EPTThis one in particular is pretty nice (Charge IPOD WITH ONION):
Will it really work that easy? Will it mess up the USB cord at all?
This one too (REPAIR SCRATCHES ON DVD/CD):
http://householdhacker.com
PS- lol
HouseHold Hacker (legit?)
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
This one in particular is pretty nice (Charge IPOD WITH ONION): Will it really work that easy? Will it mess up the USB cord at all? This one too (REPAIR SCRATCHES ON DVD/CD): http://householdhacker.com PS- lol | ||
|
sigma_x
Australia285 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9568 Posts
| ||
|
Terranlisk
Singapore1404 Posts
| ||
|
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
obvious BS | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On April 13 2008 18:58 Latham wrote: I can actually vouch that it's true. I mean if you're trying to fix a huge gash on a CD then obviously it won't work, but I've been using toothpaste to fix minor to medium scratches on CD/DVD's for years and it always worked (I don't know shit about chemistry so I don't know how it works, but it does). One time my friend bought a bunch of used xbox and PS2 games but some of them kept freezing at the start screen, I told him about the toothpaste trick and they all ran smoothly.The fixing CD thingy... I so want to call bullshit on that! But my friend uses toothpaste alone and it removes/fills up the scrathes so... =\ Edit: shit, I should've read that more carefully. I didn't actually watch that video (only saw the first and last one). I assumed they were talking about using toothpaste to fix scratches and you were calling bs on it. Edit2: ok...apparently I didn't misread...or maybe I did...ehh w/e, main point: it's not BS. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20140 Posts
and on the CD one, the CD goes off the screen for a bit so im kind of skeptical | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
Don't make me laugh. | ||
|
Latham
9568 Posts
On April 14 2008 01:13 Falcynn wrote: I can actually vouch that it's true. I mean if you're trying to fix a huge gash on a CD then obviously it won't work, but I've been using toothpaste to fix minor to medium scratches on CD/DVD's for years and it always worked (I don't know shit about chemistry so I don't know how it works, but it does). One time my friend bought a bunch of used xbox and PS2 games but some of them kept freezing at the start screen, I told him about the toothpaste trick and they all ran smoothly. Edit: shit, I should've read that more carefully. I didn't actually watch that video (only saw the first and last one). I assumed they were talking about using toothpaste to fix scratches and you were calling bs on it. Edit2: ok...apparently I didn't misread...or maybe I did...ehh w/e, main point: it's not BS. LOL yeah I know that toothpaste alone works =P my friend did that with his AoE 2 disc and it worked. The part that I'm calling bullshit is adding peanut butter, baking soda and coca-cola lol. As you may have noticed the CD goes off the screen for about 3-4s so he might have replaced it easily. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
gusbear, anyone with basic scientific knowledge will know that you have to test it before you can say that. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
And gusbear, there was a time when anybody with basic scientific knowledge would have said that the world was flat, some times expected results do not match actual results...all I am saying. | ||
|
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 14 2008 02:36 CDRdude wrote: The best way to fix CD's and DVD's is with 2 apples, some sawdust, and a table saw. Really, it works perfectly, even on Blu-ray discs. You had me until table saw...  | ||
|
Asta
Germany3491 Posts
On April 14 2008 02:33 Lemonwalrus wrote: And gusbear, there was a time when anybody with basic scientific knowledge would have said that the world was flat, some times expected results do not match actual results...all I am saying. I haven't watched the video and don't know what this is about but that's a stupid argument... As if this show or whatever left the realm of what's been scientifically explored.  | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
EDIT: Any prickishness gathered from this post is entirely unintended. :p | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On April 14 2008 02:36 CDRdude wrote: The best way to fix CD's and DVD's is with 2 apples, some sawdust, and a table saw. Really, it works perfectly, even on Blu-ray discs. Instead of a table saw I use military grade anti-personnel lasers. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
The best part was when they just jammed the USB plug into it. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
noobienoob
United States1173 Posts
so does it matter if you use crunchy peanut butter!? cuz i like crunchy peanut butter edit: MY BAD DIET SODA cuz like theres a BIG DIFFERENCE I'M GANNA GO TRY THIS NOW! + Show Spoiler [edit2] + and LOL at the Coke Bottle with the notes hahahahahaha i loved how you couldn't even read what it said at the end lmao | ||
|
Dr.Dragoon
United States1241 Posts
On April 14 2008 03:48 DamageControL wrote: So uh how do you remove scratches with toothpaste? Just rub it around? I also want to know. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On April 14 2008 02:52 Lemonwalrus wrote: much like it would be hard to believe that two explosively flammable gases, hydrogen and oxygen, could combine to form an inflammable liquid, but they do. I'm not sure where to start on this one. First off, "inflammable" means "flammable", not "nonflammable". That's a dangerous mistake to make, and too dangerous to let slide. Oxygen isn't flammable. Burning is a reaction with oxygen. Oxygen doesn't react explosively with oxygen. By definition, nothing is flammable after it has burned completely. So, okay, if you knew nothing of hydrogen or water, it might be a little surprising if its combustion product was a liquid. Of course, the immediate product of combustion is actually water vapour, a gas. Like most compounds, water can exist in solid, liquid, or gas form depending on the temperature and pressure. So really, without having any specific knowledge of hydrogen or water aside from their most obvious physical properties, there is nothing surprising about hydrogen combustion producing water, which is nonflammable and is a gas at combustion temperatures, but turns out to be liquid at room temperature and sea level pressure. These videos exist to make fun of you for not understanding things like this. I know you want to clap yourself on the back for your openmindedness, but openmindedness is often born of ignorance. If you knew more science, you'd be able to laugh these things off. You don't need to make a specific experiment to see that water won't burn, or that jamming a USB plug into the side of an onion soaked in gatorade won't power it (in this case, it's not even knowledge of chemistry you need, but of the simplest principles of forming an electric circuit). | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
And as for the inflammable thing, my bad, I honestly thought inflammable meant non-flammable. (Like indestructible = not able to be destroyed.) And I also admit that I used the improper adjectives to describe oxygen, although I think at this point you are being a bit nit-picky. And, as shrouded as it was, just fyi, I did pick up on the underhanded jab hidden in your openmindedness sentence. I am relatively sure that all of these videos are complete crap, but...meh, whatever, I'm done, thanks for being respectful while calling me a dunce, at least. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
The word "inflammable" came from Latin inflammāre = "to set fire to", where the prefix in- means "in" as in "inside" (compare English "in flames"). But there have been instances of people thinking that this "in-" prefix means "not" as in "invisible" and "incombustible" etc, and thus wrongly thinking that "inflammable" means "cannot burn". To avoid this safety hazard, the shortened word "flammable" has come into use in recent years. At this point the word "inflammable, due to its confusing prefix, pretty much means non-flammable. Funchucks, I wouldn't say it was that dangerous of a mistake now days, when the word flammable has basically replaced it. Next time you're driving by a gas truck look for any markings, guaranteed somewhere it will have a picture of fire and the word "flammable" | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On April 14 2008 04:48 HeadBangaa wrote: How do you measure the polarity of an onion Look through it at sunlight reflecting off of water and turn it. The angle where all of the light passes through it is the positive terminal. The angle where none of the light passes through is the negative terminal. | ||
|
noobienoob
United States1173 Posts
On April 14 2008 05:06 sith wrote: That's wiki for you! Try a real dictionary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability At this point the word "inflammable, due to its confusing prefix, pretty much means non-flammable. Funchucks, I wouldn't say it was that dangerous of a mistake now days, when the word flammable has basically replaced it. Next time you're driving by a gas truck look for any markings, guaranteed somewhere it will have a picture of fire and the word "flammable" edit: nvm I read what it said in wiki, you're correct in your own way, my bad edit@below: hooookay go read the definitions again i was giving you the benefit of the doubt but you just failed there inflammable still doesn't mean non-flammable. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On April 14 2008 05:13 noobienoob wrote: That's wiki for you! Try a real dictionary. edit: nvm I read what it said in wiki, you're correct in your own way, my bad dictionary.com —Usage note Inflammable and flammable both mean “combustible.” Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means “noncombustible.” Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd. Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary Inflammable is derived ultimately from the Latin prefix "in-", and the noun "flamma" (flame). There is another prefix in-, however which English also borrowed from Latin, that meants "not", and the word inflammable can be misunderstood as meaning "not capable of burning". In order to eliminate possibly dangerous confusion about the combustibility of various materials, safety officialis in the 20th centery have adopted the term flammable to mean "able to burn". Wikipedia > You | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
The word "inflammable" used to be a common one, meaning "flammable." It is still written on many older signs and labels, and in older books, laws, and regulations, always meaning "flammable." It is important to understand this meaning correctly. Many people are ignorant of this fact, but this does not make their misunderstanding correct. It is never correct or acceptable to use "inflammable" to mean "nonflammable." It is best to use "flammable" rather than "inflammable" to avoid confusing ignorant people. There is no conflict between these rules. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
In my assumption though (I'm just making shit up and have no scientific facts to base this on so if you want to call bs on this next part, feel free to do so but try not to be demeaning please) I'd guess that something in the toothpaste is able to fill up the cracks while allowing the laser to skim over the section and not get hung up over it. Hence why it works mostly with minor scratches. As for why all the items in the video might help with more severe scratches, maybe the peanut butter has something in it (natural oils, minerals or something) that along with the toothpaste is able to fill in larger gaps and allow the laser to read it smoothly. While the soda dissolves the top layer (or bottom layer depending on how you choose to see it) making the cracks even less noticeable, and less likely for the laser to get caught on them. Edit: Also reading through the youtube comments, some people seem to be saying that it's only the toothpaste doing all the work, and all the extra shit is just to make it appear more magical than it actually is. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
I doubt people are actually polishing the scratches right out with toothpaste, but they're probably at least smoothing the sharp edges off, so they don't affect the light beam as much. Another thing that helps DVDs is to fill the scratches with wax. Waxy furniture polish is often recommended, but I've had luck just rubbing candles on the scratches. | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6774 Posts
Simpsons' dr Nick anyone? | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
LeGeNdZs[FcG]
Canada163 Posts
| ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On April 14 2008 05:31 Funchucks wrote: sith, I don't think you're grasping the difference between a common misconception which must be taken into account to avoid confusion, and an accepted meaning. The word "inflammable" used to be a common one, meaning "flammable." It is still written on many older signs and labels, and in older books, laws, and regulations, always meaning "flammable." It is important to understand this meaning correctly. Many people are ignorant of this fact, but this does not make their misunderstanding correct. It is never correct or acceptable to use "inflammable" to mean "nonflammable." It is best to use "flammable" rather than "inflammable" to avoid confusing ignorant people. There is no conflict between these rules. It's not correct but it is used. In common conversation if my friend said his inflammable I would probably take that to mean it's not flammable. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On April 14 2008 06:39 5HITCOMBO wrote: The CD one works for sure. I don't know why everyone is so dubious of it just because it's on the internet. The toothpaste works, if you choose the right kind of toothpaste, although it doesn't make the CD surface "good as new." The rest of it does nothing. He even used the wrong kind of toothpaste (I think... it's hard to see exactly what he has). Gel doesn't work. You want an abrasive paste. It's a joke. He switched CDs offscreen. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
On April 14 2008 07:01 fusionsdf wrote: I was really hoping for infinite solutions yea lol that series was funnier imo. some people will probably watch it and think its real just like HH and thats just srsly sad. I always thought the tl community was well educated esp with the anti religion threads. | ||
|
Mandalor
Germany2362 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On April 14 2008 07:15 gusbear wrote: yea lol that series was funnier imo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioal_-iqDLg some people will probably watch it and think its real just like HH and thats just srsly sad. I always thought the tl community was well educated esp with the anti religion threads. I dont think any with access to a microwave could be stupid enough to believe that one. Microwaving a bannana for 2-3 minutes can reverse the aging process? lol | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
Most toothpaste contains abrasives (for obvious reasons, the 'whitening' ones of course work better). The same can be said with most commercial polish compounds. For years in model car making people used toothpaste as a cheap alternative as a rough, starting polisher, and use finer compounds later. So it is no surprise toothpaste can remove/reduce scratches since it works like a gentle sandpaper (better with a damp cloth). As for the onion gatorade battery...i have my doubts. Besides, if the cost of material is more expensive than the item it is supposed to replace (battery) then it is not a hack, it is retarded. | ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On April 14 2008 05:11 Funchucks wrote: Look through it at sunlight reflecting off of water and turn it. The angle where all of the light passes through it is the positive terminal. The angle where none of the light passes through is the negative terminal. and straight on till morning? wtf did you say, made no sense. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
!BigBlind!
69 Posts
Anyone who thinks inflammable means not flammable is an idiot. | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
On April 13 2008 18:58 Latham wrote: The fixing CD thingy... I so want to call bullshit on that! But my friend uses toothpaste alone and it removes/fills up the scrathes so... =\ Yeah some people I know use lotion. It does work. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 15 2008 01:56 !BigBlind! wrote: This is all fake. Anyone who thinks inflammable means not flammable is an idiot. Howso? I mean, I know now that it doesn't, but that is because of a Latin translation that is anything but well-known. The prefix 'in' generally means the opposite of the word it is in front of. The fact that they are now reverting back to flammable due to confusion should show you that it is a very common mistake, and therefore either A, the vast majority of people that aren't you are idiots, or B, you are making a gross generalization based on faulty logic. I am going with option B. | ||
|
!BigBlind!
69 Posts
On April 15 2008 02:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: Howso? I mean, I know now that it doesn't, but that is because of a Latin translation that is anything but well-known. The prefix 'in' generally means the opposite of the word it is in front of. The fact that they are now reverting back to flammable due to confusion should show you that it is a very common mistake, and therefore either A, the vast majority of people that aren't you are idiots, or B, you are making a gross generalization based on faulty logic. I am going with option B. The prefix "in" doesn't usually mean the opposite. The majority of people are idiots. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 15 2008 07:06 !BigBlind! wrote: The prefix "in" doesn't usually mean the opposite. http://www.iee.et.tu-dresden.de/~wernerr/grammar/prefixes_eng.html I am sorry, but you sir, are incorrect. | ||
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Why does TL so often argue semantics? Don't you mean TL.net? or perhaps.. Team Liquid? | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On April 15 2008 11:46 L wrote: Edit: I should remember to actually read the post before commenting.Don't you mean TL.net? or perhaps.. Team Liquid? | ||
|
Scaramanga
Australia8091 Posts
On April 15 2008 07:37 mikeymoo wrote: Why does TL so often argue semantics? Gives us something to do before we watch more starcraft matches, my bad for bumping | ||
|
NoNameLoser
United States1508 Posts
now powering TV with a AAA battery... ok maybe. My favorite so far: using ipod as a teaser by playing some superimposed electomagnetic tunes... man someone has to try it out so i can sleep. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20140 Posts
| ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On May 21 2008 13:45 NoNameLoser wrote: yeah the onion one had me until he just whacked usb port in there. But on another thought, usb interior connectors are gold plated and exterior is iron so it just might work. now powering TV with a AAA battery... ok maybe. My favorite so far: using ipod as a teaser by playing some superimposed electomagnetic tunes... man someone has to try it out so i can sleep. you can't use gold and iron as a combination in voltaic cells i don't think, gold is wayyyy too inert. | ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
| ||
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
"Pirvate video" | ||
|
OmgIRok
Taiwan2699 Posts
That guy hacks and he's gonna do some shit tomorrow | ||
|
aeroH
United States1034 Posts
| ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
| ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
| ||
| ||
