Slashdot Mirror


Eight People Suffer Burns After Attempting Viral 'Boiling Water Challenge' (abc13.com)

A burn surgeon at Loyola University Medical has treated eight different people for second and third-degree burns after they attempted to replicate the viral "boiling water challenge," according to one local news station. These people (like many others as seen across social media) heated water and threw it into the sub-zero air, expecting it to transform into a powder-like state and blow away in the wind. But that apparently didn't work out for everyone; sometimes the water stayed liquid and hit people. The youngest patient seen at Loyola is 3 years old. Sanford said that individual (like some of the other patients) was just standing next to someone else throwing the water.... Sanford said there are likely several others out there with first degree burns that didn't seek medical attention.
CNN Wire Services also reports at least three more "boiling water challenge" burn victims in Minneapolis and Iowa.

78 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Darwin Challenge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Burn your bits and pieces off for an internet meme.

    1. Re: Darwin Challenge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mum: Ifeveryone else was jumping off a cliff...
      Today's kids: Yes, Mum. Yes I would.

    2. Re: Darwin Challenge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It will be a new Cause-of-Death, Internet induced Terminal Narcissism.

      "It was parkour, Master Reginald, just before the Color Festivals and Tide Pods. The point at which I stopped caring about these idiots. But for the suffering and tears they leave behind...good riddance"

    3. Re: Darwin Challenge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mum: Ifeveryone else was jumping off a cliff...
      Today's kids: Yes, Mum. Yes I would.

      Obligatory xkcd.

    4. Re:Darwin Challenge: by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Anyone want to start the Holding a Lit Stick of Dynamite Challenge? I'm sure I saw some coyote do it once, let's see if you can do it too!

  2. Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society, which is leading us to a rather bleak future (just watch the semi-fictional film "idiocracy" for a good extrapolation). These stunts are one of the few natural selection sources left - whoever does a hydrochloric acid test for example should be removed from the human genome anyway. The problem is when bystanders get the effect instead of the idiot performing the actually stupidity...
    It is definitely not news for nerds though, I don't see how it even remotely warrants inclusion on slashdot... Then again, I am not new here... :D

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society" - This has been true basically since society began, not recent at all.

      "which is leading us to a rather bleak future" - You're citing extreme fiction, not a simulation. That's... I mean, it's not hyper-intelligent...

      "These stunts are one of the few natural selection sources left" - Wrong, nobody died and the stupidity is not genetic but socially acquired.

      "The problem is when bystanders get the effect instead of the idiot performing the actually stupidity..." Granted.

      " I don't see how it even remotely warrants inclusion on slashdot." - Who gives a fuck what you see or don't or want or not, it has to do with viral online memes.

    2. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      So by this logic, you're going to stop going to the doctor and taking medicine when you are sick? If you break a leg or get blinded in an accident someone should just dump you in a remote area to go and die?

      Nonsense, nobody is saying that we should kill or mistreat stupid people. We are just saying that they should be sterilized.

    3. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      Nonsense, nobody is saying that we should kill or mistreat stupid people. We are just saying that they should be sterilized.

      I know, right? Some people on the internet get so upset from such simple misunderstandings.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by novakyu · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Don't try patenting that idea, it has 75 years of prior art.

    6. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by xski · · Score: 1
      And now you're going to tie that to the topic somehow, right?

      Go away, AC Troll, or if you have something to say then SAY IT. Dropping by to toss out a random whinge does not endear anyone do your position. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    7. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by infolation · · Score: 2

      It's important to differentiate between intelligence and common sense.

      I know plenty of very intelligent people who seem to do boiling water challenge grade stupid on a fairly regular basis.

      But we live in a society that rewards 'brains on legs' type people. Provided your brain can make someone money, and you can hold your life together just enough to stay alive, society seems to consider you valuable.

      The concept of the village idiot is morphing into the village savant.

    8. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society, which is leading us to a rather bleak future (just watch the semi-fictional film "idiocracy" for a good extrapolation).

      No. The reason we have an "idiot problem" is certainly not because society restrains itself from euthanizing them; it's because society makes a special effort to produce them.

    9. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Sic. :/

    10. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Darn. I thought boiling water sterilizes. Oh well...

      It does, but it can take up to 30 minutes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by TAz00 · · Score: 1

      It' was a total accident when I did 5 gram of beer and 1 litre of coke and started driving to work and killed that family. Luckily the doctors re-attached my junk. See, the family wasnt performing a stunt, and so they get to go to the doctor. The other guy should've been killed to death. Dont think its that unclear?

    12. Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Nobody is fucking that without a large cash transaction.

      I know, right? How much are you offering?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. "Call it evolution in action" by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never underestimate our species' immense capacity for stupidity.

    1. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The child survived.

      There was no selection event.

      No evolution happened.

      My goodness, educational standards have sure fallen.

    2. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't the child, it was someone next to it. The idiot who threw the boiling water should be prosecuted for assault -- at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident, it's more like shooting into the air on a crowded street,

      Killing an innocent bystander is no selection, at least unless the trait we're selecting against isn't "don't stand near dangerous morons".

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re: "Call it evolution in action" by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Yes, we could. When are you gonna go off yourself?

    4. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The idiot who threw the boiling water should be prosecuted for assault -- at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident, it's more like shooting into the air on a crowded street,

      That's not assault, though, it's reckless endangerment.

      Killing an innocent bystander is no selection, at least unless the trait we're selecting against isn't "don't stand near dangerous morons".

      I don't promote such selection, but it seems fairly valid. Do you ever watch stuff, whether it's a candid video of someone getting injured, or even a fictional movie, and find yourself thinking "looks like it's time to go!" Some people don't have that sense, and they suffer for it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by novakyu · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be direct. Think more probabilistically. Maybe the burn will leave a scar. Maybe the scar will make it harder for the child to find a mate and leave an offspring. Evolution still might be in action.

    6. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by xski · · Score: 1

      I suppose natural selection has no problem with guilt by association.

    7. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's not how evolution works.

      It goes along using "survival of everything meeting a low minimum standard" for most of the time, and then at very specific times there are "selection events" where everything below some higher standard died.

      Having a scar doesn't prevent breeding. Being slightly uglier than before doesn't prevent breeding. Have you ever even been in a trailer park? Have you ever seen a family with 12 kids? If you knew somebody had 12 kids, would you assume they must be really beautiful?

      That which doesn't kill anybody, wasn't part of evolution. It was merely part of the drift that happens most of the time, when you're not in a selection event.

    8. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      1) Evolution doesn't care whose "fault" it was.
      2) The child was likely the offspring either of the person who did it, or of somebody stupid enough to let their child stand near that person
      3) The adult already reproduced. Even if they died, the event didn't remove them from the line, since the child already exists.

    9. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of these people were protected by helicopter parents from ever touching a hot stove, or having hot water from the bathtub spigot splash onto them. These aren't bad experiences we need to be protected from. We need to experience them in situations where the potential harm is small, so we can learn. That way, later in life we do not intentionally create stupid situations where where their potential harm is much greater.

    10. Re: "Call it evolution in action" by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Amatures!
      Are you describing yourself? A-mature, as in lacking maturity? Similar to Amoral?

    11. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Killing an innocent bystander is no selection, at least unless the trait we're selecting against isn't "don't stand near dangerous morons".

      Well, depending on how far back you go they were probably your family or your tribe. There's no doubt in my mind that natural selection is far more than individual reproduction, or certain traits should never have appeared. For example the will of some to fight and die protecting others or the selflessness some have, in a group they make the group stronger. I also think that is why almost any primitive group has created some form of religion, it creates an order and a community, rewards and punishments for right and wrong that make it stronger as a whole. That your neighbor is a total stranger you have no relationship with is a fairly modern phenomenon when you look at all of human history.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident

      Justify this statement. An activity was conducted like it had been done 100s of times before with a clear expected and safe outcome. The expected outcome didn't occur. I'll now leave it to you to tell everyone *why* this can't be argued as an accident. Then I will proceed to argue with you.

    13. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      An activity was conducted like it had been done 100s of times before with a clear expected and safe outcome.

      "I have expended 100 bullets shooting in the air on various weddings, funerals and parties, yet no one was killed by me this way yet. By others, yeah, but not by me, until now."

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    14. Re:"Call it evolution in action" by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And by shooting into the air the resulting death would be accidental. Punishable through the laws of negligence, but not at all through a targeted law like assault which is what you were proposing.

  4. Next up, laser pointer demodex challenge by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

    Let's see if people can get rid of demodex mites in their eyelashes using a high-powered laser pointer. Just be careful not to point the beam directly into the iris.

    Stay tuned for tips on how to be more relaxed while driving! Hint: Don't use that seatbelt / shoulder harness!

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  5. sigh by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I turn pessimistic and think that we need a good war (or maybe measles) to clear out the country of morons and people who are half stumbling through life on autopilot, making a mockery of the struggles we went through as a country to give people the prosperity we enjoy today.

    1. Re:sigh by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Sometimes I turn pessimistic and think that we need a good war (or maybe measles) to clear out the country of morons

      Measles might work, but a war doesn't. The bravest volunteer, and the brightest can be hit with a mortar along with the dimmest.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:sigh by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps increase the standards in the science education at schools.

      Unfortunately the Textbook League site have shutdown for some years now but when they where active they found tons of blatant errors in school science text books.

      For those interested you should check out episode #52 of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe where they interviewed the Textbook League president, Bill Bennetta, while it was still active: https://www.theskepticsguide.o...

  6. Stupid people are stupid by guruevi · · Score: 1

    They see a video and instantly believe it. The water has to go through a phase transition and shed a ton of energy doing that (something like 500 cal/g) and depending on the size of the droplet will take at least 2-30 minutes, not seconds.

    I just had someone argue that a candle could heat an entire room in case of emergency, you just had to put it on fire bricks and a flower pot, the bricks would heat up (somehow) and give off heat.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Stupid people are stupid by burtosis · · Score: 3

      I did this when the temps reached -30F without windchill. It's not a dumb experiment, but cold temperatures don't magically negate the fact you are using boiling water which is a scald hazard. There is more energy and more destructive power in a car, and if you back over people because it's crowded and you didn't clear off the snow on your windows or can't stop because of ice you are guilty of being an idiot. It is perfectly ok to use a car if you clean the windows and drive safely.

      That said you are correct. Droplets from being thrown will take too long to freeze even at -30. The reason you boil the water is the steam, at -30 boilling water makes a very audible fwooossshhh sound and the steam droplets are cold enough to freeze because of the extremely small size. Cold water won't fwooooshhh and makes much less vapor. I have a mini snow making rig that is comprised of a pressure washer and air compressor, unless it's about -20 or less even the tiny droplets from just a fine spray pressure washer nozzle won't freeze (even then it stinks) you need compressed air to atomize it further and expand to provide nucleation.

    2. Re:Stupid people are stupid by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just had someone argue that a candle could heat an entire room in case of emergency, you just had to put it on fire bricks and a flower pot, the bricks would heat up (somehow) and give off heat.

      A single candle won't. But a candle gives off about 50-100 Watts of thermal energy. It's actually close to the thermal output of a human body at rest (about 80-100 Watts). So if the overriding survival concern was temperature (instead of, say, pollutants in the air), then yes, one or two candles will put out as much heat as having another person in the room. And two or three dozen candles will put out as much heat as a 1500W space heater.

      People just think candles are weak because they are spectacularly inefficient as a light source. IIRC only 0.04% of the energy goes into light; the rest is given off as heat. So that Earth Day tradition where businesses turn off their 12% efficient T8 fluorescent ceiling lights and use candles instead actually wastes a phenomenal amount of energy. A single T8 bulb consumes 32 Watts, or about as much as those small tea candles. But puts out a helluva lot more light.

    3. Re:Stupid people are stupid by ledow · · Score: 2

      Hot water can cool quicker than cold water.

      It's seems insane, but it's actually true. It's called the Mpemba effect.

      In this particular experiment, it's a combination of VERY cold air temperatures, using boiling (steaming) water that's already trying to evaporate, injecting it quickly into a fast-moving air-stream (the windchill is the extreme part, not the basic air temperature), over as large a volume as possible (so it spreads more).

      If you wanted to flash-freeze something as quickly as possible, that's what you'd do - put it in a cold, fast-flowing fluid stream, and spreading it as much as possible to make the droplets small.

    4. Re:Stupid people are stupid by sjames · · Score: 1

      It actually does work, and it doesn't even need to be that cold. The key is that the water needs to thoroughly atomize.

      And a candle isn't likely to heat the whole house, but it might manage to make the bathroom a bit more comfortable.

  7. Headline by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Global Warming Causes Severe Burns

    Subhead: Winter Temperatures Too Warm for Viral Boiling Water Challenge

  8. It's dangerous? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Who could have predicted that flinging a container full of boiling water in the air right next to them would be dangerous!? Next you're going to tell me that it's dangerous to drink boiling water or pour it on someone.

    They should put a warning on it if it's that dangerous.

    1. Re:It's dangerous? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      They should put a warning on it if it's that dangerous.

      The main problem is when they put a warning label on each water molecule, It turned out to have almost as fine a print as your average eula and nobody read them.

    2. Re:It's dangerous? by Megane · · Score: 1

      If you think that's bad, you should read about all the dangers of Di-hydrogen Monoxide.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. YHep by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    I tried doing this. It took some lateral thinking, but I figured it would be smart to throw the water away from myself and others, and not straight up. I already knew it was unwise to throw it against the wind due to a preceding incident involving having to go to the bathroom while camping.

    1. Re:YHep by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Did it work?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:YHep by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Did it work?

      Yes, you can still pee when it's -20 or less despite "shrinkage".

    3. Re:YHep by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      No, or at least, some water hit the ground, which was disappointing. But at least none hit a three year old.

  10. Natural selection by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1

    Nature doesn't need that much brain-dead people.

    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
  11. Re:Should be Illegal by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are you right-wingers so obsessed with her? She's a junior representative with no actual power yet you all can't stop talking about her.

  12. Poor Baby by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

    Maybe AOC could help you with your vagina problem.

  13. Teh Peoples Beez Dum by divide+overflow · · Score: 2

    Sure, in a macabre way they're entertaining, but then I remember that if they can make it to 18 they will be eligible to vote.

    1. Re:Teh Peoples Beez Dum by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      These people are learning something about physics, and are learning by doing. I'd rather they vote than the vast majority of "This is how you live your life" taught people out there.

  14. Re:Should be Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She's 1, female and 2, ethnic latina, and 3, up and coming Democrat, and 4, they can't get laid in a whorehouse, being nazi INCEL Republicans. 5, pity their wasted lives, they 6, back a traitor who 7, will either hang for treason or rot in 8, prison.

  15. Re:Should be Illegal by sysrammer · · Score: 2

    To instill the proper amount of deep-seated hatred, not only for this generation but the next, one must begin the bullying behaviors early.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  16. Yep, it takes decades to build up blind hatred by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they did the same with Hilary. Not that she didn't have plenty of good reasons to hate her, but the good reasons were things like "she'll sell us out to mega corporations" and "She supports TPP and outsourcing".

    You're not allowed to talk about those kind of things; they're profitable business. So you're stuck with trying to instill a general sense of dread.

    With AOC it's harder because she doesn't really have any dirt. She's a pretty girl, meaning they probably can find anyone she sexually harassed. She's from a basic, middle class family so they won't find corruption. And so far she knows better than to apologize for anything (Liz Warren shoulda told everybody, including the Cherokees, to go fuck themselves on the Indian thing. Apologizing is never good in politics, Trump taught us that).

    Speaking of Trump, AOC has the potential to be the left wing Trump: Somebody who nothing sticks to and who can bypass traditional media and go directly to the voters. With the main difference being that when she says Drain the Swamp see seems to mean it. If you're a billionaire who doesn't like paying taxes you'll spend some time trying to bury her before that happens.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Yep, it takes decades to build up blind hatred by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      AOC is going to end up in some kind of financial scandal before long, and people will be saying, "Where did she get all that money?" And some people will try to justify it irrationally, and others will condemn her without understanding, just like they always do.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Re:Should be Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Her influence is pulling the Democratic Party out of the Overton Window [wikipedia.org],

    Oh no! The Democrats will be skewed from center-right to slightly more centerish, whatever will they do!

    and toward electoral suicide. She may be leading the Democratic Party off a cliff.

    Not really, considering the only people who don't like her proposals are Boomers, and nobody cares what they think anymore. Go share some more red scare Minions memes, grandpa.

  18. what temp? by hraponssi · · Score: 1

    ok, they are idiots in the first place to throw boiling water next to people. let alone 3 year olds. but what does the trick need to work? i can imagine it must be quite a difference to throw it at -30C vs -1C. how was it in these cases? the linked article does not say much..

  19. Who Cares? by george14215 · · Score: 1

    Out of 8 billion people on the planet, there will always be stupid people doing stupid things and accidentally hurting themselves. Are we going to try and outlaw this experiment because of 8 people?

  20. Re:Should be Illegal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The trouble with taking her seriously is that she keeps saying stupid shit.

    So did Trump. The Democrats thought they could win just by pointing out his mistakes, while ignoring the concerns of his supporters. They were wrong.

    AOC said that being morally correct was more important than being factually correct. A poll of people in her district showed a majority agreed with that statement.

    Facts no longer matter in American politics, on either the left or right.

  21. That's painfully obvious by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and you're missing my point. She's using the same playbook but for different ends. She's using New Media (Twitter, Youtube, etc) to by pass the media filter and get her message out. It works for her because she's cute and charismatic. Trump pulled it off with Celebrity, but same thing. And she doesn't back down or apologize for gaffs. That's key. Voters are like sharks in a pool, they smell blood they're on you in a second.

    Politics has changed and she changed with it. That's why they're scared shitless of her.

    And Trump is not a centrists, he's an opportunist. He has no actually political beliefs whatsoever. He's taken virtually every position possible but when it came time to put policy in action everything he did was to benefit him and his. He's a Kleptocrat.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's painfully obvious by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      Though I did enjoy the AC's bit about "lubricious". There's a multi-level insult if I've ever seen one. It might be enough to revive that meme about someone-or-another covered with grits in some manner.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  22. Bernie didn't by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    so it's possible she won't. I'm not sure I could blame her if she did sell out, but assuming she doesn't she's going to be untouchable. Assuming they don't redraw her district, but that'll be hard to do. Gerrymandering means making a few safe districts for Dems so you can make more safe districts for the GOP.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Bernie didn't by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      She's going to get a lot of heat in the next few months to a year and how she responds to that will give an indication of her staying power, I guess. Without a doubt she's changed the conversation, even if she doesn't stay.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. Hell on a sled by swm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was up in the White Mountains, in a hiking lodge, state park, national park, I don't recall.
    They have a roll--a memorial--of people who have died hiking in the area, going back to around 1900.
    The plaque explains that hiking isn't extremely dangerous, but you are in the wilderness, you are on a mountain, and things can happen, and we should all be mindful of this.

    Some of the deaths are mishaps; some are bad weather, some are just people who happened to have a heart attack while they were on the mountain. But about once every 10 years, someone dies sledding down Mt. Washington on a cafeteria tray. (I am not making this up.)

    My guess is that when someone dies this way, word gets around, and then no one tries it for a while. But after a decade has passed, there is a new generation who came along too late to get the memo, and one of them does try it, and then there is a new name on the memorial.

    ...and this end is called the Thagomizer, after the late Thag Simmons.
    -- Gary Lawson, The Far Side

  24. No, Bernie is _older_ by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    he makes fewer gaffs due to experience so he seems more thoughtful. That is. Nothing more, nothing less.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:No, Bernie is _older_ by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, I've been thinking about this overnight, and here are my thoughts (in case you for some reason care). AOC isn't particularly more braindead than any other politician, as you say. So no big deal there, she'll get the hang of it.

      The biggest problem I see is that here's what will happen:

      1) "Tax the rich" becomes popular.
      2) Republicans (and lets face it, a ton of Democrats) realize they need to make a token effort to appease the people
      3) They join together (loudly protesting or cheering as needed) and raise the top bracket to 45% on people earning more than $10million a year (the idea is 70% but I don't think that will happen).
      4) Everyone is satisfied and goes back to watching TV, or complaining how stupid AOC, Pelosi, or Trump actually is, while
      5) Less than two thousand people are affected by the new tax rate, and half of those are able to restructure their income to avoid the new taxes.

      In other words, an ineffectual bill will be passed with loopholes that appease anyone who actually knows how to lobby government.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  25. Why use boiling water? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1
    If you want to see water turn to powder, why not just use room temperature water?

    The real stupidity is throwing the water straight up, or throwing it against the wind.

    1. Re:Why use boiling water? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The whole premise is that hot water freezes faster than cold water. It's anti-intuitive, but there seems to be some real question there.

    2. Re:Why use boiling water? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you want to see water turn to powder, why not just use room temperature water?

      Physics. The temperature difference is what causes visible vapour. The same trick done with boiling water is orders of magnitude more impressive than room temperature water.

    3. Re:Why use boiling water? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No. That's the premise by people who don't understand the mechanism. The experiment relies on condensing of water vapour not freezing the water. When you boil water and then attempt to atomize it (you may notice people are always trying to spread out the water when they throw it) readily turns into vapour. Cold water doesn't do the same and while you get a bit of the effect it's orders of magnitude less spectacular.

  26. I woner if... by Wizardess · · Score: 1

    I wonder if these people also are prone to pissing upwind. Darwin has a special place in evolution for people who piss or throw boiling water upwind.
    {o.o}

  27. Let's get some perspective by sjames · · Score: 1

    This is not exactly a Darwin Awards moment. They're tossing a bit of water into the air, not juggling chainsaws. Most people can manage it without getting water on themselves or others. It's also a cool demonstration.

    A small number of people managed to injure themselves or others doing this. They're probably the same people who managed as children to hurt themselves with a Nerf toy. From the sound of it, only one or two of the injuries actually required care beyond home first aid. I do feel for the 3 year old who clearly wasn't old enough to watch out for himself, of course.

  28. Re:Should be Illegal by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    In related news, Ocasio-Cortez announced new legislation which would outlaw the possession, sale, or use of any such military style, tactical assault liquid.

    C'mon folks. Troll yes, but this is hellafunny nonetheless!

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  29. Re:Should be Illegal by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Damn. I've been expecting this kind of thing. One thing experience shows is that once a political strategy or tactic is found to be successful, it *will* be used by the opposition.

    Rule by Emotion vs. Rule by Logic. I have a gut feeling that somewhere in the middle is the proper mix.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain