Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickhanlonii | Hacker News Reader

Blowing something up--even for only the sake of seeing what happens (exclusive of malicious intent)--is at it's core a scientific endeavor. From DNLee at the Scientific American blog[1]:

>I can’t name a single scientist or engineer, who hadn’t blown up, ripped apart, disassembled something at home or otherwise cause a big ruckus at school all in the name of curiosity, myself included. Science is not a clean. It is very messy and it is riddled with mistakes and mishaps.

I think it's time we start making a distinction between an explosion which is made with the motivation of violence and destruction, and just explosions.

[1]: http://goo.gl/8Lpp2

View on HN

My highschool physics teacher used to say that children are the world's youngest scientists. Every time they throw something, drop their food on the floor, climb something, fall down, etc. they are conducting an experiment to study the laws of physics.

So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, just curiosity to 'see what happens', so by your logic I should be square right?

Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'?

There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.

>Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent,

I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't.

>Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work,

That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.

Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.

It was your idea. You were blowing things way out of proportion too, and I don't really mean it. I'm sorry. Now come down from there.

If you knew inhaling anthrax powder would kill you, why did you suggest it in the first place?

To be fair, it wouldn't kill all of us to do such an experiment. Not that anyone would think it was a good idea either way. So even assuming the other comment was telling you to "kill yourself" is dishonest on your part.

> Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.

No, lots of public commentary is condemning her for what she did but not want to see her entire future destroyed by federal conviction. Even if she's acquitted it's traumatic and destructive.

It's the kind of thing that could have been dealt with entirely within the school.

I was referring mainly to Hacker News and similar communities. Everybody condemning her has been downvoted to oblivion on these threads.

I condemned her for what she did, but I also said that it was stupid for the school to involve police, and that it was something that should have been dealt with in school.

I was not downvoted.

Comparing a pipe bomb to a plastic bottle pressure "bomb" is like comparing a gun shot to a nerf dart.

Most of the backlash comes from the over reaction of the school and the DA. While her decision was not wise and definitely had some risk, I do not know exactly how she cared out this demonstration so the amount or risk is rather unknown to me, she is faced with punishment that could reasonably cripple her future.

To answer these questions in the order they were posed: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Yes, if you're curious what a pipe bomb explosion would be like, then I think you should investigate that curiosity safely with safeguards in place.

If you want to 'see what happens' with anthrax, then by all means you should study its properties at your desk at work--inside a laboratory--with safeguards in place.

And if you want to see what happens when you combine two chemicals in a science class, then by all means. I think students should be able to reasonably assume that the safeguards are in place. Because if we're giving our children materials to build the equivalent of a pipe bomb in science class, then that is our fault. We're the adults. We bring the safeguards, and they bring the scientific curiosity.

And by the way, a discussion of recklessly carrying out science is independent of a discussion of whether an act can be scientific in nature.

Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

You're completely ignoring the context and scale. She put some household chemicals in a soda bottle that caused a minor explosion. You're attempting to compare that to highly controlled biological weapons.

Do you really think it's justified to charge her with a felony?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com