@JoshMillard

Your guess is correct, so: Thank you!

Teresa is a wonderful moderator, and a true Boinger. Everyone hating on her here can suck it AFAIC. If I am disemvowelled for being so crass, sobeit.

So one of the lessons learned here is, that saying the moderator could have done a better job, is the same as hating that person?

Come on, could we reserve the word 'hating' for something bigger and worse?

I think I should start by mentioning that I've tried to read all the post in both this thread and the VB 'marathon' ditto, but since both threads are quite long, please forgive me, if I ask questions that has been answered long ago.

And I should perhaps mention that I like the word 'unpublish'. Without knowing the CMS used, or remembering having heard the word before, I knew exactly what it meant. As I thought everyone familiar with the meaning of the word "publish" and the prefix "un-", would. I also understand the word "delete", but that has another meaning.

And I respect Boing Boing's right to unpublish whatever they choose, on their blog, since is is just this: Their blog. I'm certain they only unpublish when there is a good reason for it, and I don't expect to be informed every time.

I also think Boing Boing have the right to edit their posts as they see fit, whenever they like. Again, I only expect Boing Boing to edit their posts when there is a good reason for it.

But this brings me to the questions:

Why did you choose to unpublish post, that was really not about the VB-person, instead of just deleting the lines where VB was mentioned? I can understand why, if the post was about VB, but from the examples I've been seeing, some of the unpublished posts really had nothing to do with VB, apart from a few lines, that could be easily edited out.

Are this being considered, or is this a 'case closed'?

(And again: I apologize if these questions has been answered before - in that case I must have overlooked the answer).

And:

+1 to Xeni, for being so patient in answering all our questions. Your Moderator really could learn a lot from you. Trying to put fires out with gasoline, very seldom works. But you've handled this in an amazing way.

+1 to the suggestion that all Moderators and other 'official BB-supportes' is named or otherwise 'marked' in such a way that others can see it. That might help explain why the moderation sometimes seems a little ... 'uneven' at times.

Thanks.

I'm constantly amazed at the level of knowledge people claim to have about pedophiles, and the rules that we should enforce to keep our children safe.

How did they become an expert in what turns a pedophile on?

Somehow I doubt that pictures of my daughter on the playground turns them on.

If reports in the press are to be trusted, the pictures and videos found when raiding pedophile-rings, is of an all together other nature.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't worry, but seeing pedophiles everywhere, shielding our children from all things male or overreacting in other ways, is just plain stupid.

So is disemvoweling harmless jokes, no matter how tasteless you think they are (like #24 posted by bubbleman).

IMHO dumbest, most pointless, disemvoweling ever.

(Hey bubbleman, you made me laugh - even if I am a father).

Here is a trick how you can ride the train using the same ticket, two days in a row:

You buy the ticket and board the train just before midnight, and then you ride it until just after midnight! That's two days in a row! Neat, huh?

Not a trick? Well neither was this shit then!

From Wikipedia:

This oobleck is created from cornstarch or potato flour and water in a ratio between 2:1 and 3:2

Anyone know if this is ratio is measured in weight or volume?

Every handgun should be required to have one, that snaps a picture every time its fired, with penalties for deletion of pictures within a certain time frame, for cops and everyone else. Great evidence for any investigation of whether a shooting is justified.

Yeah, cause that guy that didn't think twice, before he shot you in the face, simply wouldn't dare to delete the picture.

And who gets to be the first one to go to jail for never having fired his gun (and no pictures on the gun-cam just totally told the Jury, that something must have been deleted)?

Well, playback does make it harder to stop singing, mid-song.

I'm I the only one who thinks the monkey looks like an ape version of Moe from The Simpsons?

1) Do they have many quarters in Japan?

2) I predict: Kids stealing money, in order to play the game, if they are unable to 'recycle' the coins from the piggy bank.

#6 - zuzu:

Thanks - much appreciated!

Someone please tell, JayDub (#15) is kidding or trolling or whatever.

Otherwise I hope he bumps into someone who inconveniences him with a rubber glove and a cavity search.

(Don't worry - just relax while being searched and keep doing the right thing, and you'll be OK.)

The suit, filed by Larry Townsend's attorney for copyright infringement, stems from a dispute over unpaid fees allegedly owed the author by his distributor, the Oklahoma-based Nazca Plains Corp. Nonetheless, the suit charges that Mitzel, along with over 40 other booksellers (including Amazon and Barnes & Noble), infringed on Townsend's copyright by selling the author's books in his store.

So he is not really suing them for selling his book, but for infringing on his copyright - for selling illegal copies of his book?

Might be worth mentioning in, say, the title of the article here on Boing Boing?

I agree your headline makes the article sound more interesting, but I'll take the fact over interesting, any day.

Browser/Java-version of Game of Life:

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

(Warning: I just wasted an hour playing with the damn thing. Totally worth it :o)

@#19

"When they don't arrest people who aren't terrorists, you complain."

No, we don't. We joke. Get it?

@ #23 posted by Bob Rossney , April 19, 2008 12:18 PM

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Dubonnet-Vin-Tonique-Au-Quinouina-Print-C10070555.jpeg

:o)

Just; WOW! And awesome!

#51 pstd by bb by

Xn / Bng Bng,

Y gys r scrpng th bttm f th brrl hr, nd bt smthng tht s nn f yr bsnss .. lgl prvt cts by dlts. f y hv hv smthng f ny cnsqnc t sy thn d s, thrws gt yr s@£t tgthr.

Jdgng hm by hs fthr s bynd rdcls - t's rtrdd, nd f ths wr smn hvng gy r gy sm sx wld th rctn b th sm?

smll dbl stndrd...

Wht h sd!

@ #47 posted by Xopher ,

It's not funny. No prank is funny unless it's funny to the victim.

Spot on! Couldn't agree more!

#55 posted by mgabrysSF , March 18, 2008 3:50 PM

So Amsterdam doesn't want American tourists. That's fine. I'll stay the fuck home.

Yeah, that's what this is all about. Dumb ass American!

So, am I the only one seeing scissors?

It's not torture. If water boarding is not torture, neither is this.

But thank god American television still has to live up to some standards: The show doesn't show exposed nibbles, right?

Transcript (more or less):

"No no no"

"There it was" (referring to the collapse)

"We have to keep an eye on the parts" (when the debris was flying in the air)

"Did you get it Thomas?"

"Yes"

"Shut the hell up, it just tore the tower at the middle"

"Its not 3 minutes ago i said; Now its finally happening, you better come"

"You got it all [on video], you damn well better not delete it".

Stort tillykke! :o)

(What they said, only in Danish).

I fail to se the big difference in Flickr being owned by Yahoo or Microsoft.

But then again, I left Flickr the moment they forced me to get a Yahoo Account.

Here is my 0,02€:

"The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction."

Assuming we can disregard the friction of the wheels, here is what will happen:

Lets say the thrust of the engine gives the airplane an airspeed of 30 mph (not enough to take off), and holds that speed.

That means the wheels are moving at 30 mph. So the conveyor has to move in the opposite direction, and starts and speeds up to 30 mph.

But since the airspeed still is 30 mph (remember we are holding that speed), what happens is this:

While the conveyor belt accelerates from 0 to 30 mph, the wheels accelerate from 30 to 60 mph (the speed of the conveyor belt + the air speed).

So the conveyor belt accelerates from 30 to 60 mph, while the wheels accelerate from 60 to 90 mph.

So the conveyor belt accelerates from 60 to 90 mph, while the wheels accelerate from 90 to 120 mph.

And so on and so on...

And thats at a fixed speed!

If the airplane accelerates, the numbers 'accelerate' as well.

In an ideal world, this is what would happen:

The conveyor belt is able to react to any changes in speed, instantly, and the microsecond the thrust of the engine tries to push the airplane forward with any speed (0,0001 mph), the conveyor belt will accelerate to that speed, the wheels will accelerate (0,0001 + 0,0001 mph), the conveyor belt will accelerate further and so on, towards the speed of light.

In the real world, this will happen:

The conveyor belt is a bit slower to react (i.e. slower than 'instantly'), and will be a little behind in accelerating to "exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction."

Thus the plane will move forward and take off.

But the rule:

"The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction."

is not met, because it is practically impossible for the conveyor belt instantly and all ways exactly match the speed of the wheels.

@Sae Miller: Your post was stripped of vowels because the Moderator didn't like it.

But as to why the moderator didn't like your #2 post is really a mystery, unless disagreeing with BoingBoing is enough to get 'disemvoweled'.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that 7.10 is newer than 7.4?

No, and the version is not 7.4, but 7.04, and suddenly everything make sense again ;o)

Attention! Attention! PNIN9 has declared this post to be devoid of humor. Those persons who mistakenly found it funny shall report to PNIN9's office for brain reprogramming. He will teach you what's funny and what isn't, by God.

I'm going to need the adress for that office then.

@Chef

Actually eaddict wrote about safety glasses first and later he added in his second reply: "See ya at the eye clinic."

The loaded gun comment is just an attack by mentioning some absurd thing not in the video. I responded in the same absurd way.

@eaddict

See ya at the eye clinic.

My girls (9 and 12) have used drills, routers, band saws, and more BUT they also learn that they only come with 10 fingers and 2 eyes and so on. And that there is equipment designed to let them safely use these machines.

Let me know how it goes when you hand you kid a loaded gun and give no safety instructions.

Ah, a loaded gun? Well kids should definitely be wearing safety glasses when handed a loaded gun. Then they'll be OK.

For the record, I've got a daughter aged 14. She wore safety glasses this (and every) New Years Eve, when watching and handling fireworks.

She has played around with my cordless screwdriver, knives and hammers and stuff, without safety glasses, because I don't regard them as necessary when using those tools.

And she has always gotten instructions and played under supervision at first.

And guess what: She still has 2 eyes and 10 fingers. And hardly any scars.

Weapons are not freely available i Denmark where we live (thankfully) but a nice way to blow things out of proportions.

Try watching the video again, and count the times you see a gun. Hint: It's not one of the dangerous things your are encouraged to let your child try.

The point is not to let your child try everything and not without instructions.

I would have loved to send my daughter to Gever Tulley's Tinkering School, even if he doesn't have a plate in his forehead (wouldn't that have been a great way to illustrate the 'bad things do happen, if you are not careful' part).

I found it interesting that the first clip he shows has kids using power tools with no safety glasses.

Congrats on totally missing the point!!

On a side note: Did anyone notice his head? I looks like he has a plate or something, under the skin, in the top of his forehead :o)

This is much more impressive. Be sure to watch the whole video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmklGExZwM

Lets see how long it takes, before Sears claim they didn't know exactly how invasive 'ScamSores software' (that'll what they'll say!) is.

Smart watermelon: It has some kind of white thingymajig it uses to grap on to the back end of the knife, between its legs, preventing it from carving the watermelon in half.

Teresa Nielsen:

"Rob, unless you're prepared to come up with solid evidence that his death shortly thereafter had nothing to do with his being tasered and manhandled, shame on you."

Let me get this straight:

It's OK for Mark to claim - in the headline, no less - that the death of this man was a result of tasering (and not, say, having a bunch of guys on top of him), with no evidence what so ever, but when I point out, the man is still moving and thus still alive after being tasered, I have to come up with solid evidence?

No need to wait for the results of the coroners report, eh?

I read the headline:

"Video of man tasered to death"

Then I watched the video.

Then I read the headline again.

I think the death of this man is a tragedy that could have been avoided.

But concluding that the death of this man is the result of tasering, clearly tells me, Mark Frauenfelder is on a crusade against all and every use of tasers, and don't care that the video clearly shows that the man is alive long after the tasing has stopped.

Shame on you Mark, and anyone else for using the death of this man to promote your anti-taser-agenda.

Boing Boing: You can do better than this!

Shows there is a market for pocket protectors in kevlar out here... :o)

@davidtroyer

"can we say photoshop?"

Well I can, I don't know about you.

Can you say "follow the links in comments #3 and #11 "?

@#56 Anonymous/NelC

"Rob @54: No-one's solving the case, we're just pointing out how at variance with reality the official story is."

No, you are just concluding things based on A NEWS ARTICLE!

Like

"The most mundane explanation is that someone is lying about the situation. This is something that is common when someone dies."

Mundane, really?
Common? Where do you have this 'fact' from?

"This is so common, on a global scale, that events follow an established pattern, including lying abut the situation and circumstances."

Global? You have a link to a study or something?

"The obvious first lie is that Mrs Gotbaum was uncontrollable: "[..] apparently running up and down the gate area". Note the weasel-word "apparently". This has been inserted so that the speaker can deny any responsibility for the lie when later facts contradict the "running up and down" bit."

Or something a news reporter might write in a news article when reporting 2nd hand? The word "apparently" is used 101,000 times on CNN.com and 5,700 times on NYTimes.com, according to Google.

"From what we all know about human behaviour -- and getting angry _is_ normal human behaviour -- we can say that it's quite likely that Mrs. Gotbaum was merely striding forcefully while giving some poor official a piece of her mind, _not_ running around like methed-up teenager, as the choice of words is meant to imply."

So you even if the word "running" is used, you conclude that Mrs. Gotbaum was "merely striding", not "running around"? Impressive, mr. Quincy!

All though I'm REALLY impressed by all your many conclusions, based on your reading of a news article, its just that: Conclusions based on a news article!

May be some important information is mission from the news article:

Maybe she was sick (looks like, she was).

Maybe it wasn't the hand cuffs in itself that strangled her (look like, it wasn't).

May be it was just a sad accident, that can be prevented from happening again.

May be someone should have had better training in recognizing a need for medical help.

May be, just may be, no one lied?

I'd STILL like to see a more scientific based approach to an explanation of what happened.

Someone was asking for Quincy. Turns out Quincy are obsolete:

A lot of people are solving the mystery of the death of this woman by the news article alone.

No need for autopsy or other messy scientific approaches. Fantastic!

@Joe
"..this one would have been better if "Joanna" were the one busting down the door.."

I disagree: If 'Joanna' appeared in the first frame, the guy at the pc would have hit on her right away, resulting in instant EMP'ing (I hope :o).

Then he would have missed the speech from the guy with the hat, and thus 80% of the punchline (being an asshole AFTER being warned).

No, once again, Xkcd is just like it should be :o)

/Rob

Jail is to good for him, but what about the friend with the cameraphone?

@John G Bell

Absolutely brilliantly put, sir!

@Mike Mendyke

Kilograms are a unit of mass, and pounds are a unit of weight.

Sorry, but you are wrong: Since 1959 pounds (lb) has been a unit of mass, just like the kilogram.

Thus:

1 pound = 0.45359237 kilogram
1 kilogram = 2.20462.. pounds

Links:

National Bureau of Standards - Refinement of values for the yard and the pound

MYTH: Pounds are units of force, and not units of mass

TheCynic:

In our humble opinion no subject should be an absolute taboo that is free from any satire

Really? How about rape, or the sexual or physical abuse of children?

No, that shouldn't be free of satire either.

I'm a Dad, but the costume on the left of this picture made me laugh.