A few months ago, a series of misshaps, including accidentally drilling into a live wire (who put that there?!), led to the death of my rotary hammer's suppression capacitor (see 7:03) -- the holy-fuck-what-just-blew-up kind of death that shorts out the entire circuit, dragging the fuse along into its early grave.

It was an absolute pain in the ass to find a replacement capacitor for a 21 year old Bosch GBH 2-24 DSE, but given how robust that machine has been over the last decades, it was worth it.

http://www.wired.com/2016/01/that-dragon-cancer/

*ban2.0
Sharit anigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vNXJbkNHo

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Bar-Electrical-Wire
*ban1.0
Sharit anigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9I3NUMSvbY

*ban1.0
Sharit anigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9I3NUMSvbY

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Hook-Up-Wire
*ban2.0
Sharit anigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vNXJbkNHo

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

My guess....that car is totaled. Every electronic device in it is fried beyond repair now, and the wiring is probably also shot. Cars are not designed to survive this. I noticed the car shut down instantly.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some things had welded to each other as well. It looked like the front wheel at least was locked up, but that could be the driver breaking hard. I hope for their sake that the doors didn't weld shut!

@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

I often think 'If you're going to do 'magic' on TV, there needs to be at least one camera on the magician's hands at all times with no cuts'.
If they can reach off camera and then suddenly 'magic', I'll assume they had it set up just out of sight, and everyone on camera is just in on it pretending to not see the wires/mirror/second deck of cards set up in the chair/etc. That's how nearly every 'magic' TV show works, and it's tiring. Slight of hand magic is nothing if you don't see the hands the whole time....IMO.

"It's been one culture that's been blowing shit up over and over again"

Americans?

This is really fucking reprehensible on Mahers part. He's an American and an atheist. See how quickly he takes responsibility for drone strikes, wire-tapping, dropping atomic bombs on civilians. How about the Stalinist purges?

Know what he'd say? I don't support that (except maybe the drone strikes, because fuck brown people, amirite?). I'm not part of that.

SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU PUTTING 9/11 ON A FUCKING KID WHO PROBABLY WASN'T EVEN BORN?

Hey, ya know what? Maybe we should be careful. Maybe we should treat the kind of people who commit mass killings in the US with a degree of caution. So let's start with locking up the white males, 'cos those motherfuckers seem to go on shooting sprees with depressing regularity.

Ugh, seriously, fuck Maher. That was fucking disgusting to watch.

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AP_250782557912.jpg

When you have a pile of loose electronics, whether it's something you've salvaged from another device or components on a bread board, and you want the assembly to be something close to mobile, where are you going to put them? In a case of some sort, something you have laying around.

It could have just as easily have been mounted in a shoebox. This little beat-up case was just what was chosen. The reasoning behind it being chosen is only what you put into it based on.. Well, whatever is going through your mind in regard to the matter. I only see convenience at first glance, not some nefarious intent.

Also, note the size of the AC/9volt plugs in comparison to the case. I'm not sure it qualifies as a 'briefcase', really.

Cool -- I vividly remember my High School Chemistry class demonstration on this, with a pea-sized bit zipping around the surface of the water.

I want to see a big brick of it (1kg or so) in a similarly breakable but enclosing container and held 10m or so underwater in a lake (or something) by a wire mesh cage. Would chopping it up into smaller pieces to maximize the surface area increase the effect? Or would the violence of the reaction make cavitation / hydrogen bubbles that push the water out of way and make the reaction happen in multiple phases as the water gets pushed away and returns?

That is a very good question. I'm thinking it's a physical structure since it remains in a fixed position. Perhaps wire covered in whatever they coat sparklers with, arranged in the ladder configuration and held aloft by a kite or structure or something.

I think something in this video is staged as I sense a trip-wire.

Thank you sir.

I also found it scary, even though I drive a 45 year old Bronco with ZERO computer chips in it (besides the CD player). I still share the road with millions of vulnerable cars, and now I have to fear a hack attack not just on the computer, but also on the road!
WTF guys! Who came up with this TERRIBLE idea of connecting the entire 'fly by wire driven' car to the internet? Just WOW. Talk about lack of foresight!

In the associated article, they mention plenty of vehicles are vunerable, including Cadillac and Infiniti. Though they do focus on Chrysler's Uconnect.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/