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.

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.

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.

Our laws have got to be the most daring hack ever.

Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?

(And no, they don't need a rocket delivery mechanism -- it can be shipped pre-emptively to the country most likely to meddle with them.)

That would be me. If someone were threatening me with bodily harm over something
I said, I'd call the cops on them. Let's see them summon more force than that.

If anyone could win a civil lawsuit against any gun owner (no matter how responsible) for emotional damage because "guns are scary", would you still think people had the right to bear arms?

Then explain why there's a court involved, and why the government will enforce collection of the civil suit damages?