Hacker News Reader

Comment by msandford | Hacker News Reader

Does it really piss anyone else off when people call them dry ice "bombs?" I get unreasonably upset.

Wikipedia: A bomb is any of a range of explosive weapons that only rely on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide an extremely sudden and violent release of energy (an explosive device).

I don't think anybody who knows what an "exothermic reaction" is would suggest that dry ice sublimating is a reaction. It's a phase change, sure, but it's not a reaction. The CO2 ended up with the same charge it started with and it didn't bond or unbond with anything. In my book that means no chemical reaction.

What happened was the malicious failure of inadequate pressure vessels.

View on HN

> I don't think anybody who knows what an "exothermic reaction" is would suggest that dry ice sublimating is a reaction. It's a phase change, sure, but it's not a reaction.

This is being overly pedantic. What if the "inadequate pressure vessel" contained shrapnel that exploded out with the pressure change. Would it still not be a "bomb" because there was no chemical change involved?

I completely disagree.

Saying these things "detonated" is like the Gen Alexander stating that the NSA spying program stopped over 50 plots to to attack the country. We later found out that this was only true for scenarios where "attack" is defined as "transferring money."

They are purposefully overstating the threat. It's not like the TSA has an overabundance of examples that justify it's existance.

The term bomb overall is wrong. A bomb is a military weapon with a number of specifications.

A bottle filled with dry ice is a probably human-carried improvised explosive device. The complete explosive device might have shrapnels, it might not, it might be big, it might be small. That needs to be specified further, because explosive devices include a very large group of devices.

After learning that distinction, I found it rather adaequate. If a proper bomb went off in LAX, we'd be looking at a lot of rubble. When WW2 bombs are disarmed over here in germany, square kilometers are evacuated due to the danger of bombs. This is not necessarily the case for most improvised explosive devices.

And if I purposely inflate a party balloon too far? If I smack an inflated brown paper bag? Would you defend describing those things as "bombs" as well?

If it contains shrapnel, and if the discharge is forceful enough to cause injury from the shrapnel, yes.

> What happened was the malicious failure of inadequate pressure vessels. Technically correct, but this quite accurately describes every bomb that isn't just naked plastic explosive / C4.

I do agree it's unfortunate that these devices get called bombs, but only because that word has too strong connotations. It isn't wrong: A bottle filled with dry ice is an "explosive device". The fact that it does not rely on an exothermal chemical reaction is secondary (albeit not irrelevant!): Else what would you call atomic bombs?

Also, let's not forget that these things could have caused injuries. Nobody might have died, but I sure wouldn't want one of these going off in my stall. (Plastic shrapnel and ripped eardrums, anyone?)

> what would you call atomic bombs?

Weapons of Mass Destruction. Which also includes chemical and biological weapons.

Or if you're a politician you can call it a "nuclear device", which means you can refer to a crude dirty bomb and inspire the same kind of fear.

I used to make crude dirty bombs (barf bombs) in grade school. Gallon milk jug with vinegar, baking soda, and oatmeal. (add corn for better looking barf) Mix, shake, and throw.

Seems the word's origins are rooted in a definition of noise. Granted, words change; perhaps a definition based on "exothermic reaction" is most appropriate now. Certainly destructive power is often connoted with the word these days.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bomb

I'm happy mail bombs don't rely on 'the exothermic reaction of an explosive material'.

There are more meanings to a word 'bomb' than Wikipedia tells you. Besides, Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. So until an expert moderator moderates the page the truth of Wikipedia is democratic.

I've never heard of something called a mail bomb that didn't rely on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material. Citation?

Well if they said "popped some dry ice balloons at LAX" people would not be fearful that their safety was in danger. But that is exactly what they are, balloons not bombs.

My guess is that most people aren't phased by common usage, regardless of technical accuracy.

What should we call a "fork bomb" then?

An explosive cyberweapon, no doubt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com