BoredCop t1_jdll2n8 wrote

Never is a long time.

What usually happens is, a government collections agency tries to collect on behalf of the victim and forwards any money they manage to get. Because this is a government service funded by taxpayers, the collection process doesn't cost anything for the victim. They will check for any assets such as property, vehicles, bank accounts etc in the convict's name and collect from that if possible unless the convict pays within a certain time.

If this fails because there are no assets, and if there's no current income to garnish, they put collections on hold until such time as there is something. If/when the thief gets a job or receives other income (including welfare), they'll start collecting by garnishing the wages. They don't take so much that the convict has nothing left to live on, however, as that would only force them to commit more crimes.

The statute on such collection doesn't run out until 10 years and can be extended, extensions are routinely granted. So if the thief turns his life around and gets a job at some point in the future, the victim might begin to receive a trickle of reparation money long after the sentence.

As a practical matter, almost everyone has insurance so the thief ends up owing the insurance company for ever while the victim gets damages covered by insurance.


BoredCop t1_jdljur4 wrote

Depends on jurisdiction, I guess.

Here in Norway it is customary to file for damages in addition to the punishment, so the sentence may say "two months in prison plus pay X amount to victim A and Y amount to victim B.

The problem, of course, is that they rarely have any money or assets worth anything so there's nothing to recover for damages.


BoredCop t1_jdlja01 wrote

They don't care what it costs to the victim, only what it can gain for themselves. And yes, damages often greatly exceed the market value of the stolen goods.

Also, some thieves will misguidedly attempt anti-forensics such as hosing the place down with a fire extinguisher thinking it makes it harder to collect fingerprints or DNA. A few years ago we caught one burglary gang who routinely pepper sprayed any area they thought they had left finger prints on, leaving the unpleasant cleanup for the homeowners. Thieves do weird and destructive stuff that doesn't always make sense to someone who isn't out of his mind on drugs.


BoredCop t1_jbngd4b wrote

They are designed to allow safe blasting on site, if the materials would not be safe to transport. Or, to allow safe transport of otherwise unsafe materials.

But yes, if the fireworks were known safe then transporting tem would be the best option. And if they were not known safe, then controlled detonation in smaller amounts per blast would have been perfect. Just filling it up until there wasn't room for more was the moronic part.


BoredCop t1_j7jxhpy wrote

Throwing stars, nunchaku and a bunch of other stupid mall ninja shit got banned in several countries back in the 80's and early 90's.

Reason: affordable VHS players and popular rental videos, showcasing violent use of such "exotic" weapons, led to a public scare about Asian martial arts and obscure weapons somehow being a threat to society.

This was the heyday of the "Karate film", and also largely coinciding with "Satanic panic". People had previously been rather sheltered against outside cultural influence, had poor critical thinking skills, and suddenly kids everywhere were having fun throwing dangerous-looking homemade metal star thingies at every wooden wall or fence in sight. I'm not kidding, we had several of the more rowdy boys at school making throwing stars and nunchucks in shop class (we still had metal- and woodworking classes in school back then) and promptly getting in trouble for vandalism and/or injuring themselves.

While a sane and sensible solution should be better parenting, this was a time (both for better and for worse) when kids routinely spent many hours per day outdoors unsupervised without their parents having the slightest idea where they might be (because no mobile phones yet). So the opportunity for kids to do mischief was great, and the temptation for adult society to "do something" and simply ban the mostly useless "weapon toys" was equally great.


BoredCop t1_j6aoncb wrote

Extremely dumb, you never ever put down a loaded weapon like that. No reason whatsoever to have a round in the chamber before being outside the car and having both hands on the rifle, muzzle pointing in a safe direction.

The headline shouldn't be "dog shoots man", it should be "man negligently fails to clear weapon".


BoredCop t1_j65r2fq wrote

Not really vapor loss, but there typically is some loss to oxidation. Alu binds very tightly to oxygen, which is also the reason why it takes so much energy to refine from ore in the first place. Aluminium exposed to air instantly forms a thin oxide layer, which is a bit more difficult to recycle than "just melt it". Pretty sure even this oxide dross is worth recycling though, it's basically very high grade ore.


BoredCop t1_j63nx60 wrote

That first one is laughable, it is from a biased source and is intentionally rigged to produce the desired result. They present it as if the overpressure relief valve is the only probable leak point, and set it up to immediately ignite before any real volume of gas has time to mix with air. It's like lighting a gas range in a kitchen immediately after opening the valve, and claiming this proves it would be safe to let gas leak out for half an hour and then light a match in the same kitchen. Of course you get no explosion when you carefully make sure the conditions needed for an explosion don't occur, by igniting immediately at the leakage site.

The second one is more interesting. Here, they do in fact allow the gas to mix with air for a few seconds before ignition. However, these tests used liquid hydrogen at a much lower temperature than the gaseous phase cold compressed hydrogen we are discussing here. Liquid hydrogen is seriously cold, and only boils off to gas phase at a slow rate depending on how much heat energy it can absorb from the surroundings. In that sense liquid hydrogen it is rather similar to liquid gasoline; it's the gas that burns not the liquid. You'll note none of the spill experiments in that video involved pressure vessels rupturing or pressurised fuel lines breaking, it was all liquid hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. That makes a huge difference in how rapidly it mixes with air. The very low temperature also slows down the reaction when it is ignited, compared to igniting gas that's a hundred degrees warmer.


BoredCop t1_j63k2ed wrote

I'm fully aware of that. Makes no difference to degree of risk, only to wether it will accumulate along the floor or along the ceiling in a garage or a tunnel.

There are reasons why an old name for hydrogen in some languages is "knallgass" or variants of same, it translates as "bang gas" and refers to its explosive tendencies.

There are reasons for why you're supposed to connect and disconnect the charger or jumper cables in a certain order when dealing with a car that has a flat lead-acid battery, and make the final connection to chassis ground away from the battery. Such batteries can create and leak hydrogen via electrolysis, and explosions are a known hazard. The act of connecting jumper cables can create enough of a spark to set it off, as many people have experienced.

Basically, the explosive hazard of hydrogen gas is well known and has been for over a century. Your claiming otherwise cannot change the facts.


BoredCop t1_j63ejdy wrote

Tell me you've never responded to a fire, without telling me you've never responded to a fire.

I'm a cop, I have seen the immediate aftermath of many fires including ones that involve flammable liquids and gases. And I've been around many a wrecked car with gasoline leaking out. The only times on my watch that we've had real ka-Boom explosive fires involved pressurised gases, such as propane. Conversely, we've had arsonists intentionally starting fires with gasoline only to have the fire self extinguish after using up the available oxygen in a room.

A gas that completely mixes with air in a second or two is much more likely to ignite than a puddle of fuel on the ground. Especially so when the gas in question has a very wide range of ignitable fuel-air mixtures, as is the case for hydrogen.

Sure, the hydrogen fire will "not stay in place". Nice euphemism for "blow up the whole garage".


BoredCop t1_j63cgpz wrote

Liquid fuels are nowhere near as explosive as compressed hydrogen gas.

For one thing, hydrogen has much wider explosion limits than gasoline so explosions can happen in a wider range of fuel/air mixtures.

The main difference, however, is that liquids are liquid while compressed gasses are compressed gases. By which I mean, if you spill gasoline on the ground it merely forms a very non-explosive puddle and slowly evaporates. It's the mix of vapour and air that is potentially explosive. If you get a hydrogen leak, the pressure makes it rapidly expand and mix with air so you get nearly complete mixing with air almost instantly. A liquid leak just drips down under gravity. A compressed gas leak jets out at high velocity and turbulently mixes with air. Big, big difference in explosion hazard.


BoredCop t1_j2c9135 wrote

Some plates get hot in microwaves, and shouldn't be used in them. Other plates don't absorb microwaves and stay cool.

The difference is mainly in the type of clay used to make the ceramic plates (there's also some types of plastic that shouldn't be used in microwaves, but that's another topic). Clays that contain a lot of iron oxide, which tends to make for a dark reddish-brown colour though that may be covered by glaze, are especially bad for microwaving. Plates made from such clay can get very hot, and in the process they absorb a lot of the microwave energy instead of letting it go into the food. Hence, the food doesn't warm up as much as you expect.

Microwaves sort of bounce around inside the oven, reflecting off the metal walls, until they hit something that absorb them. That something then gets heated up. Glass and some types of ceramic (porcelain) are transparent to microwaves, just like glass is transparent to visible light. So if the microwave hits such a plate, it just goes right through and bounces off the oven floor. That wave then has a good chance to hit the food.

Plates made from red clay with lots of iron oxide, or that are glazed with some color made with a lot of metal or metal oxides, are opaque to microwaves and absorb them much like black paint is opaque to visual light and absorbs it. If a microwave hits such a plate, it gets absorbed and heats the plate instead of having a chance to heat the food.


BoredCop t1_ix8gobv wrote

You don't really slow the rotor, changing its speed would likely bring other problems as well. You change the pitch of the blades instead, for the same effect but in a more controllable fashion with quicker response than changing RPM.

As for doing that to compensate for weight reduction while firing, I suspect it is irrelevant because they're actively steering the aircraft all the time anyway and the weight difference isn't that great. Plus it would usually be bad tactics to shoot while absolutely motionless, you'd be an easy target if hovering.


BoredCop t1_iv8otkh wrote

Coins back then were made of silver, and had value as precious metal irrespective of minting. They would commonly cut coins up into smaller pieces to make change. So the foreign coin at the the time would be perfectly good for use at home, they wouldn't have treated coins any different from other silver pieces used for trade.