Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cs.yale.edu!yarvin-norman
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Zap, fry, and sizzle
Message-ID: <16765@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 90 06:01:10 GMT
References: <799@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> <6203@ae.sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158
Lines: 31

In article <6203@ae.sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes:

>THE EXPLOSION OF A LEAD-ACID CAR BATTERY IS ENOUGH TO HURL THE HOOD OF THE
>CAR OVER 50 FEET!  I HAVE SEEN IT.  IF YOU CAN DO THESE, AND THE OTHER
>LISTED "EXPERIMENTS" UNDER CONDITIONS WHERE YOU DESTROY ONLY YOURSELF, FINE.
>
>How about moving this crap to rec.jerks?

How about posting the details?

Destruction is neat.  Fires are interesting to watch, and explosions even
more so.  Setting them off teaches one about materials science in the
nonlinear regime, and arranging the experiments is a challenge in itself.

Safety -- of oneself and others, as well as of property -- is no more and no
less than an absolute constraint.  Legality is peripheral; it applies only
when one might get caught.  Anything relevant in the law regards safety, and
must be considered from a safety point of view whether or not the law exists.

Military weapons are neat, in the same way.  They involve the same element of
incredible instantaneous power, with the added facet of being super-accurate
in their application of this power.  It is of course a pity that these
magnificent creations are used against human beings.  An antitank weapon's
precise performance takes on a quite different feel when the tank is
occupied.  All the same, this does not and can not lessen the appeal of
their destructive powers.

You may not find destruction interesting, but don't insult those who do.

		Norman Yarvin		yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu
  "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime." -- G. Gordon Liddy