Apple watch burns guy's wrist

On 12/3/2015 5:43 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:48:42 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:00:13 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Can you argue that the American Negroes have been treated as people
of
"equal station" or with "decent respect"?

Jackson, King, and others went about airing their grievances
differently, but armed rebellion was not their method. Rhetoric was
Jackson's form of rebellion and rhetoric and marches were King's.
And,
to some extent, it has worked.

Most, like Dr. King, went about advocating their cause, in a manner
designed to help the people. Other's like Jesse Jackson, and Al
Sharpton, while advocating their cause, do so in a manner designed to
line their pockets. There is a big difference.

I attended the events following the Travon Martin shooting in Sanford
FL. (My interest was in journalistic photography of the event) Al
Sharpton flew in, made a speech, and flew out.

It's easy - and mostly accurate - to write off Sharpton and Jackson as
publicity seekers who benefit monetarily. However, that discounts the
viewpoint of the people most directly involved: African Americans.

Sharpton was cheered and he galvanized the crowd. While some of us,
mostly white Americans, might see Sharpton and Jackson as
rabble-rousers out to line their own pockets, their target group
doesn't necessarily see them that way.

I've seen people happily give money to thieving, charlatan evangelists.
They are deceived. That they don't see it that way doesn't change the
fact that they are. It also doens't change the fact that they are
deceived by hucksters. It's the same with Sharpton's and Jackson's
supporters.

It's all about whose ox it is. As far as I'm concerned, any money
given to any church is a result of fraud and hucksterism. It supports
the religion myth. Churches - and I'm referring to the mainstream
religions here as well as the televangicals - are parasites who don't
pay their share of taxes but use public services that the rest of us
pay for disproportionately. Jackson's $10 million is a drop in the
bucket in comparison.

But, I understand that there are people who do subscribe to the myth
and are benefited and comforted by their faith. If they want to be
deceived, then let them fill the plate.

Some churches do provide some good to people with their outreach
programs, but they want souls in exchange...give up your god, or your
belief, and embrace ours in exchange for charity.


And some do a lot of good charitable things, without asking any
questions about your religion.
I'll give just two examples:
The Salvation Army, a faith based organization, doesn't care what your
spiritual beliefs are. All they care about is whether you are q person
in trouble, and they will try to help you. I have spent time working
with them on disaster relief projects, and have seen this compassionate
attitude. Unlike other relief organizations;

Sit down for the second.
The Jehovah's Witnesses, will help people with psychological and
emotional issues, regardless of their current beliefs. Yeah! they can be
a real PITA to some, when they ring your doorbell. I definitely do not
subscribe to a lot of their spiritual beliefs. But to do bring aid and
comfort to a lot of people. I learned about this fro one of my ex office
partners, who was helped by them. They never asked him to subscribe to
their spiritualism, but he did subscribe to their humanity, as do I.



The commonality is that Jackson and Sharpton's supporters are the ones
who believe that they benefit from Jackson and Sharpton's actions. If
they believe that, they have as much right to be supporters as the
people who support the churches.


Change doesn't happen unless the people affected by conditions get
stirred up and make their grievances known. Sharpton and Jackson do
do this. Some of us may not like their methods, but they aren't doing
it to become popular with the rest of us.

Just as a point of pedantry...when people happily give money to a
charlatan, there is no "thieving" involved. It's a voluntary action,
not a theft.

If the givers are deceived, it is a threat.


--
PeterN

On 12/3/2015 8:07 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:02:14 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Just as a point of pedantry...when people happily give money to a
charlatan, there is no "thieving" involved. It's a voluntary action,
not a theft.

If the givers are deceived, it is a threat.

No, that's fraud, not theft or obtaining money by menace.

If you want an example of money by menace, consider donations to the
church in order to be considered a good Christian and not go to hell.


These are distinctions without differences. "I am the only one who can
give you a happy afterlife, give me money."
That's a fraud committed by means of a threat.

--
PeterN

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:48:42 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:00:13 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Can you argue that the American Negroes have been treated as
people
of
"equal station" or with "decent respect"?

Jackson, King, and others went about airing their grievances
differently, but armed rebellion was not their method. Rhetoric
was
Jackson's form of rebellion and rhetoric and marches were King's.
And,
to some extent, it has worked.

Most, like Dr. King, went about advocating their cause, in a manner
designed to help the people. Other's like Jesse Jackson, and Al
Sharpton, while advocating their cause, do so in a manner designed
to
line their pockets. There is a big difference.

I attended the events following the Travon Martin shooting in
Sanford
FL. (My interest was in journalistic photography of the event) Al
Sharpton flew in, made a speech, and flew out.

It's easy - and mostly accurate - to write off Sharpton and Jackson
as
publicity seekers who benefit monetarily. However, that discounts
the
viewpoint of the people most directly involved: African Americans.

Sharpton was cheered and he galvanized the crowd. While some of us,
mostly white Americans, might see Sharpton and Jackson as
rabble-rousers out to line their own pockets, their target group
doesn't necessarily see them that way.

I've seen people happily give money to thieving, charlatan
evangelists.
They are deceived. That they don't see it that way doesn't change the
fact that they are. It also doens't change the fact that they are
deceived by hucksters. It's the same with Sharpton's and Jackson's
supporters.

It's all about whose ox it is. As far as I'm concerned, any money
given to any church is a result of fraud and hucksterism. It supports
the religion myth. Churches - and I'm referring to the mainstream
religions here as well as the televangicals - are parasites who don't
pay their share of taxes but use public services that the rest of us
pay for disproportionately. Jackson's $10 million is a drop in the
bucket in comparison.

If I was to agree with you (which I don't), how does Jackson's wealth
make his actions any less of a fraud? Fraud is fraud.

But, I understand that there are people who do subscribe to the myth
and are benefited and comforted by their faith. If they want to be
deceived, then let them fill the plate.

Those who subscribe to this so-called myth pay the taxes for the public
services that the churches use. What's the problem? What services
exactly are the churches using that you object to?

Some churches do provide some good to people with their outreach
programs, but they want souls in exchange...give up your god, or your
belief, and embrace ours in exchange for charity.

And many more never ask for anything in return for providing for people,
nothing. As Peter noted, the Salvation Army is one of many.

The commonality is that Jackson and Sharpton's supporters are the ones
who believe that they benefit from Jackson and Sharpton's actions. If
they believe that, they have as much right to be supporters as the
people who support the churches.

No one stated that they have no "right" to be supporters. What I stated
is that they are deceived and victims of fraud. They have every right to
allow themselves to be victims, even if they think they're not victims.

Change doesn't happen unless the people affected by conditions get
stirred up and make their grievances known. Sharpton and Jackson do
do this. Some of us may not like their methods, but they aren't
doing
it to become popular with the rest of us.

Just as a point of pedantry...when people happily give money to a
charlatan, there is no "thieving" involved. It's a voluntary action,
not a theft.

On 12/4/2015 3:42 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:20:14 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

But, I understand that there are people who do subscribe to the myth
and are benefited and comforted by their faith. If they want to be
deceived, then let them fill the plate.

Those who subscribe to this so-called myth pay the taxes for the public
services that the churches use. What's the problem? What services
exactly are the churches using that you object to?

First, I have not objected to the churches using public services. What
I object to is that they don't pay taxes and that the general public
pays more because they don't. It is *not* just the people who
subscribe to the myth that pay the taxes. We all do.

Real estate taxes provide the money for most of the public services
from police and fire protection to local roadway maintenance. Church
property is exempt. Sales tax contributes to public service costs.
Churches are exempt. Some of state and local income tax goes to
public service expenses. (Which apply depends on the locale) Members
of the clergy get federal and state tax breaks, so the non-clergy
taxpayer has to make up the difference.

When a church buys the adjacent property to build a school, that land
may have been on the tax rolls, but will be taken off the tax rolls
when it is church owned. The real estate tax portion that went to
support public schools is diminished and the tuition income will go to
the church coffers.

Members of the clergy get federal and state tax breaks, so the
non-clergy taxpayer has to make up the difference.

Some churches do provide some good to people with their outreach
programs, but they want souls in exchange...give up your god, or your
belief, and embrace ours in exchange for charity.

And many more never ask for anything in return for providing for people,
nothing. As Peter noted, the Salvation Army is one of many.

Let's be realistic. The bell-ringers are on every corner this time of
year. They are soliciting donations. They do do good, but it's not
true that they ask for nothing. All church-provided benefits - from
any denomination - are financed by donations. They all ask.


Have you heard of Second Harvest, one of many, but too few programs that
help feed the poor by providing food that would otherwise be thrown out.
http://www.campuskitchens.org/food-waste/?gclid=CIWr4-eqw8kCFYMbHwodb6oLVw



There's nothing wrong with the church organizations supporting their
charitable works by soliciting donations, but you can't say they ask
for nothing. The Salvation Army asks for nothing from the individual
they feed, but that food is paid for by the donations from others that
they solicit.

And the vast majority of people who are fed by the Salvation Army are
presumptively incapable of feeding themselves. I think as a civilized
society we would not let them starve to death. I think that if the
government fed them the cost of feeding would be much higher.


--
PeterN

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:20:14 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

But, I understand that there are people who do subscribe to the myth
and are benefited and comforted by their faith. If they want to be
deceived, then let them fill the plate.

Those who subscribe to this so-called myth pay the taxes for the
public
services that the churches use. What's the problem? What services
exactly are the churches using that you object to?

First, I have not objected to the churches using public services. What
I object to is that they don't pay taxes and that the general public
pays more because they don't. It is *not* just the people who
subscribe to the myth that pay the taxes. We all do.

Real estate taxes provide the money for most of the public services
from police and fire protection to local roadway maintenance. Church
property is exempt. Sales tax contributes to public service costs.
Churches are exempt. Some of state and local income tax goes to
public service expenses. (Which apply depends on the locale) Members
of the clergy get federal and state tax breaks, so the non-clergy
taxpayer has to make up the difference.

When a church buys the adjacent property to build a school, that land
may have been on the tax rolls, but will be taken off the tax rolls
when it is church owned. The real estate tax portion that went to
support public schools is diminished and the tuition income will go to
the church coffers.

Members of the clergy get federal and state tax breaks, so the
non-clergy taxpayer has to make up the difference.

Some churches do provide some good to people with their outreach
programs, but they want souls in exchange...give up your god, or
your
belief, and embrace ours in exchange for charity.

And many more never ask for anything in return for providing for
people,
nothing. As Peter noted, the Salvation Army is one of many.

Let's be realistic. The bell-ringers are on every corner this time of
year. They are soliciting donations. They do do good, but it's not
true that they ask for nothing. All church-provided benefits - from
any denomination - are financed by donations. They all ask.

There's nothing wrong with the church organizations supporting their
charitable works by soliciting donations, but you can't say they ask
for nothing. The Salvation Army asks for nothing from the individual
they feed, but that food is paid for by the donations from others that
they solicit.

That is the point I made - the Salvation Army and others ask for nothing
in return from those they reach out to and help.

On 12/8/2015 6:42 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/30/2015 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Driving too fast skidding and coming off the road, slipping with a knife
and cuttign your finger is an accident too.

both are definitely *not* an accident. it's negligence and stupidity.

yep no such thing as an accident, no accident has ever occured in this
universe so far, yes we know, it's hardly news.

straw man.

edited

Well, then, "nospam" -- how would you define the word "accident?"

John

I want to know who was at fault when Ann Hodges was hit by a meteorite.


Obviously it was her own fault. According to nospam we have the ability
to predict such occurrences, and the technology to divert them. She
should have been listening to whatever media predicts such things.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I want to know who was at fault when Ann Hodges was hit by a meteorite.

Obviously it was her own fault. According to nospam we have the ability
to predict such occurrences, and the technology to divert them.

we do now.

She
should have been listening to whatever media predicts such things.

that's correct. in the event that a future meteor strike poses a risk,
it will be *extremely* well publicized months leading up to the event
(assuming it can't be diverted with a rocket), urging people in the
likely affected area to protect themselves and/or evacuate. anyone not
taking notice has only themselves to blame.

On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 13:45:24 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I want to know who was at fault when Ann Hodges was hit by a meteorite.

Obviously it was her own fault. According to nospam we have the ability
to predict such occurrences, and the technology to divert them.

we do now.

Not really.

I'm not going to continue with thisas an argument but we only have a
limited ability to detect incomers, where they will fly is a matter of
estimation but not precision, and nobody has attempted to demonstrate
any particular method for dealing with them for the simple reason that
we have a very limited understanding of how they are constructed. We
are and will continue to be in a shooting gallery.


She
should have been listening to whatever media predicts such things.

that's correct. in the event that a future meteor strike poses a risk,
it will be *extremely* well publicized months leading up to the event
(assuming it can't be diverted with a rocket), urging people in the
likely affected area to protect themselves and/or evacuate. anyone not
taking notice has only themselves to blame.

See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_...impact_effects
for an example of the degree of confidence with which the behaviour of
these things can be predicted.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I want to know who was at fault when Ann Hodges was hit by a meteorite.

Obviously it was her own fault. According to nospam we have the ability
to predict such occurrences, and the technology to divert them.

we do now.

Not really.

yes really.

we're able to launch a spacecraft and land it on a comet. we know the
paths they will take.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

What scenario ?.

the scenario above, where *you* said if he was repairing a plane engine
and his wrist band touched the battery terminals.

Well we know he was at a flying club, well that's what he said.

yes, but that part likely doesn't matter.

he didn't say he was doing anything flying related. he could have been
at a barbecue at the club for all it matters.

the question is if the watch caused the burns on his arm, and it's
clear that it's not possible for that to have happened the way he
described.

But we don;t know when this even occured.

why would when make a difference?

There was an incedent where somehow an apple watch band glowed and got
burnt
buring a person skin going by the report and the pictures.

it didn't glow. he made that up.

you don't know that you were NOT there.

there is no possible way for it to glow without a ****load of current
going through it, which is something that can't happen from a dinky
little battery or with a metal band that's thick and can handle that
much current.

even if the tiny battery could source that much current, there aren't
any external pins on the watch where the current could flow out of the
watch and through the band. there would also need to be one pin on each
end of the watch so that current flowed *through* the band rather than
just directly shorting out two pins that are side by side.

the amount of current needed to make a watch band glow is *way* more
than the tiny little battery in the watch can source and that's
assuming there's a way for that energy to get outside of the watch
casing. there are no external battery contacts.

but there are other ways in which he could have seen the band glow,
people manage to see all sorts of things.
Most people describe the sun as yellow/orange.
Some people see ghosts some see God and/or angles.

it's possible that he could have been on an acid trip and seen the band
glow. if that's the case, it sure as hell isn't anything the watch did.

Don;t forget it's the brain that interprets what you experience NOT your eyes.
we're runjning an IET christmas event tonight, such things as Ouchi Eye
Illusion. I helped test/choose the mince pies :-)

more babble.

not only that, but it would have become uncomfortably warm *long*
before it glowed.

depending on the rate of discharge. This is where battery size or rather
capacity is important and where the idea of fuses come in.

the band won't instantly go from skin temperature to glowing hot.

*if* the band made it to the point where it would glow, it would have
been rather warm long before that, then uncomfortably hot, giving him
*ample* opportunity to remove it before it caused a burn.

Until you find the cause, you don't know who or what is to blame.

i know what's not possible.

Only from your POV. and limited experience same as all of us.

it's a matter of physics.

anyone wearing metal of any kind when working with electronics

How do you know that ?

you tell me. you came up with that scenario.

Lots of married people wear rings and lots of girls wear jewlery too,
even men do. Lots of my students wear all sorts of jewlery while in the
lab
doing experiments and their pojects.

what kind of lab projects?

Mostly electronics, we have a xmas tree building project this afternoon.
Just a 9V battery as the power source. We also run software labs and projects
as welll as hardware.

9v batteries won't hurt anyone.





Driving too fast skidding and coming off the road, slipping with a
knife
and
cuttign your finger is an accident too.

both are definitely *not* an accident. it's negligence and
stupidity.

yep no such thing as an accident, no accident has ever occured in this
universe so far, yes we know, it's hardly news.

straw man.

the point is that what people call accidents are not accidents.

And some things which aren't accidents can be accidents from there POV.

only because they don't want to accept responsibility.

No an accident is something that wasn't done delibratly.
If accidetns didntl. exixst as you suggest them no laywers would be making
money from accidents would they.

red light runners do so deliberately.

that's why if a cop sees someone run a red light, the give them a
ticket.

it's easy to say "it was an accident" instead of "i didn't look" or "i
didn't take the proper precautions".

and what proper precuations should a driver take to avaiod a jet falloing
from the sky on to his car killing him. Should he have not driven on that
day, should he have not owned a car or learnt to drive what do he do wrong.

jets don't randomly fall from the sky. either maintenance ****ed up
causing a mechanical failure, the pilot ****ed up, or the plane was
shot down. none of those scenarios are accidental.

skidding off the road is driving too fast for conditions and/or not
knowing how to handle skids (it's not hard).

what if an aircraft is lading in yuor lane and teh only way to aviod it
is to
skid off the road to relitive safety rather than crashing into another
car.

aircrafts don't normally land on highways, but in the unlikely event
one does, it's because the plane had a failure and can't land at an
actual airport or a large empty field.

what if it crashes on to a car or two ?

it's still the responsibility of the pilots and those who maintained it
to not crash into things.

that something has a reason, usually improper maintenance causing a
mechanical failure.

Like the space shuttle you mean.

with challenger, nasa knew that the o-rings could fail in cold weather
yet they launched it anyway due to intense political pressure to launch
*before* ronald reagan's speech that night, where he was going to talk
about a teacher in space rather than how he ****ed over the educational
budget. there were a *lot* of people who did *not* think it was safe to
launch that day and were overruled. it was basically murder.

with columbia, nasa knew that the foam pieces which broke off during
launch would sometimes hit the shuttle and cause damage, yet they flew
anyway. they didn't fix the problem. prior to columbia, it didn't cause
a catastrophic failure, but with columbia, it did. worse, they *knew* a
bigger chunk hit the shuttle (via cameras that photographed the launch)
and mistakenly assumed all would be ok, doing nothing to assess the
actual damage during flight.

or appollo 13

apollo 13 was due a damaged oxygen tank (it had been dropped), using a
higher voltage than what the parts were designed for and damaged
wiring. that was not an accident. it was negligence and stupidity.

how about pearl harbour who ****ed up there ?

are you actually trying to claim that pearl harbor was an accident?
that was an intentional act.

What if yuo're tyre blows because someone shot at it or a nail or sharp
object punctures it ?

if someone shot at your tire, it's not an accident. that's a deliberate
act.

and if they didn;t as there are blowouts .

big deal. it's not that hard to control a car that experiences a
blowout and safely pull over. anyone who can't do that should not be
driving, as they're a risk to themselves and others.

regardless, knowing how to handle a tire blowout as well as skids and
other emergency maneuvers should be mandatory. it's required for
pilots, why isn't it required for drivers?

it is if you take the advanced driving course in the UK. Not sure about other
countries.

why is that an advanced course?? it should be required for *everyone*
and people should also be retested every time they renew their license.
if they fail, they either go back to driver training or their license
is revoked.

unfortunately, it won't happen because 'it' would be a hardship', a
hardship that ends up killing people.

self-driving cars can't happen soon enough.





It would, just like any other fuse can stop a fire or furthere damage.
Perhaps Apple should put fuses in their watchs.

a fuse *can't* stop a battery that ignited. the battery has an internal
failure and goes boom.

What caused it to go boom, they don't normally go boom by themselves without
a reason.

internal failure due to manufacturing errors.

sometimes lithium batteries are recalled because they are known to have
a manufacturing defect.

a fuse is just more stuff to burn.

No, it should vapourise not burn.

more word games.

yes a fuse would stop current flowing which would prevent the battery
from providing enough current to start any form of heating.

lithium ion battery combustion has nothing to do with current flow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion



hit a lithium battery with a hammer and enjoy the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpcyzaFcQJA

Yopu class that as an accident ?

whoosh.

the point is that a lithium battery can combust *without* any current
flowing with or without a fuse to pop.

if the there is an internal failure, it can (and sometimes does) go
boom all by itself. it doesn't even need to be connected to anything.

what causes lithium battery fires is an internal failure in the battery
itself. often, the batteries swell before they go boom.

what makes them swell ?

internal failure.


Why do Apple put fuses in their chargers if tehy don;t do anyhting ?

so that the charger doesn't burn out.

So why are there fuses in plugs, and why would an Apple charger burn out ?

put a paper clip across the charger terminals and find out

Do they make faulty chargers that burn out.

some do

even a tiny burning battery can cause a burn.

Does the battery in the apple watch count as a tiny battery ?

very tiny.