From YouTube videos description..

Explosive hydroforming, also known as HERF (High Energy Rate Forming) or exploform, is a striking alternative to the more traditional process of metal hydroforming. Unlike this older method, which shapes metal using pressurized hydraulic fluid pumped into a forming chamber, HERF techniques utilize an explosive charge to create the necessary pressure. Although the charge is relatively small, it is capable of generating enough force to mold the associated metal into the die.

The explosive charge is typically positioned at a specific distance from the workpiece, and both are immersed in fluid, usually hydraulic fluid or simple water. Certain facilities may also use oil, gelatin, liquid salts, or regular air as the transmission medium. However, water is the most commonly used medium as it is the least expensive, excellent for creating uniform peak pressure, and readily available. Once the charge and workpiece are properly positioned, the charge is detonated, pressing the workpiece into a die. The part is then removed and the process is repeated if necessary.

Explosive Hydroforming Methods
Explosive hydroforming techniques fall into two basic categories. Although both methods function according to the same general principles, they rely on very different placement of the explosive charge within the forming chamber.

Standoff Method: With the Standoff Method, the explosive charge is used in conjunction with an intervening medium. In most hydroforming applications, the intervening material is typically water, oil, or air. The required deformation level dictates how far the explosive charge is placed from the piece of metal to be formed. When the charge detonates, the ensuing force is transmitted through the fluid and pressures the metal into the die. Detonations used in the Standoff Method can often reach several thousand pounds per square inch (psi).

Contact Method: In the Contact Method, an explosive charge is placed in direct contact with the forming metal. This process generates far more pressure than the more conventional Standoff Method. By placing the explosive charge in close proximity to the surface material, the detonation can result in as much as several million psi.

There's a difference between "commandeering a place of business" and expecting a taxi driver to take you to the correct location. It's a pretty unique situation in that you are almost always in an unfamiliar place without transport. It's not the same as staying in a movie theatre.

If I was in a cab and they didn't drop me to where I had asked to go, I would probably get out and refuse to pay. But in an Uber, you've already paid, so staying in the cab is pretty much your only recourse, otherwise, you get dropped on the side of the road somewhere and you can, what... downvote them? Yeah, that's really helpful when you're stuck trying to get somewhere without transport.

That's as a general principle.

In this specific case, I already agreed that she was being an entitled arsehole. She was at the hospital, she should have just gotten out.

My issue isn't that he asked her to leave, my issue is the way he handled it.

You simply don't act like that. Period.

He was borderline violent. That fact that he DIDN'T resort to violence is the only thing keeping him from an assault charge. It's not something to be commended, it's basic civilised behaviour.

He's a taxi driver (Uber = taxi and @Drachen_Jager is right, they should be held to the same standards). His job is dealing with the public. If he can't deal with one annoying person without losing his shit, then maybe this job isn't for him.

Trump stands for better woman's rights that Clinton, who defends her husbands raping / molesting women.

Have to down vote on general principle.

There is a demonstrated bias towards equity investment domestically which is probably what Adam Smith was talking about, which is rather different to tax havens and global supply chains which would not have been as feasible back in the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_bias_puzzle

Chomsky is also not really correct as Adam Smith does use it in the more general sense that it is referred to today in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. That it took me a couple of minutes to contradict this video with wikipedia does not bode well for the fact checking of TYT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_the_phrase_by_Smith

I think it's also worth pointing out that Smith's position wasn't that of unrestrained market activity. The general principle of the invisible hand is sound if you accept that point. As far as his actual position on the role of government, it's open to interpretation. It's also worth pointing out that you can't expect a concept to not need some adjustment after 250 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#As_a_symbol_of_free_market_economics

It's a user-by-user decision. Some people may not care/worry about inserting our JS embed into their sites. We, as a site, do care/worry.

Iframes can also be potentially harmful, which is why we never used to accept any, but now accept just a few (from sources we feel are very unlikely to have anything malicious in them).

I don't feel we'd need to take an anti-JS-embed stance as a general principle just because we don't want to risk using JS embeds of unknown origin ourselves.

Think of it this way: If my kids received apples on Halloween, I'd throw them out for fear they contain razor blades. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't necessarily hand out apples myself. And if I did that and recipient kids' parents threw my apples out, I wouldn't hold it against them.

What I said was mostly in jest, but I will entertain my learned colleague's well-reasoned arguments with a response.

"Squirrel fella didn't know what was going on"? That's right. He didn't. He didn't know the intentions of the human, other than his general instinct of "stay away from non-squirrels." His fear of him was totally justified.

Deus Ex Machina? There was no unexpected intervention which led to a happy ending here, that is my point. The squirrel expected the guy to grab him, he just didn't want him to. My point is that if the guy had kept on riding down the river, the squirrel would have been fine. But for his interference, the squirrel wouldn't have been drowning. His actions were negligent. His actions caused a situation of peril for that squirrel. If the squirrel had jumped toward the man and entered the calm part of the river and failed to swim, I might agree that intervention would have been necessary. Instead, the squirrel jumped in the exact opposite direction of the person, likely fearing for his life and choosing the most direct escape route, thus dooming himself. But he wouldn't have jumped that way if the guy hadn't been there. We can't know where he would have jumped, but I doubt it would have been in the most violent part of the river. Animal instincts aren't dumb, otherwise that squirrel would have been long dead.

Guy saved his life? Did he? Did we see a drowned squirrel swimming away from the rock before the guy even got there? Was there something that I missed in this video? Was the squirrel in imminent danger of being eaten by a vicious squirrel-eating miniature river-swimming orca? My point is the guy put the squirrel in danger simply by being there. Even after the squirrel jumped, it is not known that the squirrel would have drowned if the man had simply swam away. We assume because we think that squirrels are shitty swimmers.

Self-righteous? Did I say that I don't touch wildlife? Did I say that I might not have done the same thing in his position? No. I am simply saying that we should all abide by the general principle that wild animals do not need our help. Our interactions with them should be constrained to watching them pass and keeping them out of our areas when necessary and shooting and eating them when legal and not deleterious to the species. None of us should assume that our interactions with wildlife are anything other than a semi-masturbatory effort that serves the single purpose of entertaining us and making us feel good with little to no actual understanding of the animal's position.

>> ^spoco2:


What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?

1: On general principle, I support the idea that people should be allowed to carry guns, in the same way that I support the right to be drunk. Yes, it's not big or clever, and yes, it can lead to dangerous and/or criminal behaviour. But there are laws against driving drunk and laws against threatening/shooting people with a firearm. I don't really like the idea of legislating for potential outcomes.

2: On the other hand, stopping a person for carrying a gun seems like a completely reasonable position to take for a police officer. If you want to carry a gun, then you must be prepared to accept that consequence, in the same way as drivers must accept the requirement to produce a valid driving licence.

3: Finally, I'm fully in agreement that walking around carrying a gun is pretty much being a dick. Being a dick, however, is not illegal (see 1). Circumstances may arise one day, I might want to be a dick and it's important to know that my legal right to be a dick is protected.

This guy is just an asshole though.

I think you're mixing a few separate questions.

In particular, the idea that Videosift banning pornography is "self" regulation. If dag decides that he personally doesn't want to post pornography on the Internet, that's self-regulation. If dag wants to host a site that publishes user content, but wants to regulate what those users are allowed to publish, that's not him regulating "himself" that's him regulating others.

I'm also not taking an absolutist stance against private censorship -- I think it's perfectly kosher to say that private publishers are free to limit certain specifically enumerated types of speech (hate speech, incitement to violence, pornography, etc.), but that the general rule is that if it doesn't clearly fall inside one of those enumerated categories it's against the law for them to censor it.

As for the historical case, I'm not aware of any country where an attempt to ban censorship turned into a regime that chilled free speech. What I'm talking about here is really Net Neutrality stated as a general principle rather than as an Internet-specific legislation.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner So videosift is violating free speech by its terms and agreements by not allowing pornography? People can't self regulate without Congregational approval? You think that will create MORE free speech and not less? I don't think there is a history of that being the case.

As soon as I saw the words "Tea Party" I stopped reading; I am not sure what your argument is about, but I am sure it's dumb on general principle.

Your response is typical of prog-libs. The second they encounter an idea, concept, person, or philosophy that does not lie 100% flush with thier own, the standard modus-operandi is to stick their fingers in their ears and start singing "Meet The Flintstones". And you guys are the ones that call yourselves 'open-minded'? I find most truely liberal people are the most closed-minded, narrow, unthinking, and intellectually simplistic people that exist on the planet. Far more so than any fundamentalist Christian.

As soon as I saw the words "Tea Party" I stopped reading; I am not sure what your argument is about, but I am sure it's dumb on general principle.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Now - let's turn back the clock a year and say that this was a Tea Party rally that started throwing rocks at cops, tearing up a public place, and otherwise behaving like a bunch of vandals. The cops tear gas up the joint and disperse them. Would anyone on the Sift have cared. Highly unlikely. In fact, I suspect that prog-libs all over the nation would have cheered as cops took the nightsticks to Tea Party members, and we'd have had all kinds of commentary from leftists about how the Tea party was dangerous, needed to be slapped down, or otherwise removed from the public discourse.
Ah - what a difference it makes when it is prog-libs on the other end of the truncheon.
I've seen the vids. These OWS losers were rioting. They deserved everything they got. No sympathy here. The Tea party has never engaged in these kinds of shenanigans, and if they had then they'd have deserved a few police beatings as well. If you are 'protesting' something and can't make your point peacefully, then you don't have much of a point. If you decide that your point can't be made peacefully, then openly declare your intention to instigate violence and mayhem so people can judge you properly. If you can't (or won't) honestly portray yourself, then you're just a coward who wants to cause trouble hiding in a crowd.

But was he still effectively a threat against America? Wasn't he essentially hobbled already? Holed up, unable to communicate?

Arvana is right, I think -- it is revenge not justice.

However, if I am wrong, if he has been actively and effectively planning attacks against others in the world, then yes, attempt to capture him and if he dies in the attempt, fine with me.

I wish Obama had been stronger in stating that there was an attempt to capture him.


>> ^NetRunner:

@bareboards2 I'm all for the general principle that people have rights and all, but I think when it comes to Osama bin Laden, who very, very clearly wanted people to know that he was behind the 9/11 attacks, I'm willing to settle for him being killed in a skirmish with special forces.

@bareboards2 I'm all for the general principle that people have rights and all, but I think when it comes to Osama bin Laden, who very, very clearly wanted people to know that he was behind the 9/11 attacks, I'm willing to settle for him being killed in a skirmish with special forces.

In reply to this comment by IronDwarf:
I'll vote for it, just on general principle.

Thanks!

I'll vote for it, just on general principle.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like Penn, admire and respect him. And I understand the rejection of the contradictions of the Bible. While faith is a personal matter, rejecting any religion on its contradictions alone seems narrow-minded. Life itself is fraught with paradoxes and contradictions. Many liberals believe in higher taxes on the wealthy, yet no one can make sense of the US Tax Code, filled with more than its share of contradictions, paradoxes, hypocrisy and passages that should have been ignored long ago.
It's possible to Believe and have faith in something without it being "perfectly" understood.


I reject religion based on the fact that it requires you to turn your brain off and submit to belief without proof (a.k.a. have faith). All the contradictions in the bible are simply proof (to people who think this way) that the bible cannot be a divine document, but is rather a compilation of stories and myths. If I have any faith, it is in the process of understanding the world via exploration of evidence and observation (a.k.a. scientific process).

Also, making comparisons between tax code and the bible probably isn't a good idea, especially since in this case it's essentially a straw man tactic on your part. To add some cognitive dissonance to your assumptions about liberal beliefs, I'll point out that I have zero faith in the US tax code. My belief in higher taxes for the rich has nothing to do with thinking the tax code is a perfectly executed creation, as you suggest. It's a general principle based on my values and experiences, and my values include the "haves" helping the "have nots" to a certain extent. Not because they have it to give away, but because it's in every rich person's self interest to maintain a stable working class and therefore a stable economy/country.