Question for everyone: what are those rules?

Aren't they supposed to be posted for comment somewhere?

It's a shame that Senator from Illinois wasn't elected President. He promised transparency.

" A "farmer's market" is not an open forum to sell whatever you want - there is an expected type of product that will be sold there."
Blogger is not an open forum to publish whatever you want - there is an expected type of material that is published there.

Here is one that is closer.
You publish a newspaper that publishes freelance writers. You don't pay them they do it for exposure. Someone offers an article in praise of rape, or claiming that President Obama is the anti-christ, or that Hitler was right.
If you decide to not publish those is that censorship? Would you have an obligation to publish everything submitted?

And they are wrong.
BTW my Uncle did die of lung cancer and never smoked a day in his life. The served as a member of a tank crew during WWII and they used to line the tanks with asbestos.
Yes he was about 17 years older than my mother and I am a good bit older than the average Slashdoter these days.

"it's not the radiation most people are afraid of"
Ahh... No. Sure you are right about some people but their are a lot of people that are terrified of the term radiation...

It was. "Enable javascript" was on by default.

Most of the web works just fine without javascript. Those times I had to disable it to get away from a page that was using it maliciously, I often forgot to turn it back on and found the "browsing experience" to be much more pleasant.

Saying that "most of the web doesn't work" unless you have javascript is another way of saying that "your web experience should be what I tell you it has to be".

That's just silly. Having a toggle that defaults to "on" gets you your "javascript enabled" experience that you want newbs to have while still allowing others a choice.

That's also silly. You propose a complicated by-page or by-site manager, but decry a simple "off" toggle as ... useless?

I was already an option, quite simple. And it was a detriment to remove it, except to those who feel that controlling the viewer's "web experience" belongs in the hand of the site programmer and not the viewer.

I consider breaking malicious web pages to be a good thing. YMMV.

If you've ever been stuck on a page that won't let you go anywhere and every attempt at leaving mucks up other tabs, then you wouldn't call turning off javascript at that point useless.

Oh, lord, here we go. Another idjit who thinks his definition of what "the experience" should be must be the experience for everyone else.

If you don't want to install an addon, feel free not to install an addon. Don't tell others that they should be forced to install an addon to DISABLE something that could be disabled natively, and until someone decided that other people's "experiences" must be carefully controlled was a simple checkbox in a preferences window.

I printed it out and read it at length. I still don't know what the article is about. I'm waiting for the movie version.

What else can be used in the manufacture of firearms?

* die grinders
* drills
* welders
* Crucibles
* plaster (good for making casting molds)
* springs
* saws
* CNC mills from other vendors

and yet, they have no problem shipping any of that, right?

Using an adjective to differentiate between one thing is incorrect. It is unnecessary, and when it appears it implies that there is a differentiation to be made. If I say I have "a red apple", then you know it is not a green one, and that the difference is important.

No, all you need to imply more than one is to use an adjective to describe which one of more than one you are referring to. "My wife" needs no further specification because your use of the singular says there is only one. "My beautiful wife" implies there is a need to specify which wife you are talking about. In this case "my beautiful wife" truly is different than saying "my wife who is beautiful".

The next time someone asks for a "chocolate ice cream sundae", ask them if they think there is only one flavor of ice cream. Obviously not, otherwise they'd simply say "ice cream sundae". And they aren't comparing ice creams, they are specifying which of multiple flavors they want. That's the job of an adjective.

Yes, that's a strict interpretation of the language, but it's no stricter than pointing out to someone who has just said that "nobody can run as fast as I can" that they've just said they cannot run as fast as they do.

Unless they've put back the easy way of disabling javascript, their "security enhancements" are meaningless. There are too many web pages that hijack the browser using js and don't let you get to any "about:config" pages but will still allow preferences to be changed...

As for your stupidity regarding the second amendment: it exists because the founders had just gone through a war where they found it convenient that the people had guns, and lived in a time when guns were a way of life and necessary for self-defense against not only criminals but wild beasts. They had just overthrown a repressive government and wanted to keep that option available for the new one they'd just fought to create, should it become necessary.

The "militia" clause is an explanatory clause, not a complete statement of the entire reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Had they wanted to say that they could have easily done so. And that clause says nothing about state militias. It wasn't intended to because it was the federal constitution, not a state constitution.

The same thing they have to hold over everyone's heads: a large number of lawyers looking to right the wrongs their employer tells them to. Also the IRS. They don't need any actual wrongdoing, just the lawyers.

I guess then your point is unclear to me.
I thought that you where trying to draw parallels between Haber and Nobel.
I would also question the idea of Haber developing artificial materials using the Haber process.
It made ammonia which is a naturally occurring compound and ammonia made by the Haber Bosch process is identical in all ways to that which is formed by nature.
Also the Birkeland-Eyde process predates the Haber process it was just more expensive. Too expensive for fertilizer but that is not an issue for explosives.
Also by the time the Haber process was discovered other explosives like TNT had replaced dynamite for warfare.
So what exactly is your point?

Doesn't matter. What matters is why the officers understand they've been dispatched to the scene, and what they believe they're seeing when they arrive.

Obviously you're able to tell a real gun from a replica at a distance while someone waving it around, but most people can't, including cops, until they have it in hand, personally. You might be comfortable risking other people's lives by making them assume that all guns are toys until they've been shot at, but people who actually do have, as a feature of their daily job, other people assaulting and trying to kill them, probably wouldn't want you armchairing on their behalf.

The solution? Actual thinking parents not sending their kid out into public to act stupid with a replica gun. To teach a kid that when they see a cop car rolling up, to perhaps consider not looking crazy and waiving said replica gun around. This is a 100% lapse on the part of parents and a completely crappy position for the cops to have been put in. I know that you would be safe, because you would omnipotent and know, from a distance, that the replica gun wasn't real, and that if it was real, the universe's special karma system would protect you from the laws of physics because you are A Better Person Than Cops Are, and bullets wouldn't be able to hurt you.

Sorry but killer robots have been around for at least 60 years.
Here is one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Here is a killer drone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O....

Yep this is all hand waving.