What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)

[siegecrossbow]

Bad news for GPS users.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It’s not just using a handheld phone while driving that’s a menace to society. It turns out that charging it in the car has consequences too.

That’s because a phone drawing electricity from a USB port cuts 0.03 miles from each gallon of gasoline in a tank. Across the fleet of vehicles in the U.S., that would mean about 970,000 tons of extra planet-warming carbon dioxide a year, according to calculations by Jon Bereisa, a retired General Motors Co. engineering executive who studies vehicle power usage. With a race under way to see how many charging ports automakers can cram into a car, the increased pollution is only going to get worse.

“Do I think we’re at peak USB? No,” said Mary Gustanski, vice president of engineering and program management at Delphi Automotive Plc, which makes wiring and USB ports for vehicles. “We’ll get more and more creative to not only allow you to connect with USB but also to connect wireless. Consumers want their car to be just like their home.”

It’s not just an environmental issue, either. The proliferation of consumer devices, the growth of dashboard touch screens and other technology, and the shrinking size of engines to meet fuel-economy mandates mean the 12-volt automobile electrical system is just about tapped out. Some automakers are already turning to supplemental 48-volt systems in future models.

Port Proliferation
The number of vehicles sold in the U.S. with USB charge ports rose to about 14.6 million last year from about 3.3 million in 2005, the first year they were available, and is projected to climb to 16.7 million by 2022, according to a forecast from the consulting firm IHS. Global sales of vehicles with USB ports will increase to 85 million in 2022 from about 49 million last year, IHS said.

That estimate doesn’t capture how many ports are in a particular vehicle. For example, the new Chrysler Pacifica minivan, which goes on sale later this year, will have nine USB charging points, the most of any automobile, said Bruce Velisek, director of Chrysler brand product marketing. The model it replaces has four charging points, he said.

To make his calculation, Bereisa assumed that a typical smartphone connected to WiFi or the Internet needs about 4.8 watts of energy to charge in a car. (Delphi estimates that some less-efficient models draw twice that amount.) For a vehicle getting about 30 miles per gallon, that’s a 0.03 mpg loss, he said. Spread out across about 3 trillion road miles motorists drive each year in the U.S. -- assuming an average speed of 30 mph -- the estimated extra usage is 100 million gallons of gasoline, or about $200 million in costs, said Bereisa, the chief executive officer of Auto Electrification LLC in Sunrise Beach, Missouri.

Home Charging
The estimated extra CO2 created by plugging in one phone in every car in the U.S. would be about the same as that produced by 185,257 passenger vehicles in one year, according to an Environmental Protection Agency website that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

greenhouse gas into real-world equivalents. Put another way, that’s the pollution created by burning 945 million pounds of coal.

By far, the cheapest way to charge a smartphone is at home, Bereisa said. With gasoline at $2 a gallon, it costs about 2 cents an hour to charge a phone in a car compared with about 0.06 cent at home, or 33 times less. Gasoline would have to fall to 6 cents a gallon to compete with home electricity, he said. It would also produce about half the carbon dioxide.

“That’s why modern electricity power plants are not driven by gasoline engine generators,” said Bereisa, who worked on the EV-1 and Volt electric-vehicle programs and fuel-cell models during his 35 years at GM. “We go through life without realizing how important energy is to everything we do, and the consequences of our energy consumption. We grow up entitled to just plug it in or flip the switch or push start -- with no idea of what’s behind it all.”

 

[Franklin]

News organizations are becoming more and more like internet trolls.

Vladimir Putin: I didn't mean to scare Angela Merkel with my dog

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told a German newspaper he did not mean to scare Chancellor Angela Merkel when he brought his pet Labrador in to meet her during an infamous press conference nine years ago.

Merkel, reportedly fearful of dogs since one attacked her in 1995, was photographed looking distinctly uncomfortable when Putin brought his large black Labrador Koni into a meeting at his summer residence in Sochi, Russia, in January 2007.

The Russian leader appeared to smirk as he watched his pet approach his uneasy VIP guest.

Now, years on, Putin has told German newspaper Bild he had no intention of intimidating Merkel.

"I wanted to do something nice for her," he told the newspaper, in an interview published Monday.

"When I found out that she doesn't like dogs, of course I apologized."

Putin's treatment of Merkel, in office for less than two years at the time, reportedly rankled the German press corps.

According to a 2014 New Yorker profile of the German leader, Merkel responded to Koni's presence by quipping, in Russian: "It doesn't eat journalists, after all."

The magazine reported she had later told journalists: "I understand why he has to do this -- to prove he's a man. ... He's afraid of his own weakness. Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this."

Elsewhere in the Bild interview, Putin was complimentary of the German leader although he denied having said he admired her.

"I never said that. I value her as very professional and open," he said.

Putin said that, despite tensions with the West, both sides had a shared interest in fighting Islamic terrorism.

"We should stand together much more globally in the fight against terror, which is a big challenge," he said. "Even though we don't agree every time and on every subject, no one should take that as an excuse to declare us enemies."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blackstone]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Republican presidential candidates spent the fall in an escalating battle for the heart of their party and the support of its voters. Each of the dozen-odd candidates has made feverish attempts to rise above the cacophony, repeatedly redefining precedents for the conservative mainstream on issues domestic and international. Although they have surpassed the general level of pugnacity favored by their typically hawkish party, the candidates have been unusually soft spoken on China. Beijing was not mentioned at any length until December’s CNN debate, where the messaging was superficial at best.

China was discussed by only five of the nine candidates at the CNN’s December 15th Republican Presidential Debate held in Las Vegas. The topics covered ranged from internet censorship and cyberattacks to trade relations and East Asian diplomacy, all falling within the debate’s focus of national security. Over the course of the debate’s two hours, the Middle East dominated the event, despite several attempts by CNN moderators to steer the conversation toward East Asia, and to China in particular.

The China narrative unfolding in the 2016 GOP presidential primary is defined by two themes, distinct but not incompatible. The first is China’s inclusion into the pantheon of challengers to American dominance, as perceived by conservative politicians. As seen during earlier contests during this debate season, prominent Republican candidates have listed China among the likes of North Korea, Iran, Japan and Mexico – each of which are supposed to pose a militaristic, economic or diplomatic threat to the United States.

Two candidates – Rand Paul and Donald Trump – used China as a buzzword, listing it among other countries to add emphasis to their arguments. Paul attacked Trump’s proposal to censor and regulate the internet for security reasons, suggesting that it would be a slippery slope that threatened American liberty. In doing so, he cited China in an awkward case of false equivalence.

“The real question is, what does he mean by that?” Paul inquired of Trump’s plan. “Like they do in North Korea? Like they do in China?”

Trump’s opening statement presented China as one of many monolithic global antagonists that demand a watchful eye. As in earlier debates, he avoided specific concerns and instead offered a selection of countries and topics to create a general sense of urgency.

“My total focus was on building up our military, building up our strength, building up our borders, making sure that China, Japan, Mexico, both at the border and in trade, no longer take advantage of this country,” he began.

One important distinction between China and other countries used as fodder in Republican debates is that it is almost never referenced in xenophobic terms. Mexico is seen as the perpetrator of unwanted immigration, and Iran and ISIS are discussed as part of a larger Islamic threat, but China – like Japan – is typically mentioned within the context of policy. The candidates have clearly separated the Chinese government and its policies from its people, a tendency that Chris Christie displayed at the debate when asked about cyberattacks.

“What we need to do is go at the things that are most sensitive and embarrassing to them, that they’re hiding – get that information and put it out in public,” Christie said. “Let the Chinese people start to digest how corrupt the Chinese government is, how they steal from the Chinese people and how they’re enriching oligarchs all throughout China.”

The second theme seen in the Republican candidates’ discussions of China is truly a departure from past election cycles. Several GOP presidential hopefuls have shifted their messaging from simple antagonism to the position that the United States needs to alter its behavior to win China’s respect. Although they still regard the Chinese as a rival, these candidates have pointed to American inadequacies to explain fissures in the bilateral relationship. They also prescribe tough love as the remedy.

“China is a rising adversary,” says Carly Fiorina, the candidate most trenchant on the issue. “So one of the things we have to do if we want China’s support is to push back on China. They, too, recognize one thing – strength and their own economic interest.”

Fiorina’s bellicose comments, calling for China’s containment and for retaliation for cyberattacks, were undermined by her conclusion: that the goal of China-U.S. relations should be cooperation on reining in North Korea. Ben Carson echoed that point in his own follow-up, punching far above his weight on the subject of East Asian diplomacy.

“Well I do believe that [Kim Jong-Un] is unstable, and I do, in fact, believe that China has a lot more influence with him than we do.”

Establishment candidate Jeb Bush put the argument in the clearest terms, making the case that cyberattacks are a foregone conclusion unless the American government wins Beijing’s respect.

“This is something – we need to have the best defensive capabilities,” said Bush. He continued, “[China] will respect that. They’ll respect a United States that is serious about protecting our infrastructure. If we don’t do it, we’ll continue to see exactly what’s happening – not just from the Chinese, by the way.”

The GOP stance on China is open to interpretation, but the Democrats offer nothing to be misconstrued. By and large, their three presidential candidates have been content to focus on domestic concerns, in contrast with Republicans. Foreign policy is a particular strong suit of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s, and her breadth of knowledge has been an advantage in debates. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have done their utmost to avoid the subject; Sanders prefers to talk banking reform and O’Malley pushes gun control. Consequently, the only mention of “china” at ABC’s December 19th Democratic Presidential Debate was in reference to White House dinnerware.

The takeaway from the 2016 presidential election cycle thus far is that China is mostly unscathed. Democratic presidential candidates have nearly nothing at all to say about China, and what little the Republicans have said has been tempered from previous elections and shows a desire for bilateral cooperation. With the odds of a GOP presidential win growing dimmer, any offense Beijing has taken from recent debates could be moot. Besides, it’s important to parse these statements in context; there’s a lot more political expediency than substance to be found. So far in this primary, Donald Trump has called Mexicans “rapists,” Ted Cruz has called for regime change in Iran, and Chris Christie has proudly pledged to shoot down Russian aircraft. China has been recognized by the Republicans as an adversary worthy of respect, and as a desirable partner in tackling regional problems; its standing in this contest is far better than par for the course.

- See more at:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[kwaigonegin]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Whoever wins the presidency will be wise to take the relationship with china very seriously. The next 10 years will probably be THE most formative years for US/SINO relationship and will likely set the tone throughout the rest of this century!

I do not believe the current crop of candidates are very well verse nor are they fully cognizant of the significance of US/SINO relationship to the general global stability of the world economy not to mention maintaining relative peace.

Statements like those from Carly Fiorina and a few other candidates are not helping not to mention they set up self fuflling prophecies down the road. It's also foolish to think only Americans watch 'american' news.

I would not be surprised if people like Xi, Putin and party leaders all over watch US political news even more so than the average American!

If you already think someone is an enemy, naturally you will treat them as such and vice versa and nothing good ever comes out from an adversarial relationship unless mended.

 

[B.I.B.]

This made me ROFL


MUMBAI: Indian police successfully deployed an unusual technique to retrieve a gold chain that a thief had swallowed while officers were in hot pursuit — they force-fed him more than 40 bananas.

The man denied snatching the chain from a woman in the street in Mumbai and swallowed it in a desperate bid to conceal his crime last week, but hospital X-rays suggested otherwise.

Police in the western Indian city administered an enema which failed to yield the desired result.

Doctors said an operation would be the best way forward, but police officers decided it would be too expensive and opted instead for the bananas.

“He was fed more than 40 bananas throughout the day,” Mumbai police Senior Inspector Shankar Dhanavade told AFP.

“Eventually the chain was found. We made him wash and disinfect it,” the policeman added.

The 25-year-old man appeared in court on Friday and is in police custody, said Dhanavade.

According to reports, it was not the first time Mumbai police had turned to the fruit in order to recover a stolen item.

In July last year a chain was retrieved after a thief was made to eat two dozen bananas and drink several litres of milk laced with laxatives, the Hindustan Times reported.

Months earlier in April, a thief was fed five dozen bananas after swallowing a gold chain with a large pendant.

The thief successfully excreted the loot. But the disgusted victim refused to touch it and instead took it to a jeweller in a plastic bag, the newspaper said.

 

[siegecrossbow]

This made me ROFL


MUMBAI: Indian police successfully deployed an unusual technique to retrieve a gold chain that a thief had swallowed while officers were in hot pursuit — they force-fed him more than 40 bananas.

The man denied snatching the chain from a woman in the street in Mumbai and swallowed it in a desperate bid to conceal his crime last week, but hospital X-rays suggested otherwise.

Police in the western Indian city administered an enema which failed to yield the desired result.

Doctors said an operation would be the best way forward, but police officers decided it would be too expensive and opted instead for the bananas.

“He was fed more than 40 bananas throughout the day,” Mumbai police Senior Inspector Shankar Dhanavade told AFP.

“Eventually the chain was found. We made him wash and disinfect it,” the policeman added.

The 25-year-old man appeared in court on Friday and is in police custody, said Dhanavade.

According to reports, it was not the first time Mumbai police had turned to the fruit in order to recover a stolen item.

In July last year a chain was retrieved after a thief was made to eat two dozen bananas and drink several litres of milk laced with laxatives, the Hindustan Times reported.

Months earlier in April, a thief was fed five dozen bananas after swallowing a gold chain with a large pendant.

The thief successfully excreted the loot. But the disgusted victim refused to touch it and instead took it to a jeweller in a plastic bag, the newspaper said.

It goes down easy, but won't come out so easy.

 

[Blackstone]

Whoever wins the presidency will be wise to take the relationship with china very seriously. The next 10 years will probably be THE most formative years for US/SINO relationship and will likely set the tone throughout the rest of this century!

I do not believe the current crop of candidates are very well verse nor are they fully cognizant of the significance of US/SINO relationship to the general global stability of the world economy not to mention maintaining relative peace.

Statements like those from Carly Fiorina and a few other candidates are not helping not to mention they set up self fuflling prophecies down the road. It's also foolish to think only Americans watch 'american' news.

I would not be surprised if people like Xi, Putin and party leaders all over watch US political news even more so than the average American!

If you already think someone is an enemy, naturally you will treat them as such and vice versa and nothing good ever comes out from an adversarial relationship unless mended.

Agreed. But, before all else, America must have honest debates on how to deal with China. Will it be military containment like what Ronald Reagan did in his first term that almost lead to war, or accommodate legitimate Chinese security concerns, like Reagan did in his second term with Gorbachev, but with Beijing accepting strong and continued US presence in the Asia-Pacific.

 

[solarz]

I believe this definitely goes under "What the Heck?!"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Liberal government has been defending its decision to go ahead with a $15 billion Saudi Arabia arms deal. But they're under increasing pressure to release the details of that deal — namely, how Canada justifies doing business with a country that has a controversial human rights record.

And that pressure mounted even further on Tuesday, when

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Badawi's family has been seeking refuge in Canada, while Raif Badawi faced flogging in Saudi Arabia for his outspoken blog.

In the face of mounting calls for transparency, the Liberals have agreed to release a redacted assessment of the government's report on Saudi Arabia's human rights record.

That response is not good enough for Tony Clement. The Conservative global affairs critic is calling for complete disclosure. But Clement was part of the same government that inked the Saudi arms deal in the first place. Just a few months ago, he and his colleagues were refusing to release the same report to the public.

As It Happens host Carol Off spoke to Clement, to gain a bit of clarity on the situation. Here's part of that conversation, transcribed.



Carol Off: Mr. Clement, why should the Liberal government let the public see its analysis of Saudi Arabia's human rights record?

Tony Clement: I think this was a central element in approving the deal in the first place. There is a rationale for the equipment, but it was always predicated on Saudi Arabia not using it on their own people. I think in the spirit of transparency that the Liberals campaigned on, they can't very well say "we're being transparent but we're not going to release the report."

CO: But that analysis was done when you were the government, so—

TC: Absolutely.

CO: So was it not known by your government what the human rights record — that was discovered by this analysis — was?

TC: We were absolutely comfortable that the equipment was going to be used in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, since that report was created and since we left government, we've seen the execution of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— that's what raised this issue up in the first place. And I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to expect that the Liberals, who promised transparency, would live up to that transparency in this particular instance as well.

CO: The Saudi executions, as you point out, are abhorrent, but the Saudis have been beheading people and executing them for many years — during the entire time that you were the government ... There are reports that even the LAVs that Canada had already sold to Saudi Arabia had been used in Bahrain when Saudi Arabia went in there to suppress a peaceful demonstration. This was available to you when your government approved this deal.

TC: Right. So, you and I are discussing this, Carol, in a vacuum of not having a report before the Canadian public. That's the point I'm trying to make. We can argue on your show what the Harper government did and did not do, but we now have the Trudeau government. If they want to be judged differently than the Harper government, they have to behave in a way that's consistent with their promises.

CO: So you think the Liberals now must hold to their promise to be transparent, though you have no problems with the Harper government not being transparent?

TC: No. I'm saying, that if the judgement of the public was that we weren't transparent enough and that they elected a government that promises to be more transparent, I'm calling on the government to live up to their promises.

 

[SteelBird]

This is a bit insane! For you guys who live in snow countries, would this damage the car?

 

[siegecrossbow]

If the plane crash won't kill the passengers, the ejection process probably will.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The latest innovation in airplane safety might just be a detachable cabin, at least according to a Russian inventor who released his designs for the technology this week.

Tatarenko Vladimir Nikolaevich has spent three years working on the project, which would allow for an airplane's cabin to detach at any point during mid-flight, takeoff, or landing in case of emergency,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

reported. In the event of detachment, parachutes would deploy to deliver the cabin to a safe landing on the ground or in the water.

Nikolaevich's patented design even includes space underneath the cabin so that passengers' luggage will detach in the event of an emergency, too.

The inventor claims that 95% percent of those he interviewed—although he didn't divulge how many people he talked to— would be in favor of paying more for airplane tickets if the detachable cabin were to become a standard feature.

Still, not everyone is completely on-board with the idea, with some people questioning the cost-effectiveness, whether the detachable cabin would compromise the structural integrity of the rest of the plane, and what happens to the pilots after the cabin detaches.


This isn't the first time a detachable cabin has been proposed, as Airbus filed its own patent for a similar idea in February 2013, though the company's version deals more with convenience than safety,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

reported.

In an announcement released after its patent approval in November, Airbus proposed a detachable cabin that would streamline the boarding process by having passengers at the gate board the detached cabin, which would then be attached to the plane before takeoff.

It may sound like science fiction, but it looks like detachable airplane cabins are indeed being seriously considered.