The 5-6 inch long newts live for 20 years, which is pretty good for such a small animal. The 16 inch long salamanders live for 30 years, while the 5-6 foot long salamanders are thought to live about 80 years. If you have a mammal and an amphibian of similar size, the amphibian seems to have a much longer lifespan
In humans, the liver can regenerate quite well, but liver cancer isn't a leading cause of death. Your skin sloughs off every month and regenerates, yet skin cancer risk follows sun exposure rather than being a ticking timebomb. Peripheral nerves also regenerate, but cancers arising from nerves are quite rare. Therefore, I doubt that regeneration is strongly linked to cancer. If you want stronger proof, the researchers with the p21 knockout mice found no increase in cancer risk, despite the mice being able to regenerate body parts.
"Sir, were you aware that your left taillight is out?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"Did you just see two men in ski masks run this way?!?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"There's an accident a little further down this road, so it's closed. Can I direct you to a detour?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"It seems that your car died, do you need any assistance?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
Yes, you should always pay a lawyer to deal with the police. Nevermind that most people interact with police several times a year, but only ~3-5% are ever arrested in their lifetime.
Well, if you wait until they're old enough, then there will never be any child-sized organs to donate. Right now, when a child dies, the parents may be asked about organ donation (a very sensitive topic, obviously, but many parents chose to help another child survive, despite being unable to save their own). Beardo has merely made that decision ahead of time, hopefully for a situation that will never come.
Ok, if you're really curious as to why people doubt AGW, take a moment to realize exactly what its proponents are saying. "Undeniable" implies that the science has proven something. Science doesn't do that. While I'd normally overlook that error by a layman, it's a pretty good indicator that they don't understand the science, and thus they have no idea whether or not the science supports their opinion. Having a climatologist explain it is a little better, but scientists (of any sort) always have opinions about nature that data doesn't support, hence why they gather the data to support or refute those hypotheses (most are wrong). There's also the fact that randomized, blinded trials should be taken with a grain of salt, so climatology as a science is fairly weak. They're making lots of progress, but I wouldn't make important decisions based on their findings at this point. (Keyword: "I", you are free to make your own choices, but I'd prefer if my cooperation isn't forced.)
Second, there's a massive logical non-sequitur between the assessment and plan. If you wake me up to tell me my house is on fire, then suggest I use a squirt gun against it, then I'll assume you're crazy and go back to bed. If post-industrial CO2 levels are causing climate change, then we need to return them to pre-industrial levels. Every year we increase the CO2 level, and cap-and-trade will still allow this. What we'd need to do is cut our emissions even lower than pre-industrial levels so the CO2 level will actually be reduced. (I also like to be optimistic, but not delusional. The only way we'd do this is if it were already too late, so it's kinda pointless IMO.)
Of course, that's ignoring the positive feedback loops that have been triggered (e.g. albedo), and I find the belief that we can control the climate (i.e. stabilize an ever-changing system at the temperature we want) to be optimistic at best. There's also the fact that massive economic hardship will cause a lot more human suffering and death than a change in climate. Sure, it'll cause a mass extinction, but that's not even close to an apocalypse, and humans have proven their adaptability. OTOH, I have a tough time accepting that the lives of a large number of poor people in the developing world are worth more than our precious biodiversity. Rather than wade through the exaggeration and outright lies by both sides, and then grapple with that decision, I've just become jaded about the whole thing.
On Windows, in an elevated command prompt:
icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player"/setowner SYSTEM
icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player"/inheritance:r/deny everyone:F
Though I'd recommend a simple:
icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player"/inheritance:d/deny everyone:(WD,AD)
It seems somewhat obvious that, hour for hour, it's more useful than watching TV, and less useful than pursuing a hobby with a shared skill set. Of course, some jobs (e.g. management of juveniles or people that act that way) share a skill set with WoW. OTOH, your hobbies shouldn't be about your career, a concept that not every interviewer seems to grasp.
Now this is something I've not been able to find an answer for. Do sound cards actually matter with modern hardware? Mostly I've just seen a difference in the number of channels they handle, and the post processing the driver does.
If that's all, one can just use a USB sound card with an appropriate number of channels, and use FFDShow to distort the audio however you wish. Does the more expensive hardware more faithfully reproduce the audio (higher SNR)? I know cheap portable devices (and Intel HD Audio) have excellent audio output, over 100 dB in SNR, so surely there are diminishing returns... Or does it merely save the negligible CPU usage, much like offloading network IO?
Either way, even the cheapest integrated sound card is much higher quality than most speakers and headphones, so you'd see a far greater gain in audio quality with $200 headphones plugged into a $5 integrated sound card than vice versa. You have to know what's bottlenecking your performance if you hope to improve it.
Surely test administrators realize that you can put a smaller, hackable calculator into a larger calculator's case, right? If you want a secure test, watch students closely enough that you know what they're doing on their calculators. If you want the appearance of security, make a large number of arbitrary rules. Preventing the hobbyists from tinkering with their calculator affects neither.
Besides, this is a moot point since computerized testing is gaining popularity. I just took one myself, and I was forbidden from bringing in basically anything except clothing and earplugs (the earplug case wasn't allowed). The test program had a built-in calculator. Unfortunately, it's a little difficult to compute logarithms using a simple add, subtract, multiply, divide calculator in under a minute, but I suppose such discrepancies between the questions and the calculator will be fixed over time.
Well, there's your problem. It's kinda obvious why you shouldn't assume that, and you shouldn't be treating an unloaded gun any differently unless you're doing maintenance on it. A half century ago farmboys used guns all the time, and it's not like it was a major cause of injury.
Besides, if guns were designed to kill people, then they're one of the worst designed pieces of equipment in existence. Literally tons of ammunition are used per human death. Each year, in the US, about 5 million guns are made/imported, and 30,000 people die from shooting deaths, working out to a gun having a 0.6% chance of killing someone. For perspective, that is practically identical to the chance a vehicle will kill someone (40,000 deaths per year / 8,000,000 cars sold per year). That should give you a hint that killing humans isn't their intended purpose at all. Most people use them as a tool (a farmer shooting a coyote), a deterrent (like nuclear weapons), or as entertainment (target shooting and hunting).
As for drills and socket wrenches, people get hurt with them all the time, and you can easily use them for murder just as quickly as a gun. IMHO, the problem is that guns are a symbol, and people can't really wrap their heads around the fact that guns are a tangible object with intrinsic properties independent of the intangible human nonsense we associate them with.
Exploit technical illiteracy, push the "hacking" angle. Technically, the thief is attempting to steal your private data, so bring in computer crime laws. Eventually you can tack on enough that some glory-hungry person in law enforcement will take interest in such low hanging fruit. They get a lot more credit than they would for catching a petty thief, and you get some schadenfreude as the thief gets charged with about half a dozen more crimes than they would have expected.
Why? Erroneous executions are a tragedy, but why so much more so than defective cars, food poisoning, broken sidewalks, or medical errors? We, as a society, could spend a lot more to prevent the fringe cases, but there's a cost/benefit ratio that we settle on. So why must that ratio be infinite in this case?
(I'm speaking about a hypothetical case where the probability of convicting the wrong person is very low but not zero, not necessarily of reality. It's more about why the rate must be zero, rather than the fact a lot of innocent people are executed.)
OTOH, the two 6' 2" dark black males who live in the same area and fit the victim's description are probably more closely related to each other than the Korean War veteran in California. DNA is absolutely not random, so similar people would be more likely to have "fingerprint" collisions than dissimilar people. Now, if only one of those guys were in the database, and fits the physical description...
More technically, most traits are the result of the interaction of many genes. In a group of individuals with common ancestory, if they look similar they probably randomly inherited a similar set of genes from their common pool. So they're more likely to have restriction sites in the same regions, and thus more likely to have an identical "fingerprint". Most won't of course, but the risk is higher.
Most criminals are dumb, hence why it's possible to catch them. Business geniuses aren't, so they chose a career where they can be amoral that's legal and profitable.
An idea must have certain characteristics to spread. Usually it's concise, moderately witty, and in accordance with a person's beliefs. Historically, I'd imagine state sponsored think tanks would generate such ideas and spread them to achieve a political goal. With the internet, ideas are being randomly generated to such an extend I doubt a think tank could introduce a unique idea into the system. So that strategy doesn't really work anymore.
Right now, I would imagine that the more powerful force is subtle hinting by traditional media. I know a lot of older folk that get very little information from the internet, and it seems that just about all of them think China owns all of our national debt and will become hostile to the US eventually. I've no clue who the puppeteer is though.
The classic BeOS demo video shows the page turning animation in the intro, and goes into more depth at ~1:50 in the second part. I remember being pretty impressed with that in 1999, especially given it was on a dual PII 266 MHz.
Actually, I think Facebook has had a bit of a positive effect. A frog won't hop out of a pot if the temperature is gradually increased. Facebook has been a little too eager in eroding privacy, so now people think about it. I'm rather impressed that, nowadays, most people are carefully tweaking their privacy settings! People aren't just using the defaults... I never thought I'd see the day that people cared how things worked rather than just getting what they want with as little effort as possible.
I seem to remember some psychological theory that men, at heart, just want to return to the womb. At the time I thought it was ridiculous. Now I realize that they were onto something and this is what's ridiculous.
IMHO, at some point you just need to accept that a human life costs the lives of many tasty animals, tons of plants, and innumerable microorganisms. Is a tree's life worth more than the grass this structure kills by blocking the sun? How about the detrivores that live on dead plants? Or the unique and ancient rock that was broken up for gravel or cement, and the organisms living on it?
OTOH, many animals find meat to be tasty, and this house should be no different... What happens when you have a bear that has been eating your back door and comes inside looking for more food? Or your house gets gangrene? Or you leave for vacation and found the openings for your door "healed" while you were gone?
Well, I don't drink tea myself. If I ever decided to try it, and somehow didn't notice the temperature, then I'd be placed in the hospital with permanent injuries if I weren't warned. People generally don't expect to be given a beverage that they can't safely drink. We all know food is hot when it's being cooked, but everything else in a restaurant is allowed to cool before being served.
A few months ago I went to a chinese buffet and poured myself some hot and sour soup. What I didn't realize was that they'd changed the ladle on me to one with a higher capacity than the bowl... so it obviously overflowed. The soup was hot enough that it takes ~20 minutes to become edible, and viscous enough to stick to my hand and gave me a decent burn. But I didn't even bother complaining since it was my own carelessness and it was only a first degree burn. This isn't the kind of thing I think someone should sue over. I would not expect it to burn through my skin and expose the bone under any circumstances. That'd be ridiculous, and is basically what McDonalds did.
I usually agree that if you hurt yourself then it's your own fault. But I also think that if you sell someone something, it should be usable for it's intended purpose, or you've committed an act of fraud. If you drank a 180+ degrees Fahrenheit beverage you'd probably die, but drinking is the intended purpose. McDonald's market research also showed that most customers intended to drink the coffee immediately, and no warning was given that you shouldn't do that, hence why they lost the lawsuit (the jury reduced the judgment by 20% since they felt the plaintiff was 20% responsible for her injuries).
Well, apparently McDonalds and Starbucks are both being sued right now for burns caused by tea. The McDonalds suit doesn't look very serious though.
But, really, anything that can cause third degree burns shouldn't be served. Most people have never seen worse than a mild second degree burn. Third degree means that the skin was burned all the way though and you can see the fat or bone that's underneath. If you drank something that hot, it'd literally burn a hole in your stomach or esophagus.
BTW, for the McDonalds hot coffee suit, it was her thighs and genitalia that got burned. If the femoral artery was hit, she'd have bled to death within minutes. I'm trying not to picture what a third degree burn on the genitalia looks like, though fortunately they're relatively painless since the nerves have been destroyed.
Online goods and services don't need to be shipped.
Virtually all companies I've done business with ask for a billing address and a shipping address.
AFAIK, that's all the information you need to make a passable clone of the card.
It doesn't seem very logical to get stuff shipped to your house that you bought with a stolen credit card. I mean, chances are that you'll have police knocking at your door before the package even arrives.
Neurons do have wire effects, but nothing like metal, so I don't think you could use them as an antenna. Plus you'd be nowhere even close to the threshold voltage of fast sodium channels, so they'd never fire. If that weren't the case a simple thunderstorm would cause seizures and probably death.
As for why we can't see infrared like a pit viper, it wouldn't really help that much. We don't hunt at night, and our greatest natural threats are cold blooded. Hunter-gatherers only hunted and gathered for ~15 - 25 hours per week, so we kinda got to be too efficient, and had plenty of free time. Hence why language and culture were developed.
Two points. The first is that while there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits, the plantiff in the McDonalds coffee was hospitalized for over a week and had to have skin graphs because the coffee was almost boiling when served. The second is that your quote isn't applicable to bad wiring because bad wiring has to be replaced eventually, and the cost for maintaining that wiring is likely rising until it's replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
The 5-6 inch long newts live for 20 years, which is pretty good for such a small animal. The 16 inch long salamanders live for 30 years, while the 5-6 foot long salamanders are thought to live about 80 years. If you have a mammal and an amphibian of similar size, the amphibian seems to have a much longer lifespan
In humans, the liver can regenerate quite well, but liver cancer isn't a leading cause of death. Your skin sloughs off every month and regenerates, yet skin cancer risk follows sun exposure rather than being a ticking timebomb. Peripheral nerves also regenerate, but cancers arising from nerves are quite rare. Therefore, I doubt that regeneration is strongly linked to cancer. If you want stronger proof, the researchers with the p21 knockout mice found no increase in cancer risk, despite the mice being able to regenerate body parts.
How well will these technologies work for the substantial percentage of ordinary folk with minor vision impairment?
Probably about the same as color works for the ~5% of the US population who have some sort of color deficiency.
"Sir, were you aware that your left taillight is out?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"Did you just see two men in ski masks run this way?!?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"There's an accident a little further down this road, so it's closed. Can I direct you to a detour?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"It seems that your car died, do you need any assistance?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
Yes, you should always pay a lawyer to deal with the police. Nevermind that most people interact with police several times a year, but only ~3-5% are ever arrested in their lifetime.
Well, if you wait until they're old enough, then there will never be any child-sized organs to donate. Right now, when a child dies, the parents may be asked about organ donation (a very sensitive topic, obviously, but many parents chose to help another child survive, despite being unable to save their own). Beardo has merely made that decision ahead of time, hopefully for a situation that will never come.
Ok, if you're really curious as to why people doubt AGW, take a moment to realize exactly what its proponents are saying. "Undeniable" implies that the science has proven something. Science doesn't do that. While I'd normally overlook that error by a layman, it's a pretty good indicator that they don't understand the science, and thus they have no idea whether or not the science supports their opinion. Having a climatologist explain it is a little better, but scientists (of any sort) always have opinions about nature that data doesn't support, hence why they gather the data to support or refute those hypotheses (most are wrong). There's also the fact that randomized, blinded trials should be taken with a grain of salt, so climatology as a science is fairly weak. They're making lots of progress, but I wouldn't make important decisions based on their findings at this point. (Keyword: "I", you are free to make your own choices, but I'd prefer if my cooperation isn't forced.)
Second, there's a massive logical non-sequitur between the assessment and plan. If you wake me up to tell me my house is on fire, then suggest I use a squirt gun against it, then I'll assume you're crazy and go back to bed. If post-industrial CO2 levels are causing climate change, then we need to return them to pre-industrial levels. Every year we increase the CO2 level, and cap-and-trade will still allow this. What we'd need to do is cut our emissions even lower than pre-industrial levels so the CO2 level will actually be reduced. (I also like to be optimistic, but not delusional. The only way we'd do this is if it were already too late, so it's kinda pointless IMO.)
Of course, that's ignoring the positive feedback loops that have been triggered (e.g. albedo), and I find the belief that we can control the climate (i.e. stabilize an ever-changing system at the temperature we want) to be optimistic at best. There's also the fact that massive economic hardship will cause a lot more human suffering and death than a change in climate. Sure, it'll cause a mass extinction, but that's not even close to an apocalypse, and humans have proven their adaptability. OTOH, I have a tough time accepting that the lives of a large number of poor people in the developing world are worth more than our precious biodiversity. Rather than wade through the exaggeration and outright lies by both sides, and then grapple with that decision, I've just become jaded about the whole thing.
On Windows, in an elevated command prompt: /setowner SYSTEM /inheritance:r /deny everyone:F
/inheritance:d /deny everyone:(WD,AD)
icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player"
icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player"
Though I'd recommend a simple:
icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player"
It seems somewhat obvious that, hour for hour, it's more useful than watching TV, and less useful than pursuing a hobby with a shared skill set. Of course, some jobs (e.g. management of juveniles or people that act that way) share a skill set with WoW. OTOH, your hobbies shouldn't be about your career, a concept that not every interviewer seems to grasp.
Now this is something I've not been able to find an answer for. Do sound cards actually matter with modern hardware? Mostly I've just seen a difference in the number of channels they handle, and the post processing the driver does.
If that's all, one can just use a USB sound card with an appropriate number of channels, and use FFDShow to distort the audio however you wish. Does the more expensive hardware more faithfully reproduce the audio (higher SNR)? I know cheap portable devices (and Intel HD Audio) have excellent audio output, over 100 dB in SNR, so surely there are diminishing returns... Or does it merely save the negligible CPU usage, much like offloading network IO?
Either way, even the cheapest integrated sound card is much higher quality than most speakers and headphones, so you'd see a far greater gain in audio quality with $200 headphones plugged into a $5 integrated sound card than vice versa. You have to know what's bottlenecking your performance if you hope to improve it.
Surely test administrators realize that you can put a smaller, hackable calculator into a larger calculator's case, right? If you want a secure test, watch students closely enough that you know what they're doing on their calculators. If you want the appearance of security, make a large number of arbitrary rules. Preventing the hobbyists from tinkering with their calculator affects neither.
Besides, this is a moot point since computerized testing is gaining popularity. I just took one myself, and I was forbidden from bringing in basically anything except clothing and earplugs (the earplug case wasn't allowed). The test program had a built-in calculator. Unfortunately, it's a little difficult to compute logarithms using a simple add, subtract, multiply, divide calculator in under a minute, but I suppose such discrepancies between the questions and the calculator will be fixed over time.
if you think it's unloaded
Well, there's your problem. It's kinda obvious why you shouldn't assume that, and you shouldn't be treating an unloaded gun any differently unless you're doing maintenance on it. A half century ago farmboys used guns all the time, and it's not like it was a major cause of injury.
Besides, if guns were designed to kill people, then they're one of the worst designed pieces of equipment in existence. Literally tons of ammunition are used per human death. Each year, in the US, about 5 million guns are made/imported, and 30,000 people die from shooting deaths, working out to a gun having a 0.6% chance of killing someone. For perspective, that is practically identical to the chance a vehicle will kill someone (40,000 deaths per year / 8,000,000 cars sold per year). That should give you a hint that killing humans isn't their intended purpose at all. Most people use them as a tool (a farmer shooting a coyote), a deterrent (like nuclear weapons), or as entertainment (target shooting and hunting).
As for drills and socket wrenches, people get hurt with them all the time, and you can easily use them for murder just as quickly as a gun. IMHO, the problem is that guns are a symbol, and people can't really wrap their heads around the fact that guns are a tangible object with intrinsic properties independent of the intangible human nonsense we associate them with.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
1984 is not 1984
See? It fits.
Exploit technical illiteracy, push the "hacking" angle. Technically, the thief is attempting to steal your private data, so bring in computer crime laws. Eventually you can tack on enough that some glory-hungry person in law enforcement will take interest in such low hanging fruit. They get a lot more credit than they would for catching a petty thief, and you get some schadenfreude as the thief gets charged with about half a dozen more crimes than they would have expected.
Why? Erroneous executions are a tragedy, but why so much more so than defective cars, food poisoning, broken sidewalks, or medical errors? We, as a society, could spend a lot more to prevent the fringe cases, but there's a cost/benefit ratio that we settle on. So why must that ratio be infinite in this case?
(I'm speaking about a hypothetical case where the probability of convicting the wrong person is very low but not zero, not necessarily of reality. It's more about why the rate must be zero, rather than the fact a lot of innocent people are executed.)
OTOH, the two 6' 2" dark black males who live in the same area and fit the victim's description are probably more closely related to each other than the Korean War veteran in California. DNA is absolutely not random, so similar people would be more likely to have "fingerprint" collisions than dissimilar people. Now, if only one of those guys were in the database, and fits the physical description...
More technically, most traits are the result of the interaction of many genes. In a group of individuals with common ancestory, if they look similar they probably randomly inherited a similar set of genes from their common pool. So they're more likely to have restriction sites in the same regions, and thus more likely to have an identical "fingerprint". Most won't of course, but the risk is higher.
Most criminals are dumb, hence why it's possible to catch them. Business geniuses aren't, so they chose a career where they can be amoral that's legal and profitable.
An idea must have certain characteristics to spread. Usually it's concise, moderately witty, and in accordance with a person's beliefs. Historically, I'd imagine state sponsored think tanks would generate such ideas and spread them to achieve a political goal. With the internet, ideas are being randomly generated to such an extend I doubt a think tank could introduce a unique idea into the system. So that strategy doesn't really work anymore.
Right now, I would imagine that the more powerful force is subtle hinting by traditional media. I know a lot of older folk that get very little information from the internet, and it seems that just about all of them think China owns all of our national debt and will become hostile to the US eventually. I've no clue who the puppeteer is though.
The classic BeOS demo video shows the page turning animation in the intro, and goes into more depth at ~1:50 in the second part. I remember being pretty impressed with that in 1999, especially given it was on a dual PII 266 MHz.
Actually, I think Facebook has had a bit of a positive effect. A frog won't hop out of a pot if the temperature is gradually increased. Facebook has been a little too eager in eroding privacy, so now people think about it. I'm rather impressed that, nowadays, most people are carefully tweaking their privacy settings! People aren't just using the defaults... I never thought I'd see the day that people cared how things worked rather than just getting what they want with as little effort as possible.
I seem to remember some psychological theory that men, at heart, just want to return to the womb. At the time I thought it was ridiculous. Now I realize that they were onto something and this is what's ridiculous.
IMHO, at some point you just need to accept that a human life costs the lives of many tasty animals, tons of plants, and innumerable microorganisms. Is a tree's life worth more than the grass this structure kills by blocking the sun? How about the detrivores that live on dead plants? Or the unique and ancient rock that was broken up for gravel or cement, and the organisms living on it?
OTOH, many animals find meat to be tasty, and this house should be no different... What happens when you have a bear that has been eating your back door and comes inside looking for more food? Or your house gets gangrene? Or you leave for vacation and found the openings for your door "healed" while you were gone?
Well, I don't drink tea myself. If I ever decided to try it, and somehow didn't notice the temperature, then I'd be placed in the hospital with permanent injuries if I weren't warned. People generally don't expect to be given a beverage that they can't safely drink. We all know food is hot when it's being cooked, but everything else in a restaurant is allowed to cool before being served.
A few months ago I went to a chinese buffet and poured myself some hot and sour soup. What I didn't realize was that they'd changed the ladle on me to one with a higher capacity than the bowl... so it obviously overflowed. The soup was hot enough that it takes ~20 minutes to become edible, and viscous enough to stick to my hand and gave me a decent burn. But I didn't even bother complaining since it was my own carelessness and it was only a first degree burn. This isn't the kind of thing I think someone should sue over. I would not expect it to burn through my skin and expose the bone under any circumstances. That'd be ridiculous, and is basically what McDonalds did.
I usually agree that if you hurt yourself then it's your own fault. But I also think that if you sell someone something, it should be usable for it's intended purpose, or you've committed an act of fraud. If you drank a 180+ degrees Fahrenheit beverage you'd probably die, but drinking is the intended purpose. McDonald's market research also showed that most customers intended to drink the coffee immediately, and no warning was given that you shouldn't do that, hence why they lost the lawsuit (the jury reduced the judgment by 20% since they felt the plaintiff was 20% responsible for her injuries).
Well, apparently McDonalds and Starbucks are both being sued right now for burns caused by tea. The McDonalds suit doesn't look very serious though.
But, really, anything that can cause third degree burns shouldn't be served. Most people have never seen worse than a mild second degree burn. Third degree means that the skin was burned all the way though and you can see the fat or bone that's underneath. If you drank something that hot, it'd literally burn a hole in your stomach or esophagus.
BTW, for the McDonalds hot coffee suit, it was her thighs and genitalia that got burned. If the femoral artery was hit, she'd have bled to death within minutes. I'm trying not to picture what a third degree burn on the genitalia looks like, though fortunately they're relatively painless since the nerves have been destroyed.
Care to enlighten me?
It doesn't seem very logical to get stuff shipped to your house that you bought with a stolen credit card. I mean, chances are that you'll have police knocking at your door before the package even arrives.
Neurons do have wire effects, but nothing like metal, so I don't think you could use them as an antenna. Plus you'd be nowhere even close to the threshold voltage of fast sodium channels, so they'd never fire. If that weren't the case a simple thunderstorm would cause seizures and probably death.
As for why we can't see infrared like a pit viper, it wouldn't really help that much. We don't hunt at night, and our greatest natural threats are cold blooded. Hunter-gatherers only hunted and gathered for ~15 - 25 hours per week, so we kinda got to be too efficient, and had plenty of free time. Hence why language and culture were developed.
Two points. The first is that while there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits, the plantiff in the McDonalds coffee was hospitalized for over a week and had to have skin graphs because the coffee was almost boiling when served. The second is that your quote isn't applicable to bad wiring because bad wiring has to be replaced eventually, and the cost for maintaining that wiring is likely rising until it's replaced.