|
Yeah, when I need to replace my current vacuum, I'm definitely going to do my damnedest to get a bagged one. I was just hoping to quit billowing large amounts of dust around my apartment in the meantime.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Lawnie posted:Because newton's laws require you to have an inertial reference frame. That is why the balloon is both moving and not, because you can pick any drat other object you please to be moving at 0 m/s, and your balloon will have some velocity relative to it. That velocity can be 0. Except for a photon! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
hooah posted:Yeah, when I need to replace my current vacuum, I'm definitely going to do my damnedest to get a bagged one. I was just hoping to quit billowing large amounts of dust around my apartment in the meantime. My Dyson is bagless but has a button to dump the contents from the bottom of the canister into the trash so it doesn't get all dusty everywhere. Get one of those ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:You could always wash it out with hot soap and water first. It's plastic, right? That's what I've been doing. It was more of a hypothetical question I guess, since I was looking through the cleaning stuff I have and thinking it through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Question: What is / was helldump? I've read the SAlopedia, and it doesn't seem to convey the idea properly to me. What makes it super cool / bad? IT seems very polarizing, it was just for calling people out right? Enourmo posted:It ranged from legitimate callouts to high-level doxxing; digging up people's personal photos and posting them in a thread without their knowledge, personal info, etc. All with questionable justification depending on the poster targeted, sometimes it was as dumb as "lol this faget didnt make fun of this other poster like everyone else did, ruin his life guys". Incidentally, lurking in Helldump before registering an account is the reason all my user names on various sites are different, and I'm extremely careful not to post information about one on another. It was scary seeing how a poster's life was just laid bare, once those fuckers started on them. I agree that Helldump was a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:My Dyson is bagless but has a button to dump the contents from the bottom of the canister into the trash so it doesn't get all dusty everywhere. The Dirt Devil I have does this too, but it doesn't really matter, especially since I often have to shake it to get stuff out from around the central filter thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Except for a photon! Well if you want to be schnazzy you could extend this to electrons, too. Thanks Heisenberg!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
My Netflix account was hacked late last week. A user logged in, changed the password, and associated the account with a new e-mail address. At first, I assume my wife or I left ourselves logged in somewhere publicly on accident. Last night, we and 450 other people got an email that our Netflix username and password had been posted to a public paste bin site from someone else that was also affected. Netflix obviously was hacked or had some sort of security breach, but they are not responding to it publicly and have not reached out to anyone affected to explain what happened. I was not greatly affected as the password I use for Netflix is not shared by any other account, but I think this is something that Netflix should be publicly shamed for and people need to know if there is a big security issue that needs fixing. Does anyone have any ideas on a media outlet that might be interested in picking up this story and help pressure Netflix?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Engadget, gizmodo, arstechnica. 450 people is not very many.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Vanilla Ice posted:My Netflix account was hacked late last week. A user logged in, changed the password, and associated the account with a new e-mail address. At first, I assume my wife or I left ourselves logged in somewhere publicly on accident. Last night, we and 450 other people got an email that our Netflix username and password had been posted to a public paste bin site from someone else that was also affected. Netflix obviously was hacked or had some sort of security breach, but they are not responding to it publicly and have not reached out to anyone affected to explain what happened. I was not greatly affected as the password I use for Netflix is not shared by any other account, but I think this is something that Netflix should be publicly shamed for and people need to know if there is a big security issue that needs fixing. Does anyone have any ideas on a media outlet that might be interested in picking up this story and help pressure Netflix? Did their email say, "our security was breached and someone got your usernames and passwords?" Because for such a small number it seems way more likely you or your wife were phished with 449 other saps. Maybe keep a hold on your public shaming stick until you know facts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
kedo posted:Did their email say, "our security was breached and someone got your usernames and passwords?" Because for such a small number it seems way more likely you or your wife were phished with 449 other saps. Maybe keep a hold on your public shaming stick until you know facts? Poor sample size and all but a coworker had the same thing happen to her last week with Netflix. Maybe she was part of the same 450, but that seems statistically unlikely. More likely that Netflix has bigger issues then what they're letting on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Assuming the ratio of the categories of food stays the same, how does simple calorie restriction affect cholesterol levels?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Hummingbirds posted:Assuming the ratio of the categories of food stays the same, how does simple calorie restriction affect cholesterol levels? Is this a general or specific question? If you are asking " if I eat pizza and French fries everyday but go on a diet and only eat half as many French fries and pizza what happens to my cholesterol intake?" You cholesterol intake would be halved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Hummingbirds posted:Assuming the ratio of the categories of food stays the same, how does simple calorie restriction affect cholesterol levels? Depending on the day of the week and what studies you read and choose to believe, diet (including caloric intake) has either very little or virtually nothing to do with blood cholesterol levels, which seem to be affected mostly by genetics and lifestyle / activity levels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
I'm curious in general, but specifically, despite being a normal weight (I know BMI doesn't mean much but mine is ~20 right now) I have genetically high LDL levels. I've lost a considerable amount of weight recently (BMI used to be ~23) because I was diagnosed with ADHD and started on adderall and am wondering whether that might have helped improve them. Asked my doc for a lipid panel but I haven't gone in for the draw yet. My diet isn't particularly good or bad, I just don't eat a lot these days. regulargonzalez posted:Depending on the day of the week and what studies you read and choose to believe, diet (including caloric intake) has either very little or virtually nothing to do with blood cholesterol levels, which seem to be affected mostly by genetics and lifestyle / activity levels. Interesting. I've never heard that before. My mom put me on the Atkins diet when I was ten years old in an effort to lower my LDL. Hummingbirds fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
So, double jeopardy in the US legal system. Let's say Susie Smith is tried for the murder of John Doe and is found not guilty. The next day, a video tape turns up and shows Susie torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering John Doe. She can't be retried for the murder, but could kidnapping or assault charges be levied against her? Could the prosecution try to get around the acquittal by charging her with involuntary manslaughter? My guess is that the answer is yes and no, respectively, but I'm pretty dumb so if anyone has more info please advise. e: Blockburger v. United States would seem to indicate that my notion is correct, but as I said I could well be wrong and misreading it entirely. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:So, double jeopardy in the US legal system. Let's say Susie Smith is tried for the murder of John Doe and is found not guilty. The next day, a video tape turns up and shows Susie torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering John Doe. She can't be retried for the murder, but could kidnapping or assault charges be levied against her? Could the prosecution try to get around the acquittal by charging her with involuntary manslaughter? My guess is that the answer is yes and no, respectively, but I'm pretty dumb so if anyone has more info please advise. How can that be just? I mean if new salient evidence appears how can it not be grounds for retrial?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:How can that be just? I mean if new salient evidence appears how can it not be grounds for retrial? The point is that the prosecution has to get it right the first time, with good evidence, rather than being able to try it over and over again and hound the suspect as long as they feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:How can that be just? I mean if new salient evidence appears how can it not be grounds for retrial? Well there's always these edge cases, but in general, the point is to prevent the government from constantly coming up with new evidence to retry the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:How can that be just? I mean if new salient evidence appears how can it not be grounds for retrial? The prosecutor should have brought enough evidence to get a (solid) conviction in the first place or not brought it to trial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
I'm moving out of my apartment soon and I have a few very small holes in the walls due to thumbtacks I've used to put up posters and what not. I know my landlord will say something about it so I want to grab some paint at Home Depot and cover it. Is it as simple as taking a picture of the wall and getting the closest color at the store along with a small paint brush to cover the holes up? Am I overthinking this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I'm moving out of my apartment soon and I have a few very small holes in the walls due to thumbtacks I've used to put up posters and what not. I know my landlord will say something about it so I want to grab some paint at Home Depot and cover it. Is it as simple as taking a picture of the wall and getting the closest color at the store along with a small paint brush to cover the holes up? Am I overthinking this? Put some toothpaste on it. http://www.youfixityourself.com/ask_eli/toothpaste.html Don't stress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I'm moving out of my apartment soon and I have a few very small holes in the walls due to thumbtacks I've used to put up posters and what not. I know my landlord will say something about it so I want to grab some paint at Home Depot and cover it. Is it as simple as taking a picture of the wall and getting the closest color at the store along with a small paint brush to cover the holes up? Am I overthinking this? Talk to the apartment manager and ask whether they want you to take care of the holes or if they want to do it. Half of the places I lived just did it themselves as part of the usual routine as the tenants usually did a relatively poor job. Otherwise get a little jar of spackle and a knife, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Paint is actually very hard to match, I'd just leave it and they can or a dab of the right color on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:So, double jeopardy in the US legal system. Let's say Susie Smith is tried for the murder of John Doe and is found not guilty. The next day, a video tape turns up and shows Susie torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering John Doe. She can't be retried for the murder, but could kidnapping or assault charges be levied against her? Could the prosecution try to get around the acquittal by charging her with involuntary manslaughter? My guess is that the answer is yes and no, respectively, but I'm pretty dumb so if anyone has more info please advise. The complication to the hypothetical is that Susie likely wouldn't have only been tried for murder, but also those smaller charges (assuming they were known), all at once, in hopes that something would stick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Who are the pink and purple ladies from this AV Club graphic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:How can that be just? I mean if new salient evidence appears how can it not be grounds for retrial? Because the alternative is worse. Consider a case where the state has 100 pieces of evidence that you committed a crime.* Court case #1 they introduce 90 of those pieces of evidence. You spend $30,000 mounting a defense and get acquitted. Of course, that used up most of your savings but hey, you're not in jail  A week later, the DA says "We have another piece of evidence. We will surely get the conviction this time!" They introduce 91 pieces of evidence in court case #2. You take out a second mortgage on your house and manage to get acquitted again. You're massively in debt now but hey, you're not in jail The DA says "Aha, we have 2 new pieces of evidence. This next trial will be a slam dunk!" You have no more money to spend and wonder whether a free public defender will be able to acquit you. The DA approaches you and says "Yeah, these trials sure are expensive. How about this: you plead to involuntary manslaughter, serve 3 years in prison, we'll call it good. Or I guess you can sell everything you own to finance another trial, or trust your luck with a public defender. Of course, I have more evidence I can enter for more trials, so ... good luck with that "Assume you didn't even commit the crime, there just happens to be circumstantial evidence that makes you look guilty. What is your choice for trial #3? Trial #4? The prosecution gets one chance, therefore they better bring their best case possible. *That sounds like an overwhelming amount of evidence and that if they have that much, their case must be legit; but everything from cell phone records to gas receipts, etc, can be entered as evidence. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Because the alternative is worse. Unless the alternative is that you can't just bring a new case against someone for something they've been acquitted for but you can go before a judge and ask to be allowed to do so if you can prove that it's in the interests of justice. Over here at least there's a ton of procedural things where you can't do something but you can if you can prove that it should happen. And in fact, based on a cursory google, that's exactly how it works here at the moment (Australia). You can get permission to bring a new trial if there is "fresh and compelling evidence". Varies slightly by state but that's pretty much it. Organza Quiz fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Unless the alternative is that you can't just bring a new case against someone for something they've been acquitted for but you can go before a judge and ask to be allowed to do so if you can prove that it's in the interests of justice. Over here at least there's a ton of procedural things where you can't do something but you can if you can prove that it should happen. And in fact, based on a cursory google, that's exactly how it works here at the moment (Australia). You can get permission to bring a new trial if there is "fresh and compelling evidence". Varies slightly by state but that's pretty much it. Yeah, but oour system was developed in reaction to a government that would abuse procedural things like that. It's better for a few guilty to go free if it means one innocent is saved, yada yada yada. Of course real life is messier than that, but y'know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Yeah, but oour system was developed in reaction to a government that would abuse procedural things like that. It's better for a few guilty to go free if it means one innocent is saved, yada yada yada. Of course real life is messier than that, but y'know. Also if someone really did do the crimes to begin with, they're likely to turn to crime again and get caught in a way that's much easier to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Yeah, but oour system was developed in reaction to a government that would abuse procedural things like that. It's better for a few guilty to go free if it means one innocent is saved, yada yada yada. Of course real life is messier than that, but y'know. I was going to finish my post with a line about how from what I understand about the US "too many guilty people going free" is really the exact opposite of the actual problem, but I figured that would be opening too massive a can of worms. I was just responding to the idea that there's no middle-ground between "let the State try people over and over" and "let an obviously guilty person go free because the evidence condemning them wasn't found at the time". For what it's worth though, the point of the judicial system is meant to be that it's to stop the executive government from abusing things like that. If the system was functioning as intended it doesn't matter if the government would attempt to abuse it, the courts would be keeping a check on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:I was going to finish my post with a line about how from what I understand about the US "too many guilty people going free" is really the exact opposite of the actual problem, but I figured that would be opening too massive a can of worms. I was just responding to the idea that there's no middle-ground between "let the State try people over and over" and "let an obviously guilty person go free because the evidence condemning them wasn't found at the time". For what it's worth though, the point of the judicial system is meant to be that it's to stop the executive government from abusing things like that. If the system was functioning as intended it doesn't matter if the government would attempt to abuse it, the courts would be keeping a check on them. I'd guess that generally speaking, you trust the system / government more than Americans do and that's the root of a lot of the difference in outlook. Your post has many wishful thinking "if"s. The whole NSA revelations over the last couple years, along with all the other muck the government has been up to for the entire millenium, basically has impressed into us that if you give the government an inch, they'll happily take a mile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted:Who are the pink and purple ladies from this AV Club graphic? The pink one's Jem (of Jem and the Holograms), the purple is Hawkeye (intro'd in Young Avengers, shows up in recent Hawkeye series).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
I have no idea where to ask this (I didn't see an insect thread in PI), but there is a small insect that I keep finding in my house and I have no idea if I should be alarmed or not. It's a tiny insect (small enough to where I cannot count its legs and be sure), and could easily fit on the tip of my finger. It is either black or dark brown. From what I can tell, it has two segments to its body, a head, and a body/wing section, and it's shape is that of a skinny oval. I found pictures of a red flour beetle online, and it has the same shape, but way smaller and with 2 segments instead of three. I keep finding them on my duvet(!!), only like 1 at a time, and maybe once every couple of days. They are attracted to light, and I've had one wander up while I was watching netflix in bed, and it would follow my screen's light when I moved my laptop around. I have 2 cats, but I am 99% sure it's not a flea because it's far too big for that, and it's definitely not a bedbug, I know what those look like. I'm generally a clean person so it's wigging me out that I have the same type of tiny bug showing up every few days with no discernable source. It honestly might not be an insect seeing as its legs are itty-bitty and kind of tuck under it's body like a centipede or something and don't splay out like a bedbug/roach or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Drugstore beetle or cigarette beetle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:Drugstore beetle or cigarette beetle? think that might actually be it, wow. Especially as they are supposedly super common in Texas and I'm in Austin. Have no idea how they're in my house if they come from spoiled food but I guess I can hunt around. At least it seems like they're mostly harmless. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
I remember there was some kind of cartoon green creature that I think was a villain, it might have had a beak for a mouth i can't really remember. Can anyone recall the name of it, i've tried to draw it to ease the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:I'd guess that generally speaking, you trust the system / government more than Americans do and that's the root of a lot of the difference in outlook. Your post has many wishful thinking "if"s. The whole NSA revelations over the last couple years, along with all the other muck the government has been up to for the entire millenium, basically has impressed into us that if you give the government an inch, they'll happily take a mile. Oh don't worry, I know the USA is basically a dystopia, I do read the news. It's less wishful thinking "ifs" and more "this is a system that is hypothetically possible and in fact exists in places that are not as hosed up as America is". The answer to "why does double jeopardy work this way" isn't "because there's no other way it could work," it's "because our particular system is broken."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Oh don't worry, I know the USA is basically a dystopia, I do read the news. It's less wishful thinking "ifs" and more "this is a system that is hypothetically possible and in fact exists in places that are not as hosed up as America is". The answer to "why does double jeopardy work this way" isn't "because there's no other way it could work," it's "because our particular system is broken." The system is messed up in ways, but double jeopardy isn't one of those. Double jeopardy just means the government gets one shot to screw you over, so they have to really make sure they get it right that one time. But, really, at this point we're nitpicking pretty finely... I imagine "finding explosive evidence after the trial" is a very rare edge case. Assuming a perfectly legit prosecution (ie, ignoring all of the imaginary asterisks that we've put in our explanations), the prosecutor isn't going to go to trial until 1) they're completely sure they have all the case they're going to get, and that they're going to win it or 2) some external situation forces their hand. If there's any hint that there might be a silver bullet out there waiting to be found, they're not going to go to trail until they have it, or can make a case without it. This is partly because prosecutors don't like losing, but also because DP requires them to be so studious. Americans will argue that's a better system than one which allows the prosecutor to make a maybe winning case, lose, find more evidence, try again, etc until they have a win or run the well completely dry. I say to-MAY-toh, you say TO-mah-to. It is worth nothing, that it does work your way the other way around. It's rare, but if an exonerating piece of evidence comes to light after conviction, then you can petition to have a retrial or the conviction struck entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Crankit posted:I remember there was some kind of cartoon green creature that I think was a villain, it might have had a beak for a mouth i can't really remember. Can anyone recall the name of it, i've tried to draw it to ease the process. The Grinch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
I have a wireless XBox 360 controller, and when it's low on power it will just keep turning itself off rather than running all the way down. What's the reason for that? What's it saving that last bit of power for?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:08
|
|
