You misheard. CO2 isn't a poison; it's an attractant. They track you down using your body heat and the CO2 you exhale, so many traps are baited with CO2 and/or some form of heater.
However, your idea is very similar to one that does work, which is baking them. Bedbugs are vulnerable to heat, and will die in a few hours at above 120-degF. Higher temps have shorter kill times, and steam kills them instantly.
Bedbugs have nothing to do with hygiene. They live off blood and only blood, not dirt or mold or anything related to cleaning.
And there are always places to hide. An air or water bed is a good start, yes, although you can get the same effect by encasing your mattress in a bug-impermeable casing. But they can still live in the bedframe, the walls, nearby furniture, etc.
In fact, a quirk of bedbug biology makes it even worse. Bedbug sex is extremely painful for the female (the term is literally "traumatic insemination"), to the point that female bedbugs will often flee and hide after the first mating if there are other males in line. Then she'll lay her eggs in that new hiding spot. So you'll get a second colony in your ceiling fan, or your electrical sockets, or some other crazy hiding place.
Bedbugs are immune to most common poisons. A professional treatment is damned expensive. Lots of inner-city landlords aren't willing or able to throw out that kind of cash.
How is that not quite the same thing? As soon as the kids were old enough to realize what nuclear war actually entailed, they were smart enough to know that duck-and-cover wouldn't save them. So it just served to make them more afraid. Fear of nuclear war was a very real and potent force in the back of people's minds. That's GP's entire point. Something like this speech is meaningless to a Millennial, who has never known that fear. But to someone who lived through it it's a very stirring reminder of an age gone by.
I've often wondered why privacy lawyers don't frame it differently. It's not about the papers, it's about the person. Location tracking necessarily implies that the surveillance target is no longer secure in their person.
Yeah, Jones is tricky. In fact, after SCOTUS threw out the GPS data, they had a retrial, and the prosecution used cell tracking data instead of the GPS data. The district court said that was OK. It never went back up the line to the Supremes, though, because Jones took a plea deal rather than keep fighting.
The problem is that while the justices voted unanimously in Jones, they did so for different reasons. A number regarded the placement of the GPS device as a personal trespass, which would not apply to cell data. Scalia's opinion pays lip service to the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy argument, but in reality it's up in the air if he would hold to that in a case that didn't involve personal trespass.
Completely different cases. The Fifth Circuit is Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The NJ court ruled using the NJ state constitution on a case regarding NJ cops.
Given that "...our solution doesn't require any complicated reactions or added enzymes, it just uses DNA," it should be unpatentable thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision.
So, if I said "Antipater can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut," you'd consider that a crazy statement and threat?
Um. if you told me to jump into a rolling doughnut, I might think you're crazy for different reasons.
As for "cold dead hands" vs. "suck on my machine gun", I find your interpretation as odd as you find mine. "Cold, dead hands" is a generalized statement of what lengths Heston was willing to go to to defend his guns. "Suck on my machine gun" is a specific threat, especially given the context of a concert in which he would shoot arrows at pictures of liberal candidates. Heston also (again, afaik) never called political opponents pieces of shit or worthless bitches, or called for them to be decapitated.
Interesting point. No definition of either "tangible" or "intangible" I can find mentions phone records. However, as the amendment itself specifically mentions phone numbers as included, I think it'd be decently tough to work around.
"We must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms" is a dumb statement, but not a crazy one. It makes a point, and it allows for rebuttal and debate. "Obama can go suck on my machine gun" is a crazy statement. Rather than put forward any argument, it's a personal threat against the man he disagrees with.
Take a counterpoint: Charlton Heston was a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment. He spoke loudly and openly for his Constitutional rights. But he did not (afaik, at least) spew vitriol, personal attacks, or threats. Both Heston and Nugent held opinions that I disagree with, but I consider Nugent and not Heston to be crazy.
"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to execute a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order pursuant to Section 501 of FISA 1978 which does not contain the following sentence: 'This order limits the collection of any tangible things (including [metadata]) that may be authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in Section 501 of FISA 1978'."
In other words: Section 501 orders must be limited to the subject of a current investigation, or they will not receive funding. It's not about innocence, it's about being the subject of an investigation or not. No blanket orders, no three-hops rule.
Why are you mentioning this here? As you say, you've already posted this idea many times to/., and gotten a good amount of feedback. There's nothing new in this latest incarnation that wasn't in the last one. You're not even asking us anything this time; you're just kind of talking at us. Yes, slashdot has insightful people you can bounce an idea off of, but eventually it stops being "bouncing an idea" and starts being "bashing your head repeatedly into a wall".
So instead of rehashing this idea on/. time and time again, why not take it to someone who could actually implement it?
I'm at work and can't see the video. But if you're saying that the funnel jerks upwards as the drop falls away, that's to be expected. The clamp assembly no longer has to support the weight of the drop, so it should "bounce" upward a little before reaching a new, less-weighed-down equilibrium position.
It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.
To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys
Have you heard the alerts? They're more than just the "bzzt" of a normal incoming text or phone call. It's a piercing, grating buzz, similar to a lot of fire alarms. And it's extremely loud, even if your volume is set to low or your phone is on vibrate. It really is enough to make an average person jump, then look around trying to find what's about to explode. I've never had one go off in the car, but I can easily understand a driver wobbling a bit as they try to figure out why there's suddenly an alarm blaring at them.
That's really not something we can say based on the info given. Could the technology work, in theory, on a vehicle exhaust pipe? Yes. But how much does it cost? How much does it weigh? What's its power production at the temperature differential between car exhaust and ambient air with an electrode the size of an exhaust pipe? How quickly does it wear out?
The info we do have says 0.5 watts per square meter of electrode, given a 130-degC hot side. That isn't much. In fact, it's tiny. So it's likely that installing such a system on a vehicle would not be cost effective, at least not unless they can seriously upgrade the technology in the next few years.
In other words, blatantly ignorant drivel? I wouldn't go that far. But jumping the gun quite a bit? Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
You misheard. CO2 isn't a poison; it's an attractant. They track you down using your body heat and the CO2 you exhale, so many traps are baited with CO2 and/or some form of heater.
However, your idea is very similar to one that does work, which is baking them. Bedbugs are vulnerable to heat, and will die in a few hours at above 120-degF. Higher temps have shorter kill times, and steam kills them instantly.
Bedbugs have nothing to do with hygiene. They live off blood and only blood, not dirt or mold or anything related to cleaning.
And there are always places to hide. An air or water bed is a good start, yes, although you can get the same effect by encasing your mattress in a bug-impermeable casing. But they can still live in the bedframe, the walls, nearby furniture, etc.
In fact, a quirk of bedbug biology makes it even worse. Bedbug sex is extremely painful for the female (the term is literally "traumatic insemination"), to the point that female bedbugs will often flee and hide after the first mating if there are other males in line. Then she'll lay her eggs in that new hiding spot. So you'll get a second colony in your ceiling fan, or your electrical sockets, or some other crazy hiding place.
Fleas are easy. Shine a (hot) desk lamp over a wide bowl of soapy water. The fleas will jump at the light, fall into the water, and drown.
Bedbugs are immune to most common poisons. A professional treatment is damned expensive. Lots of inner-city landlords aren't willing or able to throw out that kind of cash.
So the bugs survive the cold water wash only to be killed in the dryer.
Hint: clothes and sheets aren't the only place bugs like to hide.
How is that not quite the same thing? As soon as the kids were old enough to realize what nuclear war actually entailed, they were smart enough to know that duck-and-cover wouldn't save them. So it just served to make them more afraid. Fear of nuclear war was a very real and potent force in the back of people's minds. That's GP's entire point. Something like this speech is meaningless to a Millennial, who has never known that fear. But to someone who lived through it it's a very stirring reminder of an age gone by.
I've often wondered why privacy lawyers don't frame it differently. It's not about the papers, it's about the person. Location tracking necessarily implies that the surveillance target is no longer secure in their person.
Yeah, Jones is tricky. In fact, after SCOTUS threw out the GPS data, they had a retrial, and the prosecution used cell tracking data instead of the GPS data. The district court said that was OK. It never went back up the line to the Supremes, though, because Jones took a plea deal rather than keep fighting.
The problem is that while the justices voted unanimously in Jones, they did so for different reasons. A number regarded the placement of the GPS device as a personal trespass, which would not apply to cell data. Scalia's opinion pays lip service to the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy argument, but in reality it's up in the air if he would hold to that in a case that didn't involve personal trespass.
Completely different cases. The Fifth Circuit is Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The NJ court ruled using the NJ state constitution on a case regarding NJ cops.
the gland that produces the tears that keep the eye lubricated
It's called the lacrimal gland. Just fyi.
Given that "...our solution doesn't require any complicated reactions or added enzymes, it just uses DNA," it should be unpatentable thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision.
The document was written in 1993, according to the footnotes.
So, if I said "Antipater can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut," you'd consider that a crazy statement and threat?
Um. if you told me to jump into a rolling doughnut, I might think you're crazy for different reasons.
As for "cold dead hands" vs. "suck on my machine gun", I find your interpretation as odd as you find mine. "Cold, dead hands" is a generalized statement of what lengths Heston was willing to go to to defend his guns. "Suck on my machine gun" is a specific threat, especially given the context of a concert in which he would shoot arrows at pictures of liberal candidates. Heston also (again, afaik) never called political opponents pieces of shit or worthless bitches, or called for them to be decapitated.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tangible+property
Interesting point. No definition of either "tangible" or "intangible" I can find mentions phone records. However, as the amendment itself specifically mentions phone numbers as included, I think it'd be decently tough to work around.
"We must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms" is a dumb statement, but not a crazy one. It makes a point, and it allows for rebuttal and debate. "Obama can go suck on my machine gun" is a crazy statement. Rather than put forward any argument, it's a personal threat against the man he disagrees with.
Take a counterpoint: Charlton Heston was a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment. He spoke loudly and openly for his Constitutional rights. But he did not (afaik, at least) spew vitriol, personal attacks, or threats. Both Heston and Nugent held opinions that I disagree with, but I consider Nugent and not Heston to be crazy.
The Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014, aka H.R.2397. It's the Defense Department's budget.
"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to execute a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order pursuant to Section 501 of FISA 1978 which does not contain the following sentence: 'This order limits the collection of any tangible things (including [metadata]) that may be authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in Section 501 of FISA 1978'."
In other words: Section 501 orders must be limited to the subject of a current investigation, or they will not receive funding. It's not about innocence, it's about being the subject of an investigation or not. No blanket orders, no three-hops rule.
I believe E.T.: The Video Game provides a better example for what Microsoft should do with its surplus Surfaces.
It's almost like this shit is cyclic.
Fortunately, this time we've invented magazines and toilet paper to cope with the problem.
Why are you mentioning this here? As you say, you've already posted this idea many times to /., and gotten a good amount of feedback. There's nothing new in this latest incarnation that wasn't in the last one. You're not even asking us anything this time; you're just kind of talking at us. Yes, slashdot has insightful people you can bounce an idea off of, but eventually it stops being "bouncing an idea" and starts being "bashing your head repeatedly into a wall".
So instead of rehashing this idea on /. time and time again, why not take it to someone who could actually implement it?
And if you let go of a heavy object, your arm will rise a few mm. Things deform under load. When the load is released, they return to equilibrium.
I'm at work and can't see the video. But if you're saying that the funnel jerks upwards as the drop falls away, that's to be expected. The clamp assembly no longer has to support the weight of the drop, so it should "bounce" upward a little before reaching a new, less-weighed-down equilibrium position.
It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.
To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys
Have you heard the alerts? They're more than just the "bzzt" of a normal incoming text or phone call. It's a piercing, grating buzz, similar to a lot of fire alarms. And it's extremely loud, even if your volume is set to low or your phone is on vibrate. It really is enough to make an average person jump, then look around trying to find what's about to explode. I've never had one go off in the car, but I can easily understand a driver wobbling a bit as they try to figure out why there's suddenly an alarm blaring at them.
That's really not something we can say based on the info given. Could the technology work, in theory, on a vehicle exhaust pipe? Yes. But how much does it cost? How much does it weigh? What's its power production at the temperature differential between car exhaust and ambient air with an electrode the size of an exhaust pipe? How quickly does it wear out?
The info we do have says 0.5 watts per square meter of electrode, given a 130-degC hot side. That isn't much. In fact, it's tiny. So it's likely that installing such a system on a vehicle would not be cost effective, at least not unless they can seriously upgrade the technology in the next few years.
In other words, blatantly ignorant drivel? I wouldn't go that far. But jumping the gun quite a bit? Yes.