Honestly, how many people in the US would even know who he is if asked "do you know who Imran Khan is"? If they were asked "What do you think of Imran Khan, a know US drone critic?" then, yes, I believe many would associate a "muslim name" guy criticizing US army with terrorism
Truthfully, I had no clue who he was until this story. But I didn't stop at this article in the story either. I found lots of groups, largely Muslim, had petitioned the state department including Hillary Clinton herself calling for the US to bar entry even before he was detained at the border. There were also cries over the US eventually letting him in.
it's not a good thing, which is why I'm glad that this got it news too. Not glad it happened, though without it happening there would not have been news where people can learn how not on top of things the government is. Some thick headed will not learn anything, but that doesn't make it any worse and some smarter will understand, bringing the press time to positive
I disagree. I think the US was on top of it. I think the reporting in the story was biased and self serving considering the rest of what I have read that included articles written and posted before the incident ever happened.
etc. etc. In this light it's probably good for your mental health to not care how people of real world view the US - but even US does care about it, they just often forget it behind their "we can do anything we want, others can't do anything we don't like - like defending their country from US, or hell even criticize US military actions in their own country".
The US does often take hypocritical position but I do not think this is exactly one of them. The influences that Obama grew up with and the people he called friends have used such tactics themselves to attempt to sway public opinion to their ways (especially the group known as the weather underground). We still need to determine if people are coming here to raise money for terrorist acts or to equip the Taliban and so on. When it is determined they are not doing so or intending to harm the US, they are let in to do whatever they came to do. However, I cannot stress enough that they do not need to be allowed into the US in the first place. So what happened is that Obama used this as an attempt to appear like he was on top of things given the massive failure in Benghazi that resulted in the death of 4 Americans. But this isn't the first instance of something like this. Canada denies entry to people all the time, the UK does to. But even the US has done this in the past. 2 UK citizens were denied entry for a tweet stating they were going to destroy America or something like that referring to their ability to party. Just recently, we denied entry to 20 some Iranian officials supposedly coming for a UN meeting. Iran has denied entry to US officials, even Afghanistan has denied entry to US lawmakers. There have even been instances where US citizens had been denied entry to the US after visiting foreign countries. This is not unusual as it seems.
I'm sure that with any two countries there are things in first that when criticized can be defended by those with logic like yours by pointing something else that is wrong and worse in that country. "You actually criticize us for not taking care of child mortality? When in North Korea your only freedom is freedom to love your dear leader! OMG, you are a hypocrite!!". Yes, that was extreme, but in the end it's an example of justifying something bad with worse examples from other countries. That you said "supposedly far better countries" doesn't change anything much - take one of your lesser problems and compare to one of bigger problems in "supposedly better country" and you also get to indicate that it's not better country at all. Does that logic work? No.
Well, the inverse is just as true. Does this happening even though it happens
I don't discount that, but the guy was going into businesses itself with no intent of doing business and even after being asked repeatedly to leave. In my area, if anyone who has a right to control some land, business or not, asks you to leave and you do not or return shortly after leaving, it is considered criminal trespassing. I doubt it is actually all that much different in Seattle. Even businesses who would accept people from the public streets have private property rights.
Perhaps inside job means infected computer giving remote access via bot net which got the PO numbers and this is a test run for more expensive items? It would be interesting if some of these infections with no apparent payload was for this purpose.
Of course I focused on the car fires. Cars are not supposed to burn up because they got wet. It happens all the time to homes in floods, it is a well known and well understood process. We have been though this already. On one hand, we have something that is normal and expected, on the other we have something completely abnormal and not expected. And you seem to be faulting me for talking about the seriousness of why it matters because the normal and well known situations exist. It's simply baffling to anyone with the slightest ability to think.
Why you think that homes bursting into flames from known processes somehow negates the seriousness of cars exploding because they got wet is beyond me. Why don't you try to explain that a bit.
No, I understand correctly. Generally when you troll me it has to do with you being butt hurt over something "green" that I posted something you think is negative about it.
I'm advocating not taking a side until after an investigation has at least begun, even if you are too impatient to wait for it to conclude.
Sure as hell as doesn't look like it. And BTW, I was saying the exact same thing, an investigation needs to be done. I was also saying why it was important for an investigation to be done and you got all butt hurt over it.
I have said nothing that disagrees with that. I've only disagreed with people who asserted the problem was [enter something specific], as they are all, by definition, wrong until a cause is identified.
lol.. You have consistently in this thread and others (that you decided to troll), compared the burning to the ground under water issue to gasoline in a car and the natural gas fires saying it didn't matter because there are dangers in other cars and dangerous stuff already exists.
Take your own advice. If you see a troll in your monitor, it's your reflection.
I think if we looked up the definition of troll, it might contain your picture as an illustration. You chimed in crying about how other things are dangerous and therefor this doesn't matter and now you are trying to assert my own position and attempting to call me the troll. Your a real winner there buddy.
lol.. no ones complaining about the hybrids. I'm saying it matters which the parent also said to the GP who asked why does it matter how they were destroyed.
Listen, just because something isn't a bed of roses and frothing in love with your pet cause does not in any way mean it is being trashed. A serious issue happened and it needs to be investigated and determined if it is a threat to safety and/or if anything can be done to ensure it doesn't harm a human life. You can get as butthurt as you want over that, but it will not make you right.
Yeah, lets _do_ get all over this so someone doesn't get maimed or killed because they purchased what they thought was a safe product- even if that does screw with your preconceived notions.
I understand that you are a big green "fan". But you are on the wrong side on this. A dangerous and potentially lethal situation has been discovered and it does matter quite a bit. IF we have to accept the dangers of Green products to make you happy, prepare to be saddened quite a bit. Now go troll somewhere else.
That's because it is well understood that there is a possibility of the houses to go up in flames. It happens in floods when the foundation shifts and creates leaks in the gas lines. Vented into the atmosphere, it poses little risk unless you light a match right beside the leak. It is well understood and happens.
What isn't well understood is why a battery pack would explode when it got wet. Other vehicles do not have that problem and there is likely a fix to make it a lot safer.
I really do not understand why you are crying "but other things happen so we should ignore this". It makes no sense. Once it is understood what happened, it can be fixed and most likely be safe in future events. This is no different the GM when they fix the Volt's battery catching fire problems.
It was nothing but good Samaritans trying to help..lol People who though it was reasonable to risk their life or perhaps they didn't even consider any risks to their life in order to save someone else. As I said, I wasn't there. I watched this on a News Report.
In the wrong neighborhood, it can even result in getting you ass kicked for looking at someone "hard" whether you are holding a camera or not. I'm surprised there wasn't more violence associated with it.
It doesn't have to go that far. Just tell the cops he appeared to be pleasuring himself while doing it. Then watch the reaction when a cop asks what is he doing and he smiles when replying making a video are you confused.
Then you are an idiot. It's not a problem because it uses batteries. It's a problem because the batteries explode into a fiery inferno when exposed to water. You claiming it is not a problem will not get it fixed. Other cars have batteries that do not share this feature so it is likely fixable or able to be made safer.
Gas tanks are located in different places then batteries for electric vehicles are. Ford was sued and lost big time because of their Pinto line where they weighed the cost of making them safer with the actual lives lost and decided it wasn't worth it. Gas tanks are fairly safe in vehicle collisions. You should really pick your battles when you go trolling like this.
Do you think a fire department responding to a motor vehicle accident that doesn't involve placarded vehicles is going to instinctively jump to a chemical fire? Or that any means of fighting a chemical fire is capable of allowing any trapped victims to survive?
Because the door won't open after the accident, because you are injured and cannot get out under your own power without assistance, because something got pinned and you cannot get released.
Let's not pretend that everyone gets out of a car on their own directly after an accident.
How about the building that burns down because he gasoline floats and it was the gasoline cars leaked when submerged and an electric fire triggered by the water ignighted the fuel and burnt down the building? The floods started multiple building fires, whether the water moved a gas appliance or extinguished a pilot light and sparked electric or just started an electrical fire.
A lot of the gasoline will be diluted and washed down a drain. However, those risks are there but I'm finding it hard to figure out what it has to do with a car that has a problem with combustion with water alone. Why is it that you seem to think it is not important to know this just because we know there are other risks?
The risks aren't new. The risks aren't high. The cars are new, so the same risk seems new. We have as much or more risk now with lots of liquid energy, putting it in plastic blocks doesn't make it worse.
Actually, these cars contained gasoline too so the risks were the same and then some with the things burning up submerged in water. The matter of " If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?" is important because steps can be taken to mitigate the threat. Something like simple polymers can line a vent tube to the batteries (which I suspect is the cause of the fire, lithium and want is a well understood reaction) that swells into a closed cell foam when wet can slow or even stop the problem. In case it is the batteries shorting, then . breakers can be used to completely shut the electricity down. But if we do not consider how they were destroyed later to matter, then we would never know or understand why and what in order to make it safer.
As oppposed to the number of first responders injured or killed by airbags?
Again, I'm not finding the relevance here. Are you suggesting that because something else is not entirely safe or dangerous, that we should ignore all other dangers? That doesn't sound like you even when you are trolling. Ask yourself, would you like to be limited to being injured or killed by airbags going off or would it be appropriate to unnecessarily throw fire into the mix too? I'm betting there is a reason why they don't throw a road flare into the back seat of a car when they are attempting to stabilize someone for transport to a medical facility after an accident.
In case you are missing it, the point is because it could endanger someone else and knowing what caused it can lead to steps to prevent it from happening in the future. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept.
Come on, if it was common sense, people would have already known and not required training. It's nothing like every other of the hundreds of times a year you open a car door.
While what you say is true, many people don't even think about it let alone think about it in an emergency situation. I knew about it from training years ago when I was a search and rescue but I wasn't there. I doubt the people trying to help were bumbling idiots either.
I agree. I recently has to do a disaster recovery plan for a law firm I administrate. They wanted to be able to weather any event without disruption. I took disruptions that I knew of within the last ten year, and expanding to situations that has happened in other parts of the town. Flooding wasn't really an issue because they are on a hill that would require most of the state to be under water before they were. The biggest concerns was power and internet outages, something happening to the building making it unsafe or uninhabitable, and something happening outside the building requiring a sustained evacuation.
Long story short, they ignored it, purchased a portable gas powered generator and extension cords long enough to make it into the server room. They wanted backups stored offsite but wouldn't provide any way of reading them. Off site ended up being one of the partner's home too. The Generator, I think was one that one of the partners purchased during the last storm that we lost power on and he wanted to unload it because it hadn't been needed in the last 3 years. And the one time we needed to use it, I spent about 2 hours draining the fuel and cleaning the carburetor because someone wanted it fueled up and ready to go at a moment's notice while in storage.
But they did have a point, why spend more money to stay open for 3 days then you wold lose by shutting down or being partially shut down those 3 days.
You would probably pass out from chocking on the fumes created by the burning materials before burning to death. Depending on what was burning and what the water was bringing to the party, you might even be dead before the fire even makes you hot.
Just this week on the news, a woman hydroplaned off the road and ended up in a pond. A storm drain got blocked by plastic bags and I guess left standing water on the road about half way into a curve on the road. Several witnesses went into the pond to open the doors and get her out but said it was like it was locked even though it wasn't and this was confirmed when they finally recovered the car and the now deceased woman. One of the attempted rescuers ended up needing treatment for hypothermia due to being in the water for so long trying to get her out.
Things happen. It wouldn't be out of the expected that something like this could happen. I'm betting that the number of cars the get submerged or partially submerged due to accidents and unintended situations might outnumber the amount of people who win significant amounts of money in the lotteries across the country.
And what exactly is the fire department going to do? Get out the hoses and put more water on it possibly causing it to ignite in more areas?
As for getting into high water, imagine someone going left of center, you swerve to avoid a head on collision but end up in the drainage ditch alongside the road. It's raining and your car starts to damn it up. Or debris and sediment end up blocking the storm drains on a road causing water to back up instead of entering the drain and flowing away. It's not all that difficult to get into high water.
How about building burns down because water main break cased water to pour into the underground parking garage and onto an electric car that burst into flames?
Or how about Man burns to death as firefighters point out there isn't much point putting water on a car which is on fire because it slid into a pond, became submerged and is burning.
Or maybe, Two first responders were injured after a car erupted in fire because it started raining while they were tending to an accident.
I know a parked car without anyone around doesn't pose much of a threat. But I think in reality, that situation happens as much as or less then when it could be a threat to human life or property. So finding out why is somewhat of a concern I would think.
I think his asking is about finding out if there is a tool for Linux in this range. I'm sure he knows he will be stuck with windows or OSX if he can't find one.
Lets look at it another way. I always wanted a trip meter for my car that gave miles driven, fuel usage, RMP and several other pieces of information like Average MPG, Idle time and so on. I had this in a truck I owned in the late 1990s and understand they are common in newer cars. My alternative is to buy a new car if I went with only getting what works. On the other hand, I can buy something very similar that plugs into the car and gives me everything I need. There are several offerings for after market trip computers and you have the added benefit of on board diagnostics readings if the check engine light ever comes on. This is really the same as looking for a digital pen that will work in a specific environment instead of changing the environment altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
Truthfully, I had no clue who he was until this story. But I didn't stop at this article in the story either. I found lots of groups, largely Muslim, had petitioned the state department including Hillary Clinton herself calling for the US to bar entry even before he was detained at the border. There were also cries over the US eventually letting him in.
I disagree. I think the US was on top of it. I think the reporting in the story was biased and self serving considering the rest of what I have read that included articles written and posted before the incident ever happened.
The US does often take hypocritical position but I do not think this is exactly one of them. The influences that Obama grew up with and the people he called friends have used such tactics themselves to attempt to sway public opinion to their ways (especially the group known as the weather underground). We still need to determine if people are coming here to raise money for terrorist acts or to equip the Taliban and so on. When it is determined they are not doing so or intending to harm the US, they are let in to do whatever they came to do. However, I cannot stress enough that they do not need to be allowed into the US in the first place. So what happened is that Obama used this as an attempt to appear like he was on top of things given the massive failure in Benghazi that resulted in the death of 4 Americans. But this isn't the first instance of something like this. Canada denies entry to people all the time, the UK does to. But even the US has done this in the past. 2 UK citizens were denied entry for a tweet stating they were going to destroy America or something like that referring to their ability to party. Just recently, we denied entry to 20 some Iranian officials supposedly coming for a UN meeting. Iran has denied entry to US officials, even Afghanistan has denied entry to US lawmakers. There have even been instances where US citizens had been denied entry to the US after visiting foreign countries. This is not unusual as it seems.
Well, the inverse is just as true. Does this happening even though it happens
I don't discount that, but the guy was going into businesses itself with no intent of doing business and even after being asked repeatedly to leave. In my area, if anyone who has a right to control some land, business or not, asks you to leave and you do not or return shortly after leaving, it is considered criminal trespassing. I doubt it is actually all that much different in Seattle. Even businesses who would accept people from the public streets have private property rights.
Perhaps inside job means infected computer giving remote access via bot net which got the PO numbers and this is a test run for more expensive items? It would be interesting if some of these infections with no apparent payload was for this purpose.
whatever. Now go troll somewhere else.
Of course I focused on the car fires. Cars are not supposed to burn up because they got wet. It happens all the time to homes in floods, it is a well known and well understood process. We have been though this already. On one hand, we have something that is normal and expected, on the other we have something completely abnormal and not expected. And you seem to be faulting me for talking about the seriousness of why it matters because the normal and well known situations exist. It's simply baffling to anyone with the slightest ability to think.
Why you think that homes bursting into flames from known processes somehow negates the seriousness of cars exploding because they got wet is beyond me. Why don't you try to explain that a bit.
No, I understand correctly. Generally when you troll me it has to do with you being butt hurt over something "green" that I posted something you think is negative about it.
Sure as hell as doesn't look like it. And BTW, I was saying the exact same thing, an investigation needs to be done. I was also saying why it was important for an investigation to be done and you got all butt hurt over it.
lol.. You have consistently in this thread and others (that you decided to troll), compared the burning to the ground under water issue to gasoline in a car and the natural gas fires saying it didn't matter because there are dangers in other cars and dangerous stuff already exists.
I think if we looked up the definition of troll, it might contain your picture as an illustration. You chimed in crying about how other things are dangerous and therefor this doesn't matter and now you are trying to assert my own position and attempting to call me the troll. Your a real winner there buddy.
lol.. no ones complaining about the hybrids. I'm saying it matters which the parent also said to the GP who asked why does it matter how they were destroyed.
Listen, just because something isn't a bed of roses and frothing in love with your pet cause does not in any way mean it is being trashed. A serious issue happened and it needs to be investigated and determined if it is a threat to safety and/or if anything can be done to ensure it doesn't harm a human life. You can get as butthurt as you want over that, but it will not make you right.
Umm.. not to be the RTFA guy, but you should at least watch the little TV looking things on the page. There is a lot of private property involved.
Yeah, lets _do_ get all over this so someone doesn't get maimed or killed because they purchased what they thought was a safe product- even if that does screw with your preconceived notions.
I understand that you are a big green "fan". But you are on the wrong side on this. A dangerous and potentially lethal situation has been discovered and it does matter quite a bit. IF we have to accept the dangers of Green products to make you happy, prepare to be saddened quite a bit. Now go troll somewhere else.
That's because it is well understood that there is a possibility of the houses to go up in flames. It happens in floods when the foundation shifts and creates leaks in the gas lines. Vented into the atmosphere, it poses little risk unless you light a match right beside the leak. It is well understood and happens.
What isn't well understood is why a battery pack would explode when it got wet. Other vehicles do not have that problem and there is likely a fix to make it a lot safer.
I really do not understand why you are crying "but other things happen so we should ignore this". It makes no sense. Once it is understood what happened, it can be fixed and most likely be safe in future events. This is no different the GM when they fix the Volt's battery catching fire problems.
It was nothing but good Samaritans trying to help..lol People who though it was reasonable to risk their life or perhaps they didn't even consider any risks to their life in order to save someone else. As I said, I wasn't there. I watched this on a News Report.
In the wrong neighborhood, it can even result in getting you ass kicked for looking at someone "hard" whether you are holding a camera or not. I'm surprised there wasn't more violence associated with it.
It doesn't have to go that far. Just tell the cops he appeared to be pleasuring himself while doing it. Then watch the reaction when a cop asks what is he doing and he smiles when replying making a video are you confused.
Then you are an idiot. It's not a problem because it uses batteries. It's a problem because the batteries explode into a fiery inferno when exposed to water. You claiming it is not a problem will not get it fixed. Other cars have batteries that do not share this feature so it is likely fixable or able to be made safer.
Gas tanks are located in different places then batteries for electric vehicles are. Ford was sued and lost big time because of their Pinto line where they weighed the cost of making them safer with the actual lives lost and decided it wasn't worth it. Gas tanks are fairly safe in vehicle collisions. You should really pick your battles when you go trolling like this.
Do you think a fire department responding to a motor vehicle accident that doesn't involve placarded vehicles is going to instinctively jump to a chemical fire? Or that any means of fighting a chemical fire is capable of allowing any trapped victims to survive?
Because the door won't open after the accident, because you are injured and cannot get out under your own power without assistance, because something got pinned and you cannot get released.
Let's not pretend that everyone gets out of a car on their own directly after an accident.
A lot of the gasoline will be diluted and washed down a drain. However, those risks are there but I'm finding it hard to figure out what it has to do with a car that has a problem with combustion with water alone. Why is it that you seem to think it is not important to know this just because we know there are other risks?
Actually, these cars contained gasoline too so the risks were the same and then some with the things burning up submerged in water. The matter of " If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?" is important because steps can be taken to mitigate the threat. Something like simple polymers can line a vent tube to the batteries (which I suspect is the cause of the fire, lithium and want is a well understood reaction) that swells into a closed cell foam when wet can slow or even stop the problem. In case it is the batteries shorting, then . breakers can be used to completely shut the electricity down. But if we do not consider how they were destroyed later to matter, then we would never know or understand why and what in order to make it safer.
Again, I'm not finding the relevance here. Are you suggesting that because something else is not entirely safe or dangerous, that we should ignore all other dangers? That doesn't sound like you even when you are trolling. Ask yourself, would you like to be limited to being injured or killed by airbags going off or would it be appropriate to unnecessarily throw fire into the mix too? I'm betting there is a reason why they don't throw a road flare into the back seat of a car when they are attempting to stabilize someone for transport to a medical facility after an accident.
In case you are missing it, the point is because it could endanger someone else and knowing what caused it can lead to steps to prevent it from happening in the future. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept.
Come on, if it was common sense, people would have already known and not required training. It's nothing like every other of the hundreds of times a year you open a car door.
While what you say is true, many people don't even think about it let alone think about it in an emergency situation. I knew about it from training years ago when I was a search and rescue but I wasn't there. I doubt the people trying to help were bumbling idiots either.
Well, lets hope people are not in the car when this happens. The foam you are talking about will suffocate them too.
However, would they think of using the foam on a car that is on fire. Maybe..
I agree. I recently has to do a disaster recovery plan for a law firm I administrate. They wanted to be able to weather any event without disruption. I took disruptions that I knew of within the last ten year, and expanding to situations that has happened in other parts of the town. Flooding wasn't really an issue because they are on a hill that would require most of the state to be under water before they were. The biggest concerns was power and internet outages, something happening to the building making it unsafe or uninhabitable, and something happening outside the building requiring a sustained evacuation.
Long story short, they ignored it, purchased a portable gas powered generator and extension cords long enough to make it into the server room. They wanted backups stored offsite but wouldn't provide any way of reading them. Off site ended up being one of the partner's home too. The Generator, I think was one that one of the partners purchased during the last storm that we lost power on and he wanted to unload it because it hadn't been needed in the last 3 years. And the one time we needed to use it, I spent about 2 hours draining the fuel and cleaning the carburetor because someone wanted it fueled up and ready to go at a moment's notice while in storage.
But they did have a point, why spend more money to stay open for 3 days then you wold lose by shutting down or being partially shut down those 3 days.
You would probably pass out from chocking on the fumes created by the burning materials before burning to death. Depending on what was burning and what the water was bringing to the party, you might even be dead before the fire even makes you hot.
Just this week on the news, a woman hydroplaned off the road and ended up in a pond. A storm drain got blocked by plastic bags and I guess left standing water on the road about half way into a curve on the road. Several witnesses went into the pond to open the doors and get her out but said it was like it was locked even though it wasn't and this was confirmed when they finally recovered the car and the now deceased woman. One of the attempted rescuers ended up needing treatment for hypothermia due to being in the water for so long trying to get her out.
Things happen. It wouldn't be out of the expected that something like this could happen. I'm betting that the number of cars the get submerged or partially submerged due to accidents and unintended situations might outnumber the amount of people who win significant amounts of money in the lotteries across the country.
And what exactly is the fire department going to do? Get out the hoses and put more water on it possibly causing it to ignite in more areas?
As for getting into high water, imagine someone going left of center, you swerve to avoid a head on collision but end up in the drainage ditch alongside the road. It's raining and your car starts to damn it up. Or debris and sediment end up blocking the storm drains on a road causing water to back up instead of entering the drain and flowing away. It's not all that difficult to get into high water.
How about building burns down because water main break cased water to pour into the underground parking garage and onto an electric car that burst into flames?
Or how about Man burns to death as firefighters point out there isn't much point putting water on a car which is on fire because it slid into a pond, became submerged and is burning.
Or maybe, Two first responders were injured after a car erupted in fire because it started raining while they were tending to an accident.
I know a parked car without anyone around doesn't pose much of a threat. But I think in reality, that situation happens as much as or less then when it could be a threat to human life or property. So finding out why is somewhat of a concern I would think.
I think his asking is about finding out if there is a tool for Linux in this range. I'm sure he knows he will be stuck with windows or OSX if he can't find one.
Lets look at it another way. I always wanted a trip meter for my car that gave miles driven, fuel usage, RMP and several other pieces of information like Average MPG, Idle time and so on. I had this in a truck I owned in the late 1990s and understand they are common in newer cars. My alternative is to buy a new car if I went with only getting what works. On the other hand, I can buy something very similar that plugs into the car and gives me everything I need. There are several offerings for after market trip computers and you have the added benefit of on board diagnostics readings if the check engine light ever comes on. This is really the same as looking for a digital pen that will work in a specific environment instead of changing the environment altogether.
Well, you simply haven't watched enough Hollywood movies then.