The liquid inside boiled to steam and the container (glass bottle) was not strong enough to contain it. It burst, sending shards of glass into the microwave. None came out the other side, but it deformed the structure of the microwave and broke it.

Also, don't put your phone in gas oven, or on a hot griddle.

Similarly, don't touch anything hot enough to cook, and don't stick a knife into your gut.

For all we now, dark matter (the most common form of matter), which we have never seen or studied, has variations as significant as normal matter, and therefore can support life, but only inside very radioactive areas, where they can feed.

Not to mention we really need to to take a look at a couple of the ice moons and see if life does well living on moon with a frozen surface and a hot core providing energy. That could very well be the most common form of life sustaining location in the universe, and it could very well survive in places where atmospheric planets like earth could not.

The very best we can do is make an estimate on where DNA based life forms may thrive on atmospheric planets..

When they try to use the scientific method to prove intelligent design, global warming is a hoax, or that vaccines cause autism. My favorite "Big Pharma" conspiracy (as offered up by cracked.com), is that:

Big Pharma has secretly funded Jenny McCarthy to create the anti-vax movement because they make pennies on vaccines, but thousands on treating people that get the actual disease.

Is slavery wrong?

Is the First Amendment a good idea?

Is the Second Amendment a good idea?

Are civil/gay/religious rights a good idea?

Etc. etc. Important things matter and people care about them. That's why we call them 'important'.

Look, lets say I have a test that determines who who should go to Harvard and who should go to community college. If the test says 41% of people should go to Harvard, that is useless.

If 41% of people are experience activity X, than that means that X is NOT THAT BAD. Otherwise people would take steps to avoid that experience.

Say we were were talking about people getting "Cragled" in Central Park. If 41% of people are getting "Cragled" in Central Park, than one of two possibilities:

Either "Cragled" is a horrible thing, and the newspapers are going to immediately start reporting about it, while cops stake out Central Park, and everyone in the world refusing to go into Central Park. If that does not happen, than that means that "Cragled" is not such a bad thing.

Most importantly, Sexual Assault suffers from psychological issues. The same activity could be called 'flirting" if both people like it, while it is Sexual Assault under other circumstances.

If you are not bothered by the activity, then it is flirting. If you are bothered by it, it becomes sexual assualt.

More importantly, ridiculously paranoid people do not have the right to stop those of us that like to flirt from flirting, simply because you can't tell the difference between flirting and sexual assault. If neither of me nor the girl I am flirting with at work are bothered by the behavior, then let us do it and stop trying to call us nasty names and kill our fun.

Rape is RAPE, Consensual sex is CONSENSUAL SEX, and the same goes for Sexual Harassment and Flirting. The mere fact that you can't tell the difference does not mean the rest of us have to stop doing the things we like to do.

2) If the men have a significant response rate, then just maybe that means the problem is YOUR QUESTION IS TOO VAGUE, rather than both genders experiencing sexual issues.

The mere fact that this article claims that 40+% of men experience 'sexual harassment', proves that their definition of 'sexual harassment' is not reasonable - the kind of thing only a PC fool trying to prove a problem exists would use.

Similarly, 6% of men experience sexual assault seems on the high side, though not as ridiculous as the 41% claiming harassment.

The only thing going on here is idiots using bad definitions for their poll.

Grapes are round, so it is not a surprise that people slip on the rolling grape, rather than slip on a slippery surface.

1) Total lack of ethics - and the resources to get away with murdering thousands of human test subjects along the way.

2) Suicidal tendencies - not just for individuals, but for the funding group. Because any realistically dangerous weapon will have a good probability of killing it's creators first, and a very high probability of killing it's creators in the long term (either directly, by evolution, or by revenge nuclear attacks.

3) You still need Highly intelligent and highly trained people involved. Most of whom lack Suicidal tendencies.

This armegeddon scenario is actually far more likely than a nuclear war, as that requires far more people to behave far more stupidly and unlike nanite fears, is actually physically reasonable.

All the data that they are afraid cars will give out are already given out by people's phones.

So, basically exactly the same situation that we already have.

Decreasing excess human population. That's what is good for.

And we have quite a few potential human population decreases being set up right now - ISIS and Russia are just waiting to decrease some extra human population.