Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

Because everyone knows the right and moral thing to do, is quietly pretend that concentration camps don't exist and never have.

Of course you should follow all the standard safety rules, like switching off the heavy machinery and putting a lock on the switch, or running the machine at 1/10th speed when testing. But (wink wink nudge nudge) probably nobody would notice if you didn't. And (wink wink nudge nudge) we're losing a lot of money with this machine out of commission, you wouldn't want us to lose a bunch of money would you?

I suppose it could also have been plain human error. I've known some pretty dumb people with a total disregard for their own safety and/or the safety of others.

Hahahahaha heheheh lol hahahahahahaha lolololololol hahahahahah. I'm sure the kids will learn tons from this.

Every time nuclear power comes up someone blames environmentalists for the industry's problems -- in this case before the problems have manifested. It's an article of faith.

So far as I can see there's only ever been one plant in the US that's ever been cancelled for environmental concerns is the proposed plant at Bodega Harbor, which as you can see on the map would have been right on top of the San Andreas fault. In every other case projects have been shut down after serious miscalculations in the industry's economic forecasting (e.g. lower energy prices in the 80s than anticipated in the 70s), often exacerbated by poor project management performance. In those cases environmentalists were just a convenient scapegoat for management screw-ups.

You can see that because after the very largest anti-nuclear protests in history -- against Seabrook in NH and Diablo Canyon -- the plants were built and put into operation anyway. If a company had a plant under construction that it could make money operating, that plant would get built, even if thirty thousand people turned out to protest.

No, you have it backwards. Compressive force of 30 atmospheres is a very different beast than tensile force of 30 atmospheres. Think balloon vs submarine.

Just for fun, I calculated what the weight would be for a balloon of the same size of the article (78,000 m^3) but coated with 1 inch of steel. The best you can get is spherical, radius 26.5 m, which would have a surface area of 8,800 m^2 and with 1 inch of steel weigh 1,800,000 kg. And that is just the outer surface -- though to be fair, the weight of air contained within wouldn't be that much. Also, at those numbers you'd need 31 atmospheres of pressure or so worth of (hot) Venusian atmosphere to equal the weight of the outer hull, so I have my doubts about being able to be at 1 atmosphere.

The main problem I see is that you have seconds to live if your air conditioner dies, followed by where will you get raw materials? Seems to me that if your hull weighs this much you're better off building where you can mine metal and just import air, rather than the other way around. Like, say, on Mars, where you can also get as much nitrogen and oxygen as you want from the atmosphere, and metal from the ground, and only need to import some hydrogen.

Sounds like a textbook case of negligent manslaughter waiting to happen. Maybe we just need a rule that allows people to take safety seriously and be rewarded for doing so (or fined for not doing so).

My vote goes to the next nuclear accident being caused by environmentalists. Not direct sabotage, mind you, but protesting anything that might be done to upgrade or even maintain old plants or replace them with newer ones or safely store nuclear fuel. Then they'll say, "See how dangerous it is -- we told you so."

I guess the editors decided that a sensationalistic headline is better than a provocative one.

Meanwhile, I can only imagine that warentless wiretaps are way up given that there's more people and more phones and the NSA.

Of course, I'll be upgrading a fresh Win 7 install on an entirely different disk, then probably keep using my original install.

What!? I'm sure both parties are equally likely to use words like "intellectual", "elite", "professor", "educated", "scientist" as disparaging or insults.

To most people, both supporters and opponents, evolution and global warming are a matter of opinion because they don't know enough for certainty. I suppose a lot of them could argue that it's actually a

While evolution and global warming are both definitely questions of fact rather than of preference, there are very few who could make that determination themselves rather than trust someone else's judgement.

Well, you have to factor in the Iranian cultural mania for disagreeing with each other. The Shah couldn't keep them under his thumb, neither can the mullahs, who have their hands full disagreeing with each other.

From a tyrant's perspective Iran is ungovernable, which doesn't mean elements in the government don't give tyranny a go on a regular basis. It's an ideal setup for producing martyrs. The futility of cracking down means you have a little space to rake some muck before official anger overcomes reason.

OK, if someone decreed that they didn't like what you said and that if you didn't fork over a bundle of cash, their big army of goons would come take it by force... you'd call the cops on them, wouldn't you?

Now, if instead the government decided that they didn't like what you said and that if you didn't fork over a bundle of cash, their big army of goons would come take it by force... then whatever you said isn't protected by freedom of speech. Even if you call this process a civil lawsuit.