife in, but have no idea why. This isn't because they're stupid, it's because they're ignorant about the inner workings of that particular machine in their kitchen.

    Oh, but you say, taking things as fact without questioning why is a folly committed only by stupid people, thus making them ignorant. The two are really the same. I would then ask you why light is both a particle and a wave and why electrons jump to a different energy level when hit by the right frequencey of light. There's probably less than 1,000 people on the planet who can give a good answer to these questions, and unless you're one of them, you've committed the same folly as your average suburban mom - you still don't truly know why a microwave works.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Pikoro · · Score: 5, Funny

      You put a dry sponge into your microwave didn't you?

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    2. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by kv9 · · Score: 1

      Calling these people stuipd only makes you look like an arrogant asshole. For most people, a microwave is a black box contraption in their kitchen that makes food hot.

      no, they're not stupid. they put shit in a "black box that makes food hot" and it caught fire. WOW! color me surprised. I'd say that's pretty stupid. just yet another case of RTFM.

      *sigh*

      I'm pretty ignorant regarding lots of things, but I don't stick my fingers in an outlet, then act all surprised and shocked (pun intended?) that it zapped the shit out of me.

    3. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Calling these people stuipd only makes you look like an arrogant asshole. For most people, a microwave is a black box contraption in their kitchen that makes food hot. Sure, they also know that you shouldn't put a fork or knife in, but have no idea why. This isn't because they're stupid, it's because they're ignorant about the inner workings of that particular machine in their kitchen.

      No, it's because they're stupid. No knowledge of inner working of microwave required to understand that putting flammable things into a device that makes them hot IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

    4. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, they're not stupid. they put shit in a "black box that makes food hot" and it caught fire. WOW! color me surprised. I'd say that's pretty stupid.

      No. The media told them "if you put shit into a black box that makes food hot it will sterilize it".

      So they did. And it caught fire... because the media forgot to mention that you should use *wet* shit.

      That is totally different to waking up one morning and trying to microwave a random object to see what would happen.

    5. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by ThomsonsPier · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that believing what the media tells you is a good idea?

    6. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by kv9 · · Score: 1

      No. The media told them "if you put shit into a black box that makes food hot it will sterilize it".

      the media told them soaked shit. that's pretty wet, no?

      So they did. And it caught fire... because the media forgot to mention that you should use *wet* shit.

      good excuse. "tv told me to. not my fault!"

      too bad none of these idiots hurt themselves seriously (yet?) so a bunch of frivolous lawsuits could ensue. I always get a kick out of that.

    7. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You don't have to know how to derive Maxwell's equations from first principles to turn on a microwave. You should, however, take enough of an interest to read the little book that came with it, or at least the stickers pasted all over the front of it, which explain what not to do.

      If you own a microwave and use a microwave, then you should know how to use one safely. Remaining ignorant of that is just stupid.

    8. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by value_added · · Score: 1

      Calling these people stuipd only makes you look like an arrogant asshole. For most people, a microwave is a black box contraption in their kitchen that makes food hot.

      If ignorance != stupidity, then how would you characterise the purchase and regular use of a product without bothering to investigate even the basics of how it works? I'd submit that an irrational insistence on ignorance (or its corrollary, irresponsible laziness) == stupidity in all cases. Yes, Virginia, stupid people do exist. And most of those by choice.

      A discussion of light waves? Entirely unnecessary, if not a red herring. A quick read the frigging product instructions (and warnings) suffice.

    9. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Nocterro · · Score: 1

      More to the point, no-one cares. Society is based on specialisation. I don't know the complexities of taxation, or law. I'm probably getting screwed in numerous ways that'd make a lawyer or accountant scream, but I don't care. Sooner or later you have to accept that the world is bigger than you, you'll never know all of it and it really does not matter. The achievement of society is that you get to pay someone else to care.

      --
      [clever sig]
    10. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Manchot · · Score: 1

      I would then ask you why light is both a particle and a wave and why electrons jump to a different energy level when hit by the right frequencey of light.

      Microwaves don't utilize quantum effects. They only use good, old-fashioned, dielectric heating. As long as you know the complex permittivity of the material being heating, you can calculate every quantity of interest in the system completely classically.

    11. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      RADAR techs, RADAR engineers, and I know for a fact that there are more than 1,000
      of us worldwide that knows that microwave energy reflect off metal because it is used
      to reflect of airplanes.

      The reason it ruins the microwave is reflected power to the magnetron tube in the microwave.

      Every former Eletronics type from the military of every country in the world is
      taught this as are the engineers that design them.

      RADAR was invented 66 years ago : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar

      Most TV and radio and cell phones use similar tech.

      So...lots of those ppl understand it as well.

      If it was Sports or Religion, billions would chant about RADAR,
      and spend trillions of dollars on it, and know everything
      on the subject to every finite detail.

      Ppl just don't know because they find it boring...period.

      Apathy is King.

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    12. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      For most people, a microwave is a black box contraption in their kitchen that makes food hot.

      You don't have to understand how a microwave works to understand that putting completely dry things in a place where they get hot might start a fire. Should people be surprised if the sponge started on fire in an oven? I'll be most people don't understand convection, conduction, and radiation forms of heat transfer, but they still know not to put dry things in a hot oven.

      I would then ask you why light is both a particle and a wave and why electrons jump to a different energy level when hit by the right frequencey of light.

      Science doesn't really answer why questions. The electron jumps to a different energy level because that's how electrons work. You can certainly describe in more detail the particulars of how it happens (and there's millions of people that can tell you that), but why is a question without an answer.

      --
      AccountKiller
    13. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by mseidl · · Score: 1

      I like the saying... Never argue with an idiot, he may be doing the same thing.

    14. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your points are moot my friend. If you honestly have just a tinsy bit of background regarding the wavelength/photon (not particle) argument regarding light propogation, then you can deduce that we use wavelengths to represent light because it is easy to understand in calculation and relation. Whereas, everyone knows that light is really a photon that either absorbs energy or dissipates energy based on the molecules of the object it is reflecting off of or passing through at a time--hence changing its energy level and percieved color when that photon is completely absorbed by your cones (read: retina) to measure its energy level. (Is there some kind of relation to quantum mechanics in this?!?!) Now, this is more easily understood if you use wavelength calculcations, as that interaction is represented by a very simple wavelength change as opposed to a hard-to-grasp concept due to its very nature of having no immediate relationship to our "percieved world."

      Thanks for listening. ~KW

    15. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by bshroyer · · Score: 1

      I would then ask you why light is both a particle and a wave and why electrons jump to a different energy level when hit by the right frequencey of light. There's probably less than 1,000 people on the planet who can give a good answer to these questions Oh, come on... there have to be considerably more than 1,000 people in the world who can explain that. You see,

      The energy states an electron can occupy are discrete, not continuous
      And this has something to do with quanta
      And electrons move when hit by light at the right frequency
      And... you know, isn't the rest obvious?

      You mean, Spider-Man can't fly?
      --
      The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
    16. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much everything you put into a microwave is flammable. You do know they figure out the calorie content of something by BURNING it right?

    17. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omg funniest zinger evar

    18. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law or not knowing the law, then how come it is an excuse here?

    19. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by sustik · · Score: 1

      You are right! Ignorance is worse than stupidity. The former is much more of a choice of the individual than the latter, which is more of the result of genes, lack of education etc.

      I still do not get why is it an insult to call someone stupid when they are ignorant. Maybe the person making this call is ignorant as well. Honestly, I do not care! :->

    20. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light is NOT both a particle and a wave. Light exhibits both particle and wave behaviour.

    21. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Calling these people stuipd only makes you look like an arrogant asshole. If there weren't specific directions telling to make sure the sponge is wet, then yes we would be assholes. However, the article provided instructions to do it safely.

      They aren't stupid for not knowing how a microwave works, they are stupid for not following directions and listening to precautions.
    22. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by kabocox · · Score: 1

      For most people, a microwave is a black box contraption in their kitchen that makes food hot. Sure, they also know that you shouldn't put a fork or knife in, but have no idea why. This isn't because they're stupid, it's because they're ignorant about the inner workings of that particular machine in their kitchen. This isn't because they're stupid, it's because they're ignorant about the inner workings of that particular machine in their kitchen. ... you still don't truly know why a microwave works.

      I remember hearing some where that putting "metal" in a microwave "reflects" the microwaves and could start sparks or fires or heat things other than the inside of the microwave. I don't know this as true and I have no reason to personally "test" it. I don't eat metal and have plenty of paper, plastic, and glass containers to put inside of microwave ovens. I take it on faith that if I put a paper plate inside a conventional oven it might burst into flame. I've never actually tried this though so I don't really know. The "auto clean" cycle on my oven makes "everything" inside of the oven turn to ash. I have a pretty good idea that this involves heat and those electron thingies that I pay the electric company for. I couldn't explain to you why or how the oven works other than I set a temp and time and set on and then set the food in there. After the timer beeps, the food is generally warm. It doesn't mean the food is any good to eat. I'm still waiting for a Niven autochef. I just want to press my selection and have my selected meal pop out for me. The closest that I get to that is ordering Pizza or picking up food through a drive through. I give my order verbally, I pay a person, and then I recieve my food. The food might as well be made by enslaved magic elves for all I know.

    23. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      .....right, I have to stop putting my food on a paper plate when I wave it..../me rolls eyes.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    24. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Oh, but you say, taking things as fact without questioning why is a folly committed only by stupid people, thus making them ignorant. The two are really the same. I would then ask you why light is both a particle and a wave and why electrons jump to a different energy level when hit by the right frequencey of light. There's probably less than 1,000 people on the planet who can give a good answer to these questions, and unless you're one of them, you've committed the same folly as your average suburban mom - you still don't truly know why a microwave works

      Microwave ovens have very little to do with electrons jumping through quantum-energy states due to absorption/emissions of photons of specific freqencys. You're confusing them with lasers and LEDs here. Microwave ovens actually work because their longer wavelengths cause electromagnetic field variations that affect polarized molecules such as water, fats, and sugars. The fields reverse at about 2.4 billion times per second and the resulting vibrations induced in the polarized molecules generates heat. The energy that results is "kinetic" with respect to the entire molecule rather than quantum changes at the single electron level. It's akin to pretending the water molecules are your hands and the microwaves make you rub your hands together very quickly.

    25. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're correct in saying both that ignorance != stupidity, and that not many people truly understand the subtle physics of how a microwave operates, any reasonably intelligent person who uses a microwave on a regular basis (which is a large number of us, and likely everyone who tried this experiment with a dry sponge) should at least know that things in the microwave need moisture. They don't need to know why, they just need to know that water is important in the proper functioning of a microwave for all of its typical uses. Choosing to remain ignorant about the proper usage of an everyday appliance is pretty stupid if you ask me.

    26. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I don't use light, light uses me. Same with electrons. ;-) Actually, if you read the papers of Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Advanced Sciences Institute in Austin, TX, you will find that most scientists aren't really sure either. He explains the first as an interaction between matter and the Lorentz field affect caused by Zero Point Energy, and the latter as the energy input reinforcement. But, how many photons have we seen? We haven't even directly observed an atom. Yet we know all of these things about particles that are much smaller. The real case of stupidity is thinking you know something when your technology as yet doesn't even allow for direct observation. just my opinion, not so humble...

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
  36. So how is this better... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Than boiling the sponge in a saucepan? I'd have though putting it in boiling water for a couple of minutes should probably destroy most bacteria.

    1. Re:So how is this better... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The spongiform nature of the sponge makes a natural insulator - if you boil your sponge in a pan, the centre may well stay cool for a reasonably long time, especially if the sponge is already wet when you put it in.

      The same principle is used for another kind of sponge.

      Using the microwave means that the sponge will heat on the inside as well as the outside.

  37. How long in the microwave to become spiderman by bxbaser · · Score: 1

    and what type of spider?

    Will i really be able to fly after that?

  38. Re:stupid posters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll let your guess.

    Dumbass.

  39. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but in the long term idiots would dissapear. So how come there are so many idiots still around?
  40. How to really sterilise a sponge by giafly · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The only mention of water in the Microwave zaps germs on sponges article was as follows.
    Writing in the Journal of Environmental Health, Bitton and colleagues said they soaked sponges and scrubbing pads in raw wastewater containing fecal bacteria such as E. coli, viruses, protozoan parasites and bacterial spores.
    Seems to me that only very stupid people would follow these instructions.

    IMHO a better way to sterilise a sponge is as follows:
    1. Place sponge in a large, empty drinking mug
    2. Pour boiling water over it from a kettle and dunk it a few times using a spoon
    3. Place a small plate or saucer over the mug to retain the steam
    4. Wait until it's cooled
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:How to really sterilise a sponge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A-hah! So you're DROWNING the buggers eh!

      Cheater!

    2. Re:How to really sterilise a sponge by funfail · · Score: 1

      There are many germs that live happily at temperatures above the boiling point of water.

      I don't know if microwave has an additional effect on germs other than boiling the water, though.

    3. Re:How to really sterilise a sponge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...

      1. Throw sponge away
      2. Buy new sponge

      Come on people... we get sponges in a 3 pack for about $2. Use one for a couple weeks and toss it.

    4. Re:How to really sterilise a sponge by Nimey · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, just waterboarding them. That's NOT torture.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:How to really sterilise a sponge by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Bacteria can grow far faster than a reasonable usage lifetime of the sponge. Don't confuse the wearing and dirtying of the sponge with germ growth. In my experience the best ways to keep sponges bug-free are 1) to get rid of the bugs that are there, and 2) prevent the bugs from replicating in the first place. The 1st can be done using bleach and soap, the 2nd by making sure the sponge never has residual bug-food on it (such as leftovers or sugar) and by wringing the sponge dry after use (since bugs don't grow so well without water).

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    6. Re:How to really sterilise a sponge by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the standard for drinking water (at lower elevations) is to boil for five minutes, so one would assume that placing your sponge in boiling water for five minutes would get rid of most of the nasties.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  41. Oddly enough, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after putting my spunge in the microwave, it now tastes like burnt chicken.

  42. Evolution still at work by Neeth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ask yourself: who wants to have sex with someone who burns sponges in his microwave?

    --
    Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
    1. Re:Evolution still at work by phayes · · Score: 1
      Ask yourself: who wants to have sex with someone who burns sponges in his microwave?

      I've met quite a few women who I wouldn't trust to wet a sponge before microwaving it that I'd like to have sex with -- and they weren't all blondes either...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  43. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by OlivierB · · Score: 1

    Recessive dominant genes?
    Stupid genes (or others) never dissapear until they have been dissemenated enough so that both parents have the gene. Which then expresses itself.

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  44. darwin awards? by Kryptic+Knight · · Score: 2, Funny

    I suspect we have a potential entry for the 2007 Darwin Awards.

    --
    --- This meme is memory intensive
  45. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    you didn't get anybody to pull you out and nature did its thing and eliminated the "idiot's" gene.


    OK, so how do you explain why there are (apparently) so many of them? Nature has had millions of years to do its thing, right? And by the way, can you explain why my wife doesn't look like Rachel Welch?
  46. Not only sponges: a microwave will melt metal by viking80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One exceptional feature of a microwave is that it will keep heating at full effect no matter how hot the target gets. The only limit how you design your target.

    You can for example melt and cast most metals:
    http://net127.com/2005/01/24/melting-metals-in-a-d omestic-microwave-oven/

    With some research, you may even be able to use your kitchen microwave to generate some fusion reactions.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Not only sponges: a microwave will melt metal by argent · · Score: 1

      With some research, you may even be able to use your kitchen microwave to generate some fusion reactions.

      I think the stuff at the back of my refrigerator beat you to it.

    2. Re:Not only sponges: a microwave will melt metal by mpe · · Score: 1

      With some research, you may even be able to use your kitchen microwave to generate some fusion reactions.

      Just hope no-one misunderstands this and forces everyone buying a microwave to prove they are not a terrorist trying to produce a thermonuclear weapon.

    3. Re:Not only sponges: a microwave will melt metal by uwbbjai · · Score: 1

      Now where are all my old pennies and nickels...
      http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/ 14/1736206

    4. Re:Not only sponges: a microwave will melt metal by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Have you tried this? I read that two years ago and have a (spare, ugly) microwave and some silicon carbide paste, but have yet to actually give it a shot, for lack of time. If it works, it could be a lot of fun.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Not only sponges: a microwave will melt metal by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1

      That's not quite true. The object still gives off thermal radiation, so once the temperature of the object is higher than the temperature of the radiation inside the microwave, it will lose energy.

  47. a safer solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use a UV bactericide/germicide tube, they exist since stone age for this purpose, are much cheaper than microwave ovens, consume much less energy and if properly screened are completely safe.
    If you want to build one, all materials (lamp, ballast, sockets etc.) can be purchased for a few bucks. Just be very careful to be never exposed to it directly while it's on, even for a second, because it's dangerous for skin and eyes. Put it in a solid UV proof box with a switch that cuts the power when the cover is open. In case of any doubt, ask to a skilled electronics geek: UV tubes at different wavelengths are commonly used to make printed circuit boards or to erase eprom based memories/microcontrollers.

    1. Re:a safer solution by Mprx · · Score: 1

      Useless for disinfecting sponges because you won't get significant radiation reaching the center.

  48. Sounds like a college prank by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I was in college, someone took one of my coffee mugs, filled it up with Hershey's chocolate syrup, and put it in the microwave for 90 minutes. Then they left. As best as we can tell, the syrup first boiled over and filled up the bottom of the microwave. Eventually it hardened into a black crust and caught fire. That's when the fire alarm woke us up, you know -- it was three o'clock in the morning.

    The microwave was ruined, and there was some damage to the cabinet. And I lost my favorite coffee mug too. But it's probably the best use for Hershey's chocolate syrup that I could think of (since it's pretty awful stuff).

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Sounds like a college prank by realisticradical · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Odd, most of the best college pranks I've heard of involve filling rooms with garbage bags, covering them with tinfoil, or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pw8u-ll0M0 flipping them upside down.

      Potentially killing people in a fire just doesn't sound so funny.

    2. Re:Sounds like a college prank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whole eggs become grenades in the microwave.

    3. Re:Sounds like a college prank by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Heh, a friend of mine had a deodorant shortage one day. He found an old gel-type deodorant at the back of the closet. It was old enough that the gel had hardened in the little holes on the top, so he though it might be a good idea to zap it for about 15 seconds to melt the hard gel. After about 5 seconds it blew out the top of the tube like a White Castle emergency.

      It was pretty fucking funny and his apartment stank for weeks.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  49. In defense of fools... by Combuchan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    from the article:

    But several experimenters evidently left out the crucial step of wetting the sponge. This was not mentioned at all in the original Reuter's article to begin with, but all other details (how long, power setting) were included. The bureau made the mistake, but instead of apologising, they chastise their readers.

    People read the original article and played dumb for a bit, temporarily throwing out conventional wisdom regarding non-food objects in the microwave as they followed Reuter's authoritative instructions.

    But, hey, this is slashdot and people don't play, rather, they are dumb, and we all have a good laugh at their misfortune while we're glad it was somebody else who ruined their microwave and not us.

    And yes, I did make a whole bunch of toxic smoke years ago by forgetting to put the bowl of water while nuking a CD. :P

    --
    "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    1. Re:In defense of fools... by XNormal · · Score: 1
      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    2. Re:In defense of fools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the researchers got a correction from Reuters. Wikipedia never got one of these things.

  50. Here's the reason why... by cciRRus · · Score: 2, Funny

    There are really intelligent folks around.

    *ducks*

    --
    w00t
  51. Average IQ (on a fixed scale) has been increasing by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    The average IQ on a fixed scale has been increasing with about 3 point per decade in the period from IQ tests were introduced until around ten years ago. Since the IQ scale is defines so 100 is the average, this means that the scale has had to be renormalized periodically.

    Thus, evolution does not seem to have had a bad effect in IQ for that period (which is probably too short for evolution to be a factor anyway).

  52. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Bromskloss · · Score: 5, Funny
    Mind you, I am all about protecting and subsidising the weakest, the handicapped, the sick and al.
    Puh, thanks.
    -Al
    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  53. Doesn't matter by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Intelligence (or the develoment of) could be more related to social or monetary issues.

    Ah, but rich parents typically bear rich kids (trust funds, inheritance, better opportunities, better educations leading to better paying jobs, etc.) and poor parents typically do not offspring that go on to make millions. Rags to riches (or riches to rags) *can* happen, but neither is commonplace. Similarly, kids do tend to reflect their parents' religion, social standing, morality, etc.

    Don't assume that enviromental variables aren't inheritable. In most cases, I don't think that genetic predisposition can hold a candle to environmental predisposition. If Einstein was born to a family living in the slums (instead of an upper-middle class family), do you think he would have still come up Special Relativity? How nice it would be to pretend that he would; yet, it would be utterly naive to suppose that even an individual of Einstein's calibur could have completely overcome his environment, somehow educated himself, and then somehow pursued the academic community to listen to these crackpot "time dilation" theories coming from a man who could not afford a decent suit, let alone college.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by bhsurfer · · Score: 1
      The fundamental flaw with this argument is that wealth is not an accurate measure of intelligence and certainly not a measure of genius. Paris Hilton is not going to be debunking any of Einstein's work anytime soon, and neither is Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, Dick Cheney or Bill Gates. Some of these individuals are quite intelligent and some less so, but all of them are millionaires and hence somehow smarter than the rest of us, according to your first paragraph.

      This idea is offensive on so many different levels that it's difficult to even know where to begin, but I think that the part of it that bothers me the most is that this myth appears to be propogated by the wealthy elite, you know, the ones who either started or inherited the companies that non-wealthy work for, and they use this idea as a means of controlling their employees. People don't tend to question the intelligence of their "superiors", even when it's demonstrably true that they are indeed more intelligent than the people they're working for. There's the pack mentality assumption that the people "in charge" somehow deserve to be there, even though in many cases their stellar career paths can be attributed more to geaneology than to actual business acumen.

      I agree that environment plays a big part in success, but again, education is not an accurate measure of intelligence. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with some reasons why that's so.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
    2. Re:Doesn't matter by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      I was simply saying that monetary and social standing was very inheritable, since the OP strongly implied that it was not. However, I do think that money does play a large part in genius. It's not necessarily that money makes you smarter; the thing is, money lets a smart person do smart, interesting things. Imagine that you have a nice, low-stress, white-collar job, and your family has enough money that you could survive just fine even if you quit tomorrow, and (due to your expensive education and social standing) businessmen and scholars will pay attention to you. Now imagine living in a piece of shit rented house, in the crackhead part of town, working (if you're lucky) for maybe a buck or two above minimum wage, with perhaps a couple thousand dollars' worth of property to your name. Some VERY rare people have the intelligence AND the incredible tenacity to push through and overcome such handicaps, but (unfortunately) not every genius is born with an unbreakable iron will.

      The point is not that money endows genius; it enables genius to shine. The genius who works at McDonalds and goes home every night, dreams big but ultimately fails to achieve anything and drowns his sorrows in booze will likely never be recognized as a genius.

      That said, rich kids are probably more likely to get a better early childhood education, a better diet, better medical care, etc. Rich parents are also better able to take off work to spend more time with their kids (whether they actually are more likely to do so, I couldn't say.) There is solid evidence that early childhood environment can affect intelligence. You might question the validity of these tests (I'm not a huge fan of IQ myself), but I would argue that at the very least it can affect *expressed* intelligence and in the end, the world only cares about what you do with your intellect, not what you could do if you really tried.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by bhsurfer · · Score: 1

      Well said. Life just isn't always fair, is it?

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
    4. Re:Doesn't matter by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Mmm... the old 'nature v. nurture' argument. A fine example of futility at its best. Like answering the following question:
      If two guys give me oranges, and I have 17 oranges when they're done, who gave more?

      "rich parents typically bear rich kids" ...that are very often completely useless. Just thought I'd toss that in there.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    5. Re:Doesn't matter by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Mmm... the old 'nature v. nurture' argument. A fine example of futility at its best.

      ...except this isn't a nature vs. nurture debate. This is a debate about whether stupidity is heritable (in the sense that parents pass it on to their offspring, though not necessarily through genes alone.) Hasmael strongly implied that environmental factors ("nurture") aren't heritable--I'm saying that they are very much are. Whether stupidity comes more from nature or nurture is simply irrelevant if both are highly heritable.

  54. Quantum Theory by argent · · Score: 1
    There's probably less than 1,000 people on the planet who can give a good answer to these questions [...]

    Depending on your definition of "a good answer" there are either a good many more than that, or none at all. And given the controversy surrounding String Theory, I dare say that the likely candidates would disagree as to which thousand actually have a good answer:

    Perhaps the first person to realize that nuclear fusion was the key to what makes the sun go on shining was Eddington. Certainly he was one of the first persons to develop the idea systematically, and equally certainly he believed that he was the first to think of it. There is a story of Eddington sitting out one balmy evening with a girlfriend. She said, "Aren't the stars pretty?" And he said, "Yes, and I'm the only person in the world who knows what makes them shine."

    It's a nice story, but it's none too likely. Eddington was a lifelong bachelor, a Quaker, and a workaholic, too busy to have much time for idle philandering.
  55. the parent is stupid... by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    Some facts.
    1.Not holding your breath under water would be stupid.
    2.Some people can hold their breaths under water for more than 5 minutes. Look up free-diving for instance.
    3.Taking responsibility for stupidy is... well.. you know...

  56. Surprise? by Pyramid · · Score: 1

    Most people are stupid. Why is this surprising?

    --
    ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    1. Re:Surprise? by thebear05 · · Score: 1

      yeah take your average idiot half the people are dumber than he is

  57. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, actually, I got a sneak preview of the next Jean M Auel book. You will recall that Ayla has already invented flint and steel for making fire, horse riding, needles and dogs, and Jondalar has invented guns. In this new book, Jondalar invents Rock and Roll (but Ayla gets jealous and smashes his instrument when he starts "sharing Pleasures" with groupies) and Ayla invents the Courts and becomes the first lawyer. She successfully prosecutes the First Cave of the Lanzadonii for breach of patent when they start sewing with needles, and later goes on to represent a woman who cuts herself on a flint knife which was not properly labelled as sharp. Later in the book, she nearly loses a case brought by the S'Armunai Wolf Women, but the case turns around when she calls one of Jondalar's exes from the Sharamudoi as a surprise witness.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  58. Children are a retirement plan by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    The relative poor Eastern Europe has much lower fertility rate than the rich Western Europe, despite a similar culture and similar (high) level of education. Even the very poor North Korea has fertility rate of only 1.9 children per woman. This seem to indicate a different cause is more likely.

    In the countries with high fertility, children tend to be (or, until recently have been) responsible for the care of their parent in their old age. Having many children is therefore a way to ensure your comfort at an old age. In the welfare states of Western Europe, the state tend to take over that responsibility from the children. And in the communist states, the responsibility lies with the state to an even higher degree. This can explain why long time communist states have very low fertility rates, and why stable welfare states also have low fertility rates.

    For capitalist countries with less well developed welfare systems, rich and well educated people will tend to set up other provisions (funds) to ensure their economic independence in their old age, and thus also be less depend on children for their pension. This explain the effect you see.

  59. Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who convinces the stupid to sterilize themselves or remove themselves from the gene pool through other means certainly deserves our hearty congratulations.

    It's worrying that people don't know how microwaves work.

    But it's even more worrying that people here on Slashdot are seriously promoting eugenics.

    You'd think that the Nazis would have made it unfashionable.

    1. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Nazis practiced genocide and encouraged eugenics. The fact that the distasteful former has so completely colored the latter to the point of tainting its meaning is obvious in your case.

      Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?

      This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool. There's a major difference between showing someone cliff-diving and describing its wonders vs forcibly shoving someone off a cliff.

      Or do you hold that the Darwin Awards website is an abomination as well?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's even more worrying that people here on Slashdot are seriously promoting eugenics.

      Define "seriously promoting eugenics". Perhaps your definition of seriously actually means 'humorously'. But it would be interesting to understand why you think that there are Nazis on Slashdot who are "seriously promoting eugenics". Feel free, enlighten me.

    3. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Nazis practiced genocide and encouraged eugenics. The fact that the distasteful former has so completely colored the latter to the point of tainting its meaning is obvious in your case.

      The Nazis performed eugenics to an extreme degree. I think that eliminating "stupid" people (using an arbitrary definition of "stupid") by encouraging them to kill themselves would qualify as a moderate-to-extreme form of eugenics.

      Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?

      These are controversial ethical debates. Some people, especially the disabled community, do not believe that those who are born disabled should be screened out. Of course, the definition of "disability" and "disease" varies greatly.

      This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool.

      Deliberately encouraging people to kill themselves would... land you in a fair bit of trouble, I think.

      Or do you hold that the Darwin Awards website is an abomination as well?

      More like insensitivity to loved ones.

    4. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "seriously promoting eugenics". Perhaps your definition of seriously actually means 'humorously'. But it would be interesting to understand why you think that there are Nazis on Slashdot who are "seriously promoting eugenics". Feel free, enlighten me.



      As you wish...



      Re:Clearly, evolution as a system has failed...
      (Score:5, Interesting)
      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25, @05:10AM (#17749376)
      In case of human IQ, the evolution feedback works in the wrong direction.
      Generally, the more intelligent, well-educated and well-established couples get children at a later age, and get fewer of them.
      The "dumber" and lower-class people reproduce faster, and there will be more and more of them.

      This effect is clearly visible both on a global scale (developed/developing countries) and locally (lower/upper class).

    5. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?


      A lot depends on what is being selected for. If my parents had decided they want someone with blond hair & blue eyes, I wouldn't exist! For that matter, if they had wanted someone with 20/20 vision, I wouldn't exist!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Argh, I'm replying to an anon on a touchy subject....

      The Nazis performed eugenics to an extreme degree. I think that eliminating "stupid" people (using an arbitrary definition of "stupid") by encouraging them to kill themselves would qualify as a moderate-to-extreme form of eugenics. Once they started incarcerating political prisoners, gypsys, and in general bad people in concentration camps in the early 30s, it quickly became easier in germany to add other groups the general population didn't like, such as anyone unable or unwilling to "contribute" or "fit in" to society. Don't forget that Germany, and in fact, most of Europe, were horribly xenophobic at the time. The concentration camps quickly devolved to slave camps and then execution camps, which is a perfect example of the "slippery slope" concept in action.

      Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?

      These are controversial ethical debates. Some people, especially the disabled community, do not believe that those who are born disabled should be screened out. Of course, the definition of "disability" and "disease" varies greatly.

      I agree there's much debate on this topic. In a contrary view, there was a story in the insert in my Sunday paper this past weekend about a married dwarf couple wanting to ensure their child was born a dwarf. This would be intentionally producing a child with what is considered a genetic abnormality by, at a rough guess, 95+% of the population. Personally, I feel that intentionally disadvantaging a child in this manner, because they will be at a disadvantage in today's society, is not unlike unnecessarily amputating a new born's legs or arms at birth. The story also made mention of intentionally selecting deafness for a deaf couple. I feel the same way about that.

      This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool.

      Deliberately encouraging people to kill themselves would... land you in a fair bit of trouble, I think.

      Or do you hold that the Darwin Awards website is an abomination as well?

      More like insensitivity to loved ones.

      Telling someone to "drop dead" if you will, is not punishable. As an example of how stupid our society has become as a whole, I was by pure happenstance viewing an ad on TV this morning. It was of the new Lexus IS, and they had one on a runway racing against an IS dropped from a helicopter across the drop target. The ground based IS squeaks right under the falling IS in classic thrilling escaped by a hair style.

      What makes this germane to this discussion is the text that was apparently felt by someone that needed to be included in the ad. Underneath, it stated first off, "all ariel sequences were simulated", followed by "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt."

      Now, if you have to tell someone that measuring out 4000 feet on a runway and racing a car dropped from a helicopter @ 4000 feet is something you shouldn't attempt, I'd say that anyone so tempted should be allowed to go ahead and potentially remove themselves from the gene pool.
      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the touchy thing about that. Then again, if sperm #2 had been a little faster, you wouldn't exist. Or, you'd exist, you'd just be different. They'd still have a child, it just wouldn't be "you".

      So, I think that entire argument is a very hollow strawman.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Harinezumi · · Score: 1

      Then again, if they decided to get it on 5 seconds earlier or 5 seconds later, you wouldn't exist! Gotta love the butterfly effect.

    9. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but we or you would have never known, so there's no victim. "You" could have also died at age 3 from a genetic-disorder kidney failure. Imagine if they selected against that!

    10. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Now, if you have to tell someone that measuring out 4000 feet on a runway and racing a car dropped from a helicopter @ 4000 feet is something you shouldn't attempt, I'd say that anyone so tempted should be allowed to go ahead and potentially remove themselves from the gene pool.

      Ah! Snake Oil Geneticist on Slashdot. People here seem to 'know' that intelligence or stupidity is heredetary. The darwin awards is a joke website. If I do the stunt you described for whatever reason (being stupid, just for the thrill of it), it has not been shown that my child will have the same traits.
      This is the reason you cant clone Einstien.

    11. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"? No. Eugenics is when society decides who is fit and unfit to reproduce. In the cases you mention, it is private choice. I think the distinction is very important as eugenics doesn't take the individuals desires into account, but genetic screening gives the individual the choice.

    12. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by weasel5i2 · · Score: 1

      A couple of things:

      1) "Gypsies" should be capitalized like any other proper noun. They are an ethnic group, like Jews or Serbs or Albanians or Koreans, and should be capitalized as such. :)

      2) This reminds me of an article I read some years ago, maybe in Popular Science, which mentioned how certain people (in this case, those with a rare genetic-abnormality-caused blindness) would marry others with the same condition and have children, and the article pointed out how very BAD an idea this is, since both parties' recessive genetic abnormalities would now become a dominant trait, and guarantee the offspring to have the same genetic abnormality!

      3) I apologize for possibly baiting flames here, but I must mention that I've long been of the opinion that the human race is ultimately doomed to failure for one simple reason: Unlike EVERY other species on the planet, we allow our weak to survive and persist.. Of course, with my godawful 20/160 eyesight, I certainly consider myself among the "weak" and probably deserve to be NaturallySelected(tm) out of the picture..

      --
      [BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY]: X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIR US-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
    13. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 1

      You forgot the most important part of your closing.
      AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A CAMCORDER WHEN THEY TRY.
      Youtube needs more video's resulting in the death (or at least permanent sterility) of the people in the videos. :)

      Of course I'm not advocating people film them killing other people, but if you are doing something stupid enough to cause severe pain at best, and probably death, you should have the decency to publish the recording so we can all laugh at you :)

      Cheers

      --
      I am 31337 or something.
    14. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eugenics also takes the form of sterilization of the mentally ill, something that was don in the USA until not too long ago. Do you consider that "horrible"?

    15. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      One day we will absolutely be able to "clone Einstein". Now, the real question is, will we be able to subject the clone to all the hormonal and chemical processes that Einstein was subjected to during the entire span of his lifetime that produced his genius, and, more importantly, can we make him want to be interested in something we consider, or will later consider, useful?

      In other words, cloning is merely making a genetic copy. To actually create a carbon copy, or even a copy with similar enough abilities, is more than merely cloning. (This is more along the lines of what you're suggesting.)

      The potential for stupidity or intelligence certainly has hereditary components. Recent studies have shown that environment has the largest effect on expressing the potential intelligence, and in some cases might even increase that capacity. This does not debunk the fact that some people just have more innate intelligence (genetically based) but it doesn't guarantee that those fortunate people are "smarter" than anyone else. It's the same with athletics. Some people are just "gifted" with better physique. However, if they eat @ McDonalds everyday for 30 days and sit on their can watching TV (Thanks Spurlock!) vs someone not so gifted that goes out and trains for the ironman triatholon, who do you think will win a triatholon race between the two?

      Innate abilities mean nothing if you don't work to express them.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I've long been of the opinion that the human race is ultimately doomed to failure for one simple reason: Unlike EVERY other species on the planet, we allow our weak to survive and persist.. We don't just allow the weak to survive and persist, we actively work to ensure their survival and ability to procreate.

      But, I'd argue that this isn't even the reason we're "doomed". I'd point to something else, if you're of this particular mental bent: look at birthrates among the intelligent, educated, well-off people in the "rich" countries. You'll note the major trend you'll see is very low or no births to these people. So the genetically "successful" for the human race are actively removing themselves from the gene pool, whether consciously or not is irrelevant. I myself am contributing to that trend by only having a single child. If humans were like other species, I would have 30+ kids. Of course, that would kill me. ;)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    17. Re:Eugenics on Slashdot by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Unlike EVERY other species on the planet, we allow our weak to survive and persist.

      But the very question of who's weak is changed by technology.

      I was born with some sort of pigeon-toed or club-foot defect. I'm not sure exactly what, because as an infant I wore a brace that twisted my legs back into "normal" position, I have no recollection of it.

      Now I'm a karate black belt who can deliver pretty good kicks with those "deformed" legs. So who's "weaker", me or the guy born with perfect legs but who doesn't use them for anything more strenuous for a walk to the fridge for another beer?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  60. "the sponges have to be WET" by flanktwo · · Score: 1

    from TFA: "Two minutes in the microwave can kill many germs on kitchen sponges, but the sponges have to be WET."

    I wanted to sterilize my sponge but I didn't know what WET stood for. According to Wikipedia, it could be either Western European Time, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Wuest Expanded Translation (a translation of the New Testament by Kenneth Wuest) or WET Web Tester, an automated web testing tool. I assume that my sponge is none of the last three, so how do I change the time zone setting of my microwave?

  61. Future warning label on sponges: by BagOCrap · · Score: 1

    "Wet before nuking".

    --
    -- Chaos, panic, pandemonium... My job here is done!
  62. I know what's really eating him by democrates · · Score: 1

    Like all crackpots who complain about things, the microwave accident is just a trigger event for an underlying psychosis.

    It's obvious to any reader of "Monthly Sicko"(tm) that the guy's been repressing a deep persecution complez, ever since he lost his job on The Green Mile.

  63. sponge should be dry by Max_W · · Score: 0
    The bacterias and viruses contain a tiny amount of water in themselves.

    The sponge should be definitely dry and then only 10 seconds in micro oven are enough.

    I am surprised that the CNN personnel is so ignorant to not know this. They suggest the method which requires times more energy for sterilization.

    No surprise that those guys need so much energy from abroad being that ignorant.

  64. Causation and correlation... by mangu · · Score: 1
    Intelligence (or the develoment of) could be more related to social or monetary issues.


    Most people desire a minimum level of material comfort, and money is fundamental for that. Therefore, even if intelligence comes from genetic factors, inteligent people will be relatively well from a monetary point of view. A person with a "smart gene" mutation would find a way to get rich even if born in a poor family.


    I think it's most probable that both nature and nurture affect intelligence, one is the hardware and the other is the software, it's reasonable to expect that both factors will have an influence. But you cannot prove that by correlation alone.

  65. lol noob!! by frostedg · · Score: 1

    LOL you are such a noob! Everyone knows the three things you should never put in the microwave: dry sponges, tin foil, and babies! Duh!

  66. Re:stupid people by Lance_Denmark · · Score: 1

    Also the U.K http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6293735.stm , and we had two cities in the 'Most Intelligent' list....

  67. Really needed? by LiquidFiend · · Score: 1

    How many people are wiping their ass with their sponge in the first place?

  68. Congratulations!!!1!!one by kurbchekt · · Score: 0

    Is everyone proud? We just witnessed the future birth of a warning label that when applied will make people say, "Why the hell would you have that on a warning label for a sponge?"

  69. P.T. got it right by davmoo · · Score: 1

    Once again, we see that P.T. Barnum was correct...a sucker born every day. And apparently a lot of them have microwave ovens.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  70. Like Chamberlin and Hitler by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    A better example would be people who think diplomacy will work with homicidal maniacs bent on our destruction.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Like Chamberlin and Hitler by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Surprise, surprise. A 'harmless' religious sort passively advocating the destruction of an entire culture by promoting the assumption that the culture is homogenously violent. Where have I heard this before?

      In this modern, interconnected age, muslims - or at least those that have not had their infrastructure bombed into nothing - are forced to interact with non-muslims all the time; exposed to varying levels of disparate culture, the zealotism fades in most of them. Awareness that not every 'heathen' is a threat helps diffuse the powderkeg that is religious isolation.

      That said, it doesn't fade in all of them. Sorry, but every religious group will have its crazy, violent psychopaths that you can't reason with. Including atheists. It's just a fact of life.

      Frell, why do I even bother?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  71. I knew by kilodelta · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because microwave ovens work best by vibrating water molecules. As they vibrate friction causes them to turn to steam which is what sterilizes the sponge in the first place.

    1. Re:I knew by dreamlax · · Score: 1

      Or any polar molecule for that matter.

  72. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by SinGunner · · Score: 1

    Newsflash. Stupidity is NOT genetic. Intelligence may have some genetic links, but what you call "stupid" is people acting on incomplete or incorrect information, which is what we do EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES.

  73. Buy by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 1

    A New God Damn Sponge

    --
    Nothing witty
  74. See? by travdaddy · · Score: 1

    Let this be a lesson! This is what happens when you don't RTFA!

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
  75. Re:stupid people by asCii88 · · Score: 1

    I'm agree with you

  76. 5 minutes is quite possible by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

    Five minutes isn't impossible at all. The Austrian free-diver Herbert Nitsch can hold his breath for more than 9 minutes.

  77. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we have no sponges.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Trotsky, Marx and Lenin (or so the joke goes...)

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  78. Idiocracy by coder111 · · Score: 1

    You should watch the movie "Idiocracy". It is written by Mike Judge, who also wrote "Office Space". It is not that good, but it is still fun, and raises a couple of points :)

    IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

    --Coder

  79. wrong on two counts by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    #1: survival of the fittest selects not only against lack of intelligence, but also against lack of things like penicillin. if you are such a firm believer in survival of the fittest without any artificial aid from your fellow human beings, the next time you get a deep gash, don't stich it, don't bandage it, and when the sepsis sets in, no antibiotis whatsoever. die shivering and hallucinating as your organs shut down happy that you are fulfilling natural selection

    #2: survival of the fittest selects in favor of not only intelligence, but also in favor of communication. in other words, if you are about to walk into the path of a crouching mountain lion in the brush, and ogg says "stop", saving your life, nature selects for that ability: effective communication and social organization. an individual bee by itself is a dead in a day or two. a hive of bees will thrive and kill animals ten times the entire colony's size. effective social organization is a survival advantage, and by living in a community of humans where each specializes in a different ability and knowledge set, your ability to survive goes up by orders of magnitude. no one man knows everything, and anyone who thinks they do, or thinks they should, is probably demonstrating a profound ignorance of the value of communication as a survival advantage. and as a maladapted asocial loner, they should probably be selected against for an inferior set of genes

    so your entire point about survival and "intelligence" is right... but only when considering your points and reversing them 180 degrees

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:wrong on two counts by OlivierB · · Score: 1

      You are right, and people do not live in a vaccum where only one factor is determinant (and in this case intelligence).
      Other things such as resistance to viruses, physical strength etc.. came into play at first.
      In more recent periods, social aspects such as networking, social status etc.. all affect the natural selection.

      My grief here is much simpler than the whole theory of evolution. People are dumb nowadays because they don't take responsibility for their acts.

      Some numnut at MacDonalds burns his crouch with hot coffee. Another burns down his house with a sponge in a microwave.
      First things first, they were wrong, and they should be so lucky that we live in a world that protects dumb people against themselves with failsafes (such as fire insulation, insurances etc..).
      However for these people to not acknowledge that they've made a mistake and that they seek outside compensation/responsibility recognition is beyond me.

      These people are a drain to the greater good of the larger group.
      An idiot like this one with his Microwave could bring down an entire campus at MIT with his fire. Leaving no choice for the smarter ones.

      As such I believe that he shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

      --
      Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  80. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by viking80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >>>Back in good old days, many centuries ago, there wasn't any kind of this Politically Correct stuff and neither was there protection of the idiots. There was one rule: survival of the fittest....

    Yes, you just hogtied people to a stone, and threw them in the lake. The ones that sank drowned, and the ones that did not survived.

    Or you made them walk on burning coal. The ones that got burnmarks were killed, and the ones that did not could live.

    This is called survival of the fittest.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  81. Warning label on spunge: by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Wet sponge before microwaving.

    Do not leave in microwave unattended.

  82. Bleach by raind · · Score: 1

    10 percent solution works wonders.

    --
    Get up!
    1. Re:Bleach by Malc · · Score: 0, Troll

      More bleach in the environment, great. But what is more interesting is this paranoiac obsession in the US for everything to be sterile. What's that all about?

  83. Other alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if anyone realizes this, but you can accomplish the same thing by boiling it in water for 10 minutes. All the microwave is doing is supplying a different heat source to boil the water trapped in the sponge. You could also go out and buy yourself an autoclave if you really want to be fanatical about it.

  84. Eileen does not have to hoard the sponges! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I first heard the experiment, I was thinking, "Finally! Eileen does not have hoard her sponges and search for sponge-worthy men!" Just zap and reuse! But these disasters are more Krameresque than Eileeny.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Eileen does not have to hoard the sponges! by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      Elaine. :-)

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    2. Re:Eileen does not have to hoard the sponges! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. Elaine it should have been.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  85. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by buff3r · · Score: 1

    Please, stupid people don't need protection. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

    --
    buff3r
  86. Bigger threats by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    There are bigger threats than germs in kitchen sponges. Once you are done nuking sponges, you better mod your TV to stop the government from spying on you, too.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  87. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by rizole · · Score: 1

    Primates (with a few notable exceptions) are group animals and enjoy a rich political and social life and all that that implies. Individuals co-operate as well as compete and the slow and the weak are helped and assisted. If you made mistakes dumb enough to kill you , you might indeed have someone on hand to pull you out. Survival of the fittest just doesn't cover it. Political correctness is neither here nor there.

    Evolution doesn't necessarily select for intelligence or against stupidity. Even very highly intelligent people can make stupid mistakes and under some conditions stupidity is an evolutionary advantage.

  88. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
    Yes, you just hogtied people to a stone, and threw them in the lake. The ones that sank drowned, and the ones that did not survived.


    In that case, the "fittest" were the ones who, upon seeing someone approaching with rope and stones, got the fsck out of town.

    Or you made them walk on burning coal. The ones that got burnmarks were killed, and the ones that did not could live.


    I think that's why shoes were invented. :)
    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  89. 20 minutes by OrionoirO · · Score: 1

    I had read one of the papers on microwaving your sponges, and since our house was enjoying a bit of a mouse-poop-on-the-counter problem at the time, I figured microzapping the bacteria couldn't hurt. Unfortunately it was an old microwave and there was no "quick minute" button, so in a hurry, I inadvertently set it for 20:00 minutes instead of 2:00. Maybe ten minutes later my housemate says, "my god what is that awful smell," and I run into the kitchen to find the sponge on fire and the microwave still dutifully cooking it. The smell lasted at least a week, and I threw away the microwave. So here's a question...I'm a little hazy on the concept, but microwaves heat stuff by exciting water molecules. Once the water molecules had evaporated what did it heat in the sponge that caused it to catch fire?

    1. Re:20 minutes by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Microwaves cause resonance in water molecules, but plenty of other materials will attenuate (absorb) the signal. With a continuous 800W, the energy has to go somewhere!

  90. Incoming humour in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "I can see it now, billboards with signs saying: "a microwave is a great way to get a tan," "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes," and of course "it is cool to operate power tools--in the nude! Buy Budweiser!""

    A small amount of humour is a dangerous thing.

    1. Re:Incoming humour in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh heck... I thought he had said thawing PIES...

  91. The value of human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are all those claiming that this is Darwinism in action serious? I have no problem with tasteless *jokes*, but what really scares me is that I get the feeling that some of these commenters are really saying that "stupid" people don't deserve to live. Am I wrong that that sets morality back, um, thousands of years? I will say no more lest I activate Godwin's Law.

    1. Re:The value of human life? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Are all those claiming that this is Darwinism in action serious? Probably not. But most seriously, they are offtopic as well. Nobody died from a fried sponge, and nobody got sterilized from it either.
  92. This isn't a new idea..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 6 months ago I wanted to find out how to clean the odor off my kitchen sponge so I could reuse it without it stinking. Several websites gave the tip to wet it, then nuke it for a minute. I tried it and it worked GREAT!!! Been doing it for the past 6 months. The first time I tried it, it got very hot, so I never went past a minute and I never put it in DRY! (doh)

    The only thing that's new is people burning their house down (or making the attempt anyways)

  93. Why funny things are modded Informative by Digz · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the FAQ:

    "Note that being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma."

    Thus the reason that people will mod a Funny post Informative.

    --
    SYS 64738
    1. Re:Why funny things are modded Informative by Lissajous · · Score: 1

      Yeah - but it wasn't *that* funny. Not karma-earning funny, anyways.
      Thanks for the warm reset, by the way.

    2. Re:Why funny things are modded Informative by PhxBlue · · Score: 0

      I always mod them "underrated," personally. I don't like other people metamodding my warped sense of humor.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  94. I Have Yet to Decide.... by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

    ...if my kitchen is even "Spongeworthy".

  95. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    That's true, to a point. However, if the weaker, slower members pull the whole group down, the group might not survive. A group of primates who just lost their Alpha Male because he died after rescuing little BoBo from a leopard, might get whooped by another group of primimates.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  96. Thaw your chickens by januth · · Score: 1

    This sounds remarkably like the urban legend about the aircraft company firing chickens at their windshields only to realize that they weren't supposed to be frozen. In any case, Darwin is written all over this one. If you don't have the mental wherewithal to figure out that (dry sponge) + (lengthy microwave session) = (fire & smoking ruin of microwave)...oh well.

    Perhaps more interesting would be to ask the question of these thermodynamically-challenge folk, "What nasty crud having you been wiping down with that $0.29 sponge that makes you feel compelled to sterilize it with a microwave rather than just using cleanser and hot water like the majority of sane people?" For that matter, if you believed your sponge to be that contaminated with bacteria, wouldn't you just -huh, huh- ***throw it away***?

  97. Press... by Teun · · Score: 1

    As to confirm my complaint I just see a blurp on the RSS feed of my paper about the/a British Fire Chief warning for putting sponges in the microwave.
    Again without any reference or explanation why it's a bad idea.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  98. wealth != intelligence by DogFacedJo · · Score: 1

    Hate to feed a troll but:

        IQ is the most weakly correlated with breeding of the features you mention. The wealth, education and class levels of people are very strongly correlated, but it is not even remotely clear that this is more than the common effect of security on progeny numbers seen in many fish, mammals and birds.
        The phenomenon is that many critters have *more* children which they care for poorly when they are low on resources or under stress. The assumption we like to make is that the critter is estimating the survivability of it's kids low, and thus going buckshot rather than sniper since it is dark (low chance of success).
        Of course if there are so few resources that the critter can't even create kids eg: starving, then that will dominate and fewer kids will be expected again.

  99. Bzzzt wrong, go back to biology 101 by quokkapox · · Score: 1

    Sorry, viruses do not contain "a tiny amount of water". Bacteria, of course, do contain water within their cell walls, but they are small enough that most of the microwaves will miss them. That's why you can't kill ants or flies in your microwave. Also see http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=26 5489

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Bzzzt wrong, go back to biology 101 by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing to my mistake. I am sorry for being ignorant and sarcastic. Will punish myself accordingly.

  100. Pot. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    You imply that you are part of the 0.000001% of the population you've identified as being capable of answering your question, but anyone expecting the average Joe to have the faintest idea how a 65 year-old nearly ubiquitous kitchen appliance functions is an arrogant asshole?

    You've got some serious chutzpah...

  101. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by collectivescott · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Yes, you just hogtied people to a stone, and threw them in the lake. The ones that sank drowned, and the ones that did not survived."

    Actually, the ones that survived were burned for being witches. After all, how else could they survive? Talk about a shitty test.

  102. Bullshit. I do this regularly. Dry. by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

    You apparently do not know what you are talking about. Check wikipedia: the heat is generated by the rotation of watermolecules who are aligned by the waves. FYI: watermolecules are smaller than 120 mm, and smaller than bacteria, and they only *rotate*. They have nothing to do with something in the range of 120mm. The bacteria contain more than enough water themselves to get cooked. Wetting the sponge is a waste of energy.
     
    Actually, i put my cycling clothes once every 1 - 2 weeks into a microwave. I have a recumbent, so the back part of my shirts and trousers get a distinguishable smell after a while. Since they can't be washed hot or ironed, i want to kill off the bacteria in a cool way. So first i make sure they are completely dry, the only water in it is in the bacteria. I do this to prevent high temperatures. Then i put them into the microwave (an old one, not sure how powerful it is) for five minutes at full power. After that, they are warm, but not hot and defenitly not burnt. Then i wash them at 30 Celsius and all the smell is gone.

    --
    Trust me, I work for the government.
    1. Re:Bullshit. I do this regularly. Dry. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      [. . .] Since they can't be washed hot or ironed, i want to kill off the bacteria in a cool way. [. . .]Then i wash them at 30 Celsius and all the smell is gone.

      If you're going to wash them anyhow, why not use the the lukewarm water, non-chlorine bleach, and detergent, and wash them by hand? The bacteria should be killed, and the odor should be removed. Does ordinary washing not remove the odor? Pick a different detergent, or use antibacterial soap like liquid Dial or antibacterial dish detergent.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  103. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous+Know-It-Al · · Score: 1

    ...the sponge microwaves you!

  104. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

    Of course, "in the good old days" most people who could not start a fire, ride a horse, milk a cow, kill and gut an animal, grow food, cook meals, sew clothing, wield a weapon, etc. were all likely to be considered idiots. At least if they were over the age of 13 or so.

    So it's good thing that all the superior minds who vaguely understand microwaves and post on Slashdot have mastered that list of basic knowledge so thoroughly. Wouldn't want to burn off anyone's genitals by mistake!

  105. speaking of vacuums by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    after the value of social networking and communication is appreciated, then you begin to open the door for individual concerns and rights to get abused. if the value of the hierarchy or organization overrules the value of the individual, then individuals rights begin to decrease

    your lament over idiots who fail to take accountability for their actions doesn't consider the opposite: where blaming the individual is enforced in such a way that organizations, the government, large corporations, etc., can get away with nurder instead. you have to err in a certain direction: on the side of the group, or the side of the individual. if you side with the group, justice will caution on the side of heartless and cruel organizations, and you will horror stories of individual rights getting crushed. if you side with the individual, justice will caution on the side of idiots without a sense of responsibility, and you will hear horror stories of morons getting millions for spilling coffee

    in other words, when examined in a vacuum, your horror stories of lack of personal accountability are awful. but when your stories are examined in context, in reality, where we are given a choice between two negative situations: erring on the individual or erring on the group, your stories aren't so bad. i'd rather hear about the idiot getting millions for spilling coffee than the toxic waste dumper getting away with poisoning neighborhoods

    you can't err on the side of individual rights and on the side of large organizations at the same time, you can't practice justice without making errors, and you have to expect one type of horror story or the other type no matter which way you err. in this way, when looking at your horror stories of lack of personal accountability outside of a vacuum, they don't sound so bad. because you appreciate the fact that limiting individual rights because of a lack of personal accountability means that large companies and the government begin to get away with murder instead of individual morons

    i'd rather have grandma get millions for spilling coffee instead. when you see things that way, your issue with idiots without a sense of responsibility isn't so bad

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  106. Re:Ignorance != Stupidity - YES IT DOES! by ekimminau · · Score: 1

    If you choose to read an article on the internet and choose to do something stupid like put an object into something you consider a black box and see what happens, YOU are personally responsible for the result of the act you have chosen to perform. Just because you are a moron doesn't make you any less responsible. Your perspective is the equivalent of thinking that hugging a tree will somehow save it from the elements in which it exists. Both are flawed. Ignorance itself may != stupidity but acting on said ignorance does. An ignorant fool is still an ignorant fool.

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
  107. you want to call them doofuses by matt_morgan · · Score: 2, Funny

    In college I lived in a cooperative house where 50 of us shared a big industrial kitchen. Todd, a guy I was friendly with, walked in with a hot dog wrapped in foil-backed paper. He said, I can put this in the microwave, right? And I'm thinking "Um, you never heated a hot dog in the microwave? That's what they're best at!" It did not occur to me that he meant, including the foil-backed paper. Who doesn't know you can't put foil in the microwave?

    So he stuck it in there and pop! the paper explodes in flame. I yelled "what are you doing!?" and he said "you said it would be fine!"

    I guess in a way this was my first experience in tech support: you can never be too clear.

  108. Neat. by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Informative

    How else did they expect it to work? Of course you need the god-damn water in the sponge. Microwaves have a wave length measured in the centimetre. The size of a bacterial spore is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller The size of a bateria is a lot smaller than this again.

    So, are you suggesting that any body shorter than the wavelength of microwave radiation (12 cm) will be left unheated? Neat! That must be why my pizza rolls are still frozen when I get them out.

    ...Or maybe someone who feels superior to "the masses" need to really review the concept of dielectric heating.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Neat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are you suggesting that any body shorter than the wavelength of microwave radiation (12 cm) will be left unheated?
      Any body without dipole won't heat. The radiation will "flow around" it.
    2. Re:Neat. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Any body without dipole won't heat. The radiation will "flow around" it.

      Your point?

      You do realize that bacteria are filled with water molecules -- which are dipoles -- right? This is how food heats in a microwave, regardless of whether it's larger than 12 cm or not.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  109. I was going to try this by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    And no, I had not planned on wetting the sponge. I was wondering "Isn't this going to burn the sponge?" but I was going to do it anyway. The main problem is that the article I read said that the water was the reason why the bacteria loved the sponge but did not mention that the scientists tried it with a wet sponge. This encouraged the mistake people made. It was a poorly written article.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  110. Already covered... by John+Whorfin · · Score: 1

    I think this was covered before: U.S. Cities Don't Make the Intelligence Cut

  111. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, a social Darwinist. No, evolution is *not* about making enough mistakes to kill yourself, it is about sucessfully passing on your genetic material before your mistakes kill you. This being the case, with ideas like yours, you will never get the chance to pass on your genetic material.

  112. Heard something like this once before... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    "I didn't know the sponge was supposed to be wet."

    Anybody remember the scene in this movie?

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  113. Boiling too easy? by uberjoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why not just put your sponges in a pot of boiling water for two minutes and skip all the exploding parts? It even works on metal scouring pads.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  114. Errr, it's every minute by Biff98 · · Score: 1

    Worse than you thought I know, but it's true.

  115. Unlicensed nuclear accelerators? by noahisaac · · Score: 1

    Dr. Raymond Stantz: I was present at an undersea unexplained mass sponge migration.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Uhh, Ray, the sponges migrated about a foot-and-a-half.

  116. Inbreading at its best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously they wet the sponge when they SOAKED (!!!) it in waste water. Do you really have to specify that the sponge should be wet right after you have said it has been soaked in water??? The idiot that ruined his microwave is probably related & married to the woman who sued McDonalds because the cup didn't say it was hot... FUCKING RETARDS!

  117. Extra precations by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    According to the article, now they have to warn people that the sponge will be hot when it comes out of the microwave. If you weren't expecting that already please place your microwave on the curb for pickup. Thank you.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  118. Dear correspondent, by Kalzus · · Score: 1

    Please get an education. You did something ignorant that a first year physics student (as well as a first year cooking student) generally knows not to do. Bye now.

    --
    "The Devil does not know a lot because He's the Devil, He knows a lot because he's old." -- unknown
  119. Reverse psychology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    my karma will hurt after this post. [...]And so I say "farewell to karma..."

    People who try to apply reverse-psychology on moderators should be treated with -1, Provocation.

  120. Re:stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let my guess :-) - This happen in USA?"

    No, it happen in DIGG.

    http://digg.com/health/Know_that_sponge_you_clean_ dishes_with_Here_s_how_to_sanitize_it

  121. Re:No foolish defense at another's expense... by JM78 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    FTA: But several experimenters evidently left out the crucial step of wetting the sponge.

    Your Comment: This was not mentioned at all in the original Reuters article to begin with, but all other details (how long, power setting) were included.

    From the ORIGINAL Article: "...they soaked sponges and scrubbing pads in raw wastewater..." (fourth paragraph). Seems to me that the Reuters article stated this step quite clearly.

    If one lacks the judgment to realize that putting a sponge in the microwave without water is going to burn it then their experience should be their lesson. Lazy-ass people. Stop blindly following every silly little thing you read and take some responsibility for your own stupidity rather than whining that someone else 'told you to do it.' I seem to remember my mother teaching me the 'if your friends told you to jump off a bridge...' lesson when I was freakin' five years old.

    --
    I am Jack's smirking revenge.
  122. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew the moment that article came out that some one would be stupid enough to try that. This country is way to sue happy. I glad they ruined there microwave for being so stupid. If you read the article it says that the sponges were wet. IDIOT

    1. Re:Idiots by unsupported · · Score: 1

      They said they wet the sponges in waste water. Not that anyone trying this should wet the sponge before trying it. Those two things are different.

      --
      Yopu for you?
  123. This just in... by Grashnak · · Score: 1

    ... lighting yourself on fire can ensure that you don't ever have to worry about germs again. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited by law. Flames may not be as pictured. Self-immolation should not be attempted by children, pets, people with allergies, or others who may be disturbed by screaming (particularly their own). Always consult your family physician before lighting anyone on fire.

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
  124. Where is BadAnalogyGuy (945258)when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eom

  125. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

    *Shrugs* I don't know, out of all the misuses of such phrases, at least "and" and "et" mean the same thing. Give him some slack, at least he didn't use "ecetera"...

  126. spores took over 10 min by Danathar · · Score: 1

    The original story said it took between 4 and 10 min at full power to kill all the spores in the sponge. What kind of life can survive 10 min in a full sized microwave! Incredible!

  127. Thanks, jerk! by twosmokes · · Score: 1

    When I put my gold ring into the microwave, it caught fire, smoked up the house, ruined my microwave, and pissed me off!

  128. Re:No foolish defense at another's expense... by daenris · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points to mod you up, but alas... In any case, I concur... the original article clearly says they were using sponges that had been soaked in wastewater.

  129. Anyone else misread the headline as.. by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

    Microwave Experiments Cause Spooge Disasters

  130. Just a thought, but... by balatron · · Score: 1

    ...haven't any of these people seen "Green Mile"? You always wet the sponge. Always.

    1. Re:Just a thought, but... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I know! Sheesh.

  131. The Weird Thing... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The weird things isn't that people forgot to wet the sponge so it wouldn't catch on fire...

    The weird thing is that people are so afraid of bacteria that they are going be microwaving their sponges!! Not only that, I see they sell anti-bacteria material sponges pre-made at the store... and anti-bacterial soap... and anti-bacterial air-sprays (don't worry about lung cancer from breathing that crap!). Anti-bacterial teething rings... anti-bacterial towels... anti-bacterial shaving cream...

    When did people get paranoid about bacteria all of a sudden? You gotta admit, bacteria isn't a significant problem for most people in the industrialized world, even without all the extreme anti bacteria tactics people are using.

  132. People are still using sponges? by fugue · · Score: 1

    I gave up on sponges. Even in Colorado, they get stinky in a week or two. Now I use a vegetable brush: it doesn't reek, it's dishwasher-safe, and it cleans dishes better.

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  133. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Kpau · · Score: 1

    Of course, *every* human being is an idiotic or dumb at some random instant in time... the trick is not to be dumb "in front a tiger".

  134. Sounds like some Americans are still alive by heroine · · Score: 1

    > sent people hurrying to test the idea this week

    Sounds like a heard of sheep. Do they blindly rush out to test every idea like that? You'd think the cloud of evaporated urine, Lysol, grease, and Ramen created by heating it would be more harmful than rinsing it.

  135. Re:Stupid People, Stupid Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same effect can be had by dunking the sponge in a pot of boiling water.

    So? The same effect of my driving to work can be had by my walking to work. I'm not going to do it. Most people have 2 minutes, water and a microwave. I not willing to put in the time required to boil water nor the desire to stand over the pot using some other utensil to keep the sponge under the point water. Another comment from somebody that can't see outside of their own ass.

  136. You think sponges mess things up? Try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    steel wool in the microwave!!!
    Yes Benji, it comes from iron sheep.

  137. Other good things to put in microwaves by techitout · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While you are testing out all the theories in this tread, try Peeps (you know those disgusting marshmallow candies that you still have in your closet 2 years after Halloween re-located them from the store shelf to your shelf). They are great fun to watch in the microwave -- try it and see. And no, they won't light everything on fire.

  138. Not quite... by moosehooey · · Score: 1

    Granted that I know that microwaves heat up water, but the original article could be interpreted in several ways:

    Saying they soaked the sponges could mean that they did that to contaminate them for the test, not necessarily as part of the microwaving procedure.

    If the sponges are not wet, they should not get hot, since microwaves only heat up water.

    If I was going to try this, I might put a dry sponge in the microwave, along with a bowl of water (since not having any water can damage the microwave). They didn't get into the mechanism, whether the heat kills the microbes, or if the microwaves themselves do something.

    1. Re:Not quite... by JM78 · · Score: 0

      Possibly, however how it could be interpreted wasn't my comment. I was simply pointing out that the original article, did in fact, state clearly that soaking the sponge was one of the steps. Why that step was taken wasn't the point.

      if the sponges are not wet, they should not get hot, since microwaves only heat up water.

      I know nothing of how microwaves work personally, but if that was the case, it seems that nothing would burn once all water evaporated. Since this clearly is not the case in this circumstance it seems to me that microwaves heat more than water alone.

      If I was going to try this...along with a bowl of water...

      Which is exactly why you don't fall into my opinion category of brainless - at least you would think about it first. And, because you're obviously a thinker, you likely wouldn't blame someone else because your experiment failed miserably.

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
  139. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... am fucking sick of having to put up with stupid people every day.

    The ones who are pushing their mental abilities to the limits when they tie their shoes in the morning.
    (Not to mention those who require velcro.)

    How soon can we be rewarded for giving Darwinism a helping hand?

  140. "people who talk at the theatre" by Anomalyst · · Score: 1
    and people who talk at the theatre

    What kind of response do such people expect to get back from an edifice?
    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  141. OMG YOU RUINED THE BOOK by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

    SPOILER WARNING: That's part of the premise of the setup in Brave New World by Huxley. They tried making an island for all the people who were grown to be smart and let them loose. You might want to read it.

  142. Old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr. Dean Edel and Dr. Bill Wattenburg were the ones that were ones that were distributing this information at that time. This was news about 8 years old because my son is going turn 8 and I doing some research on the library and the net on cleaning sponges that he used to take a bath with and there one was about using hot steam to cook and kill most of the microbes the inside the sponge using a autoclave. However we don't have autoclaves so the next best thing is a microwave which can cook something from the inside. The important thing about microwaving sponges is that you need to make sure you have some water in the sponge so the microwaves can boil the water inside the sponge the make it to steam to kill the microbes inside the sponge. Like the warnings for all microwave products, you need to monitor the sponges so they don't dry out and then overheat and possibly catch on fire. The sponges need to be slightly damp. Also you can microwave women's underwear to kill yeast and other microbes that washer doesn't always kill.
    Steaming a sponge in a most home "standard" boilers doesn't have pressure to get to the inside of the sponge to kill the microbes. Also when you attempt the "clean" with most household chemicals you really only clean the outside but it is the inside the sponge is where the microbes live.

  143. This is hardly new by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I've been using the microwave to sterilize kitchen sponges for several years now.

    And yes, the sponges are always wet. I've seen The Green Mile.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  144. I did this once!!!! by RUFar · · Score: 1

    Ok, showing how dumb we can all be some times. I tried this after my son was born. We started sterilizing his bottles using a steamer in the microwave. Well, I figured it would be just as effective for sponges! Let's face it, those kitchen sponges get really smelly and nasty after a while - no matter what they say about "germicidal". Unfortunately, I also tried it w/ a not-completely-wet sponge. Damp won't do it, the thing has to be SOAKING wet. I put a damp one in there for 2 minutes - enough time to boil water - and burned a hole right through the middle of it. Now, thanks to HIGH-TECH RESEARCH (I'm embarrassed to say it's my alma mater) I know that if I soak the thing, it actually DOES kill the germs!

  145. Re:stupid posters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    GP:

    I'll let your guess. Parent:

    I'll let you guess. Which one is grammatically correct? I'm betting on parent. But GP is modded +2 Funny, while parent is -1. Do mods hate correct English grammar, or as they probably say, grammer?
  146. Re:stupid posters by webheaded · · Score: 1

    See, there's this cool thing we have in the English language called sarcasm. You should look it up some time.

    The guy was making fun of the other guy's use of "let my guess" by saying "I'll let your guess." He was playing on the use on Engrish there. The parent you're referring to was what we would call a joke killer, like you. Seriously...how you missed the clear joke here is beyond me.

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
  147. Cruelty to Microbes by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's plenty of good jokes here about Darwinism, and some useful discussion about how to actually sterilize a sponge (boiling water, dishwasher, eliminating the sponge as a middleman and simply cleaning plates in the microwave, etc.), but what about the reasons for sterilizing the sponge in the first? Does it even make sense?

    Remember, we're talking about a species that used eat stuff raw that had been sitting out in the sun for a couple hours, and beat it into edible sized pieces with sharp rocks. It's a species that still does eat stuff off the floor, picks its nose, and thinks nothing of touching computer keyboards or the handrail on city bus. And here we are worrying about ordinary household bacteria in a sponge that probably gets used in conjunction with some form of antibacterial detergent anyway.

    Seriously, how many death certificates note "Cause of death: Scotch Brite scrubber sponge?" How much clinical evidence is there that disinfecting sponges increases longevity or improves your health?

    At the same time, there is mounting evidence that moderate exposure (without overdoing it, of course) to microbes may bolster the immune system, and questions about whether antibacterial products might kill only the weakest pathogens, leaving no resource competition to stifle the growth of chemical-resistent bacterial strains.

    Don't be paranoid. Most of the microbes out there never hurt anyone.

  148. No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every idiot knows how dangerous THAT is! :-)

  149. Darwin's theory no longer works on humans by nephridium · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or let's put it another way: the more "advanced" a society gets the less applicable natural selection becomes. Why? Because societies in first world countries will try to safeguard its citizens against stupidity or any other "lack of fitness". Not only does it protect its citizens against natural hazards, such as wild animals, bad weather, famines etc. but it also strives to protect them from any new threats arising due to the new life style.

    The example in this case would be: guy hears about scientists sterilizing a sponge, guy rushes to the microwave in order to replicate the experiment, sponge catches fire, guy frantically jumps around in circles while microwave oven and room catches on fire, this sets off the fire alarm which in turn calls the firefighters, they extinguish the fire, guy sues everybody and their grandma, gets rich and procreates like mad..

    We have basically neutralized effects of natural selection on us by assuring the survival and procreation of individuals that would be "less fit". Instead we are subjected mainly to genetic drift, the other effect that determines the gene pool of a population.

    The movie Idiocracy actually takes it a step further and postulates that stupidity actually increases the "fitness" of an individual (i.e. a stupid individual is more likely to have children), thus a bunch of generations down the line we'll be living in an "idiocracy" such as the one depicted ;) - A funny movie none the less.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    1. Re:Darwin's theory no longer works on humans by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Every social animal protects its weak, and the more intelligent species do it more and more. The herd surrounds the sick and feeble, usually until it's too late and they find out they'd better save themselves. We just have the ability to do it to the next level and actually remove threats from our environment.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  150. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

    I figured it was just a mistyped "and all." I was being playful, not malicious. :)

    --
    Fnord.
  151. The Green Mile by RainDaemon · · Score: 1

    i Can't Believe this! Does nobody here remember the Green Mile?

  152. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must be tired, but you actually made me laugh so much i cried...

  153. Re:People are just too damn stupid for their own g by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

    Gotcha, I was just being "playfully defensive". ^.^;

  154. Re: Directions for Nuking Sponges by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

    the directions state what is to be done clearly and concisely.
    No, they don't.
    In fact, there are no "directions" at all.
    The researchers simply stated the procedure they used to perform their experiment, and the results thus obtained.
    If you were to follow their "directions", you would soak the sponge in bacteria-laden wastewater prior to putting it in the microwave oven.
    It is understandable that many people would want to skip that step.
    That said, it is still surprising that people didn't wet their sponges, as the researchers indicated that it was probably the heated water, not the microwaves, that killed the bacteria.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  155. Capacitive Discharge by OmniGeek · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but it WILL ruin a good screwdriver, so use a cheap, WELL_INSULATED one instead.

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
  156. Ghostbusters Quote by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Ray: Of course you forget, Peter. I was present at an undersea, unexplained mass sponge migration.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.