Slashdot Mirror


Home Science Under Attack In Massachusetts

An anonymous reader tips a guest posting up on the MAKE Magazine blog by the author of the Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments. It seems that authorities in Massachusetts have raided a home chemistry lab, apparently without a warrant, and made off with all of its contents. Here's the local article from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. "Victor Deeb, a retired chemist who lives in Marlboro, has finally been allowed to return to his Fremont Street home, after Massachusetts authorities spent three days ransacking his basement lab and making off with its contents. Deeb is not accused of making methamphetamine or other illegal drugs. He's not accused of aiding terrorists, synthesizing explosives, nor even of making illegal fireworks. Deeb fell afoul of the Massachusetts authorities for... doing experiments... Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for [the Massachusetts town of] Marlboro stated, 'I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.' Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down.'"

1,334 comments

  1. And they say ... by slashdotlurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that something is wrong with Kansas ?
    These hyper-red and hyper-blue states both have issues with people. The former set of control freaks try to make you a religion borg while the latter set of control freaks try their hand making you a state-uber-alles borg.

    1. Re:And they say ... by richardellisjr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm an agnostic in a very red state (texas) and I can honestly say I can't remember anyone here ever trying to "convert me".

    2. Re:And they say ... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amen to that! Wait a minute...

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    3. Re:And they say ... by FiloEleven · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well Richard, it seems my fellow Texans have been slacking! Let me just take a few minutes to tell you about Jesus, and the wonderful sacrifice he made for you...

      Only joking, of course. I'm not from Texas.

    4. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So am I. :) But in contrast to you, I can remember people here trying to "convert" me.

      Perhaps you're lucky and live in Austin -- the "Silicon Hills" - the land locked country in Texas where everyone usually has a brain that can think independently. Unfortunately I live in Houston, deep in the "Bible Belt", where there is a church every half mile.

      jdb2

    5. Re:And they say ... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, how is a fascist state supposed to function if people like this guy come along and teach people how to do for themselves? Fascist states need strong corporations, and strong corporations need helpless consumers. This guy is anti-American, and the cops knew it.

      How did they know? They felt it in their gut.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re:And they say ... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly the only solution to the Hyper red and Hyper blue is to shine a lot of Hyper white light on them. These "security and Fraidycat freaks go scattering when they have a bright light shining on them.

      I really hope someone uncovers Pamela Wilderman personal information and posts it so that everyone here can voice their concerns to her on her home phone, email, work phone, cellphone as well as other Police officials that did not right away reprimand her and fire her for home invasion.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 1

      Oops. That is I live near ( ~30 miles ) Houston.

      jdb2

    8. Re:And they say ... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, you aren't allowed to own laboratory glassware in TX without a permit from the state and inspections from the cops....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    9. Re:And they say ... by billlava · · Score: 1

      That's true. Not all "Red-state" people are over-religious, or even religious at all. Often they share moral standards, but most often we just share a desire for the government to stay out of our lives!

    10. Re:And they say ... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. The far left and the far right both have exactly the same goal: To tell others how to live their lives. They only way they differ is in how they think people's lives should be lived.

      Interestingly enough, people I meet from both sides are typically keen on telling you how they think others should live, but not too keen on being told how to live themselves.

    11. Re:And they say ... by mitgib · · Score: 4, Funny

      I live in Houston, deep in the "Bible Belt", where there is a church every half mile.

      Is that all? Here in South Carolina, I really think it is a status symbol to have your own church, because there are 3 on every corner.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    12. Re:And they say ... by stonecypher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh shut up, it's one small town's small-time comptroller, not a vast conspiracy by hyperblue states.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    13. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pamela Wilderman, Secretary
      Phone: (508) 460-3769
      Fax: (508) 624-6504

    14. Re:And they say ... by RaceCarDriver · · Score: 1

      So am I. :) But in contrast to you, I can remember people here trying to "convert" me. Perhaps you're lucky and live in Austin -- the "Silicon Hills" - the land locked country in Texas where everyone usually has a brain that can think independently. Unfortunately I live in Houston, deep in the "Bible Belt", where there is a church every half mile. I'm in Austin and for the most part, there is a church every 1/2 mile. But they don't actively try to convert people from what I've seen, they just have signs/billboards everywhere. jdb2

    15. Re:And they say ... by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "Corporation" in the "Corporate State" is a vertical trade guild -- ie, a Syndicate. Fascism is Guild Socialism mixed with Nationalism. Mussolini started out as a Communist, as his father had been. It is NOT the same thing as a corporation in the sense which most people think.

    16. Re:And they say ... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I spent a few months working in Corbin, KY (claim to fame: site of first KFC restaurant) and pretty much every street corner seemed to be either a church or a 'tobacco outlet'.

    17. Re:And they say ... by prennix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if only it worked that way in practice. Neither big party (D&R) is interested in keeping government out of our lives. (see FISA, Homeland Security, Patriot...)

      the old myth that the R's are anti-big government or fiscally conservative is sadly outdated.

    18. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No the part I find most troubling is

      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home. Chemist allowed to go home, sans his lab

      it wasn't cop but firemen; traditionally fire fighters have held a special position and had abilities to enter buildings and perform activities that we have prohibited policeman from performing without a warrant, by doing things like this the firefighters are jeopardizing this trust and placing the ability to protect the public safety in danger.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:And they say ... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      3 on every corner!? Is this some kind of trick physics question? Are they stacked on top of one another? It's south carolina so... is it segregated by floor or something? "best" race gets 2nd floor, "ok" race gets 1st floor and the one no one likes is in the basement? That doesn't sound very christian. There must be another arrangement...

      I know, maybe they're shaped into triangles and they're all built next to each other and they each meet at a point right on the corner of the intersection. So you've got a trinity of triangular churches all in one place. What could be holier?

      Or maybe it's a four dimensional question. One building, but three different denominations use it at different times.

      Regardless of how they're arranged... I'm confused.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    20. Re:And they say ... by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you're the victim of a bad article summary.

      There's no problem with experimenting, the issue is how much chemicals you can store of on your site and dispose of through municipal services like trash removal and sewer without a permit.

      Details in the article are a bit thin, but nobody is getting raided in Massachusetts for doing chemistry set scale stuff.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:And they say ... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously... "Red State" used to mean, "Leave me alone and keep the government SMALL." Apparently at some point that somehow got redefined to "ultra religious crazy people that no one in their right mind should agree with." Dunno when it happened but I wish it'd go back. Finding a small government candidate is nearly impossible now.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    22. Re:And they say ... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many households are breaking that law. Laboratory glassware makes great kitchen ware. These make nice containers for salad dressing, these are useful for decanting wine, and no kitchen is complete without a set of these. Real kitchen hackers like Alton Brown might even have a set of these in their kitchen.

    23. Re:And they say ... by Veretax · · Score: 1

      I agree, I'm a Christian myself, but there has to be a balance in life. Going to much in either direction just never has seemed write to me.

    24. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1 degree and 359 degrees are not far left and far right when compared to the 180 degrees that freedom loving people should be moving towards.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    25. Re:And they say ... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I live in Houston. There are 4 churches on my street. (Bering, if you must know) Yet I have never been approached by any of them... Perhaps you find what you are looking for.

    26. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://tinyurl.com/63x3z8

      Marlborough fire leads to discovery of basement full of chemicals

      Fremont Street fire
      Art Illman/Daily News staff
      Fremont Street homeowner Victor Deeb speaks with a police officer at left.
      advertisement
      By Matt Lynch/Daily News staff
      The MetroWest Daily News
      Posted Aug 06, 2008 @ 12:19 AM
      MARLBOROUGH â"

      A small fire in a second-floor bedroom yesterday led officials to the discovery of more than 100 containers of unknown chemicals in the basement of a Fremont Street home, officials said.

      That surprise prompted calls to state investigators and the bomb squad.

      Marlborough Fire Chief David Adams said firefighters were checking that all of the rooms had been ventilated when they discovered the basement cache.

      "Firefighters went into the basement and discovered a large quantity of various chemicals, unmarked and unlabeled," said Adams. "It appeared to be a lab of some sort. The owner was doing research and development of some kind."

      Adams said there were more than 100 unmarked containers ranging in size from quarts and gallons to several 20-gallon drums.

      The chief said yesterday afternoon officials were trying to identify the chemicals for safe removal. The chemicals belonged to Victor Deeb, the owner of 81 Fremont St., Adams said.

      Fremont Street, which connects Prospect Street to Hudson Street, was closed for much of the afternoon and early evening as local and state officials went in and out of the white two-story home behind Kelleher Field.

      Adams said around 4:30 p.m. officials were investigating the type of chemicals and whether Deeb had obtained permits for them.

      "We haven't found any permits yet," he said. "This is a residential neighborhood. You don't run a lab out of your house."

      Adams said his department contacted the state fire marshal's office because of the quantity of chemicals discovered. The fire marshal then contacted the state bomb squad, Adams said.

      The fire itself was very minor and quickly extinguished, said Marlborough Fire Capt. Bill Pappas.

      A second-floor window air-conditioning unit started the fire, which firefighters extinguished in about one minute, Pappas said. Deeb safely evacuated, and no firefighters were injured, Pappas said.

      "We advised him it may take several hours to resolve this, and may want to find a place to stay," Adams said yesterday afternoon. "He left with his family."

      The chief said the chemicals serve as a stark reminder there is no such thing as a "routine call."

      "You never know what to expect," he said.

      (Matt Lynch can be reached at 508-490-7453 or mlynch@cnc.com.)

    27. Re:And they say ... by b4upoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It would be wise for any community to be notified in advance of chemical experiments in progress. Exhaust gases as well as waste products may well harbor far more danger than the experimenter is aware of.
                  A great example are the common products that used to contain PCBs. PCBs are now thought to cause diabetes and are dispersed throughout our environment.They are almost impossible to eliminate.Yet they were though of as being safe by the entire chemical industry. Imagine how far wrong an individual chemist, working alone, without review, might be.

    28. Re:And they say ... by genner · · Score: 1

      .... Or maybe it's a four dimensional question. One building, but three different denominations use it at different times. Regardless of how they're arranged... I'm confused.

      The secret is to put the word indepedent in the name of your church. That way you can safetly ignore all the churchs around you. Otherwise people might start to question why so few of them work together.

    29. Re:And they say ... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      I dont see how the political spectrum has anything to do with this. I live in a 'blue' state but out side the big cities its a 'red' state. Your metaphor is cute, but hardly accurate.

      Massachusetts really has a hate-on for technology. Remember Boston's ATHF 'bomb' scare? I think theyre probably suffering from post-9/11 uber-security and our federal tax dollars are paying for it. Red or Blue, it doesnt matter, once law enforcement is told to act a certain way because of terrorism and if they dont they will lose federal money, then they will act that way.

    30. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this Flamebait? Pam are you modding today?

    31. Re:And they say ... by karbyn-aceous · · Score: 0

      > felt it in their gut

      yeah, it was probably rotten donuts

    32. Re:And they say ... by Lurker187 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefighters also have hazardous materials training, and often have to clean up what happens when hazardous materials are not handled properly. They saw something that concerned them, and they reported their concerns to someone who overreacted, but the overreaction is the sole responsibility of the State agency(s) involved, and in no way the firefighters' responsibility. There's plenty of blame to go around, let's not start flinging it indiscriminately.

      --
      [command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
    33. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      perhaps you're just missing that neuron that the rest of us have that allows us to understand that "corner" was referring to a roadway intersection

    34. Re:And they say ... by UltraAyla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I'm glad not everyone jumped on this as a giant rash of government problems. So far, it's an isolated, albeit idiotic, incident.

    35. Re:And they say ... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Or right, even.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    36. Re:And they say ... by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a red or blue state. Its a media construct, that somehow became confused with a statement of truth. Look at the voting margins between Dems and Reps in any so-called Red or Blue state, and you'll be hard pressed to find a margin greater than 10%. The Red vs. Blue thing, if anything, is probably showing that people are moving more towards the middle, but this would remain invisible, since the lunatic fringes of each ideology are louder than the growing horde of moderates.

      Arizona, for example, is a VERY "red" state. But... We have a Democratic governor (who strongly endorsed Obama, almost to the point of quitting to help him), and around half of our counties have very liberal tendencies. Outside of Phoenix, two out of three of our "big" cities are very Democratic.

      Sadly the Electoral system isn't very good for showing diversity of opinion, which leads to both polarization and moderation being shown as "red" or "blue".

      Also... Red doesn't always equal religious... Only 43% of people in Arizona described themselves as religious in the 2000 census. Not to say that the remainder are atheists, but obviously not religious wackos either.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    37. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when it comes to all the farm and grazing subsidy programs.

    38. Re:And they say ... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0

      No, a Syndicate is an enterprise democratically managed by its workers. You have it completely ass backwards.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    39. Re:And they say ... by parc · · Score: 1

      Wow, inflammatory as all get-out. Notes:

      1) The permit costs nothing.
      2) You consent to search. That doesn't mean they are _going_ to search.
      3) Fry's sells lab equipment, both prepackaged and individual items (beakers and the like).

      Pseudoephedrine is on this list, but I purchase it (in allowed amounts) periodically at the drug store. There is an in-store identification and declaration of use dance that has to be done. I would assume that lab equipment has something similar.

      Texas has some crazy laws and an even crazier reputation, but reality isn't really THAT bad. Of course, I _do_ live in the "Silicon Hills," so my opinions are colored by this "Neo-Hippie" area.

    40. Re:And they say ... by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone who has worked in a lab understands what happens to you if you're flouting safety regulations, have a fire, and the firemen see your mess. All these "OMG teh chemistry!!!" people ranting about the Fourth Amendment and terrorism clearly don't know jack about being a chemist.

    41. Re:And they say ... by jabithew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Political Compass.

      I link to it so many times, it's really useful. As a rule politicians score highly on the authoritarian side. I can think of two obvious reasons for this;
      1) If you don't think you can run the world better than everyone else, why become a politician?
      2) Those who manage to climb the political ladder now have power and are loth to relinquish it.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    42. Re:And they say ... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      You comment has much truthiness. Stephen, is that you??

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    43. Re:And they say ... by nickhart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The far left and the far right both have exactly the same goal: To tell others how to live their lives. They only way they differ is in how they think people's lives should be lived.

      This is hardly a case of "the far left" telling people how to live their lives--just silly bureaucrats who don't know any better.

      The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy—although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).

      The Christian right (or any fundamentalist religious sect—be it Zionist, Islamic or whatever else there is) wants to reduce everyone's freedoms based on their religious dogma. The far right (ie: libertarians) wants to reduce restrictions on capital. When there are fewer restrictions on the rich and how they are allowed to push the rest of us around with their wealth, power and privilege, then it means the rest of us have less freedom. Libertarians want freedom from public services, freedom from labor unions, freedom from environmental regulation, freedom from anything that might reduce their profits and help those who create their profits.

    44. Re:And they say ... by ivan256 · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you're way off base.

      You're talking about a state where the government forces you to wear a bicycle helmet, forces you to buy health insurance (don't let Mr. Romney fool you. The Governor only has the power to take blame here. The 90+% Democratic state legislature has all the power), you have to be at the bus stop waiting for your kids (god forbid you ever spank them), in many areas you're not allowed to paint your house a different color without permission, you can't drive a car with visible rust on the exterior, you couldn't (until recently) get a tattoo, there's a good chance you'll be denied the privilege of putting up a sign for your business, if your neighbor doesn't like what you have in your front yard they can have you fined, if you want to sell any moderately sized piece of land that you own you're forced to sell some of it for less than it's worth to people with a sufficiently low salary....

      This isn't some one-time thing around here. It's typical.

    45. Re:And they say ... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mod points be damned - I'll ditch them to get in on this thread. There's nothing about this story that is intrinsically left- or right-leaning, despite the temptation to apply that often imaginary dichotomy to everything under the sun. It's also not some indication that both liberals and conservatives are out to destroy chemistry as we know it, violating our rights as they go along. I ask the Libertarians to at least tentatively withdraw your attack dogs. Let's examine what we know.

      The meat of the case against Mr. Deeb is in this statement, which was not fully quoted in the summary because it comes from the MAKE article, which truncates it:

      Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

      That's from the source article in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. It indicates that this wasn't just some dude with a home chemistry set and a nifty hobby; Deebs was doing "research and development." This doesn't make him dangerous, but it's entirely possible that he really was violating local zoning laws. Neither the MAKE article nor the Worcester Telegram & Gazette article specifies which zoning laws were violated, nor which chemicals were involved.

      So this may be a case of law enforcement overstepping its authority (and either liberalism or conservatism run amok, depending on whose adherents you think are more likely to try to convince us that chemists in basements are scary), but it may also be a case of Marlboro's "code enforcement" officers following perfectly valid (albeit annoying) zoning laws. Whether or not the laws are overly strict, I don't see anything in this article to indicate that Deeb's fundamental rights were violated ... except the bit about a lack of warrant. The MAKE article has this to say about that alleged Fourth Amendment infraction:

      In effect, the Massachusetts authorities have invaded Deeb's lab, apparently without a warrant, and stolen his property. Deeb, presumably under at least the implied threat of further action, has not objected to the warrantless search and the confiscation of his property.

      However, the original Worcester Telegram & Gazette article doesn't say anything about the absence of a warrant, and the MAKE article does not cite any other source. If that allegation is true, the Marlboro authorities have some explaining to do. But these sources are too limited to know for sure. I did a search on Google News and found this article, which was the only one about these events that I cound find. While it also mentions that Deeb is cooperating with authorities, it doesn't mention warrants. Fourth Amendment violation? Who knows. Let's all get on with what we were doing before this "firestorm" erupted and reconvene when we have something solid and legitimate to complain about.

    46. Re:And they say ... by eln · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people trying to convert others in Austin. From what my kids tell me, most of them hang out in the public schools.

    47. Re:And they say ... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe the "leave me alone and keep government small" ppl happen to be religious types, and they get ridiculed on the latter point in order to demonize the former ideas by association. Just a thought.

    48. Re:And they say ... by cyclop · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      That's exactly what Fascism suggests.

      In the Italian Social Republic, socialization of factories and enterprises was (at least formally) begun. Occupation by the Allies ended the experiment.

      Fascism is, economically, rooted in Socialism. It is basically Socialism with Nationalism overtones... hmm, someone says National-Socialism?

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    49. Re:And they say ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Red State" used to mean, "Leave me alone and keep the government SMALL."

      "Small", of course, not including our ridiculous military spending; and leave me alone" means "feel free to go into other people's bedrooms and tell them how and with whom it's acceptible to make love." And of course, the government's powers to make the rich richer, to keep the engine of state capitalism humming, are never to be reduced: seldom will you hear a "small government" conservative rail against the government's powers to issue patents, copyrights, land and resource deeds, or corporate charters

      Conservatism has never been about smaller government. Their most "intellectual" leader, William Buckley, famously said "The job of conservatives was to stand athwart history, yelling, stop." And that's exactly the heart of conservatism: fear of change and progress. When the government is a agent of progress, as it was during desegregation, it is a thing to be opposed; when it is an agent of the repression of progress, as in aggressive war, anti-sodomy laws, forced religious indoctrination, and the like, it is to be supported with flag-waving fervor.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    50. Re:And they say ... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can give the distances in cubits if it's easier for you, I'm sure someone will post the conversion.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    51. Re:And they say ... by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, Ron Paul (for example) in his Revolution laments the loss of free thinking and Liberal (classically Liberal or what we now call Libertarian since the term Liberal has been hijacked by the far left in much the same way that Conservative has been hijacked by the neocons on the far right) citizens in the mold of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Patrick Henry who would be utterly appalled with the present state of affairs in the nation that they bequeathed to us. Unfortunately, for those of us Americans with an IQ greater than our shoe size, the vast majority of people want to be told how to live because they are too stupid, too ignorant, and too foolish to take care of themselves and the few intelligent politicians, almost without exception, use their gray matter advantage to manipulate rather than to educate the populace. Really, I am beginning to despair for the future outcome of our great American experiment because too few people now understand the true basis of American values or else they choose to ignore them as quaint anachronisms unfit for our modern times.

    52. Re:And they say ... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      The far left and right? Isn't telling people how to live their lives the point of every government that's ever created a law?

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    53. Re:And they say ... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Finding a small government candidate is nearly impossible now.

      Stalin was 5ft 1 inch.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    54. Re:And they say ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The only trouble is, lab glassware is a little expensive compared to crap from IKEA or Wal-Mart.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    55. Re:And they say ... by Frnknstn · · Score: 1

      PCBs? Really? I used to do some home chemistry, and never accidentally created a printed circuit board...

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    56. Re:And they say ... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Thank you. The expression of technophobia might differ among generic poloitical orientation. But it's the actual ignorance and fear of science and new technology that's the problem, not the politics.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    57. Re:And they say ... by UncleTogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, a Syndicate is an enterprise democratically managed by its workers.

      That's actually one of many ways the word syndicate is used...not the only one.

      For example, I'm fairly sure that a crime syndicate is NOT democratically managed...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    58. Re:And they say ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *Sigh*. I know, but the children are busy having a tantrum. Hopefully once they calm down, they'll RTFA later, and ponder for a second whether they'd like to be living next door to this fellow once they move out of their parents' basements.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    59. Re:And they say ... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a chemistry, by industry, by education and if I saw 1500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes sitting around full of chemistry stuff I'd want some authority to check it out. My response to this is based simply on my understanding of what someone can easily do with household products let alone ordered chemical and prep equipment. However, I do have to wonder if the outrage at the fascist authorities would be replaced by support if the guys name was Mustaffa or equivalent and he had an extensive (for home use) chemistry lab. Now ideally, our Mr. Deeb would have had an inventory of everything and have separated the chemicals appropriately for saftey sake.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    60. Re:And they say ... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist in a very Red state (SC) and not only don't they try to convert me, there is a healthy attitude towards firearms, blackpowder, and even personal ownership of cannon!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    61. Re:And they say ... by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      slashdotlurker, "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

      --
      She made the willows dance
    62. Re:And they say ... by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you "consent to search", you've just thrown your Fourth Amedment rights down the toilet for now and forevermore. No more warrant required to search your place; you'ce already consented.

    63. Re:And they say ... by JoeZeppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's true. Not all "Red-state" people are over-religious, or even religious at all. Often they share moral standards, but most often we just share a desire for the government to stay out of our lives!

      Yes, we don't want government to tell us that we can't terminate our pregnancies, smoke some marijuana for our cancer, end our own lives painlessly when terminally ill, have a homosexual relationship, call the police on our crazy neighbor with the collection of assault rifles... oh, wait.

    64. Re:And they say ... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      You've never had LDS or Jehova's Witness members visit your house? Where do you live, your mother's basement?

      I, too, live in Texas. Excluding the door-to-door evangelism of these two groups (and batshit insane corner preachers (who I think don't count as converters and instead count as local crazies just like Leslie, our homeless cross-dresser) at UT-Austin calling girls with makeup "whores" as they walk by), I've never been accosted.

      If I'd never studied at UT, I could say that the only times I've ever been accosted have been by the door-to-door-ers of the LDS and JW churches.

    65. Re:And they say ... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Imagine how far wrong an individual chemist, working alone, without review, might be.

      If I had mod points, I'd rate this funny. Or were you being serious? Han Solo said, "I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit." In practice, what people can imagine far exceeds what can be accomplish. Even bin-Laden imagined a lot more than what al-Qaeda was able to achieve.

      Heinlein and Rand notwithstading, experience shows that an individual working alone isn't going to get too far. Compare David Hahn to Union Carbide, for instance.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    66. Re:And they say ... by couchslug · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Well Richard, it seems my fellow Texans have been slacking! Let me just take a few minutes to tell you about Jesus, and the wonderful sacrifice he made for you..."

      "Jesus" is a copyrighted work of the Republican Party. Please consult their lawyers before going any further. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    67. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and perhaps you're missing the ability to detect a humorous post

    68. Re:And they say ... by AlphaLop · · Score: 1
      Don't worry, Nevada is just as bad. There was an attempt to convert me to Mormanism in a Walmart parking lot last night...

      What a fool, If I had a soul, I obviously wouldn't be shopping at Walmart in the first place. :)

      --
      It's only paranoia if your wrong...
    69. Re:And they say ... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe if you RTFA you would've seen that the issue wasn't his interest in chemistry. The problem was that they came to put a FIRE OUT and found ~1500 bottles of chemicals that could've posed a major fire hazard. This was in a residential neighborhood (e.g. close houses), not an industrial park.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    70. Re:And they say ... by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, fascists hate consumerism just as much as the communists.

      Remember, another word for fascism is "national socialism". It's communism mixed with nationalism. Read bsDaemon's post too--the corporations in corporatism aren't corporations in the modern sense.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    71. Re:And they say ... by russotto · · Score: 1

      The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy--although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).

      I believe this was the second tenet of Orwell's Party ("Freedom is slavery"). The US reiterated a similar statement later on with "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".

    72. Re:And they say ... by eldepeche · · Score: 1

      Unless someone wants to do drugs or have an abortion.

    73. Re:And they say ... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a great thought. Maybe someday you'll travel to a red state and talk to people, and you'll find out it's wrong.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    74. Re:And they say ... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The Christian right (or any fundamentalist religious sect--be it Zionist, Islamic or whatever else there is)

      Pssst... Zionsim isn't a religious sect.
      Zionism is a political/nationalistic movement

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    75. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 1

      I live in Houston. There are 4 churches on my street. (Bering, if you must know) Yet I have never been approached by any of them... Perhaps you find what you are looking for.

      Huh? Neither have I. What I'm referring to is eg. when I talk to people I often get a line of biblical bullshit or the blind assumption that I think this or that is God's will, that I think I need to "trust in God/Jesus", or that I think morality has a direct correlation with "Belief in God/Jesus". For example, I've had neighbors that have gone around preaching that Halloween is the work of the devil. And if you want a specific case of "trying to be converted" I was directly referring to several incidents where I have done residential computer tech work but when the client got wind that I don't believe in any God(s) or Higher Power(s) I was intimated as being amoral -- and I've gotten into many arguments, especially in certain social settings. But maybe that's just my low threshold for bullshit kicking in.

      jdb2

    76. Re:And they say ... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      And yet they have a shelf full of beakers, test tubes and flasks at Fry's. Sometimes I think nothing is actually legal here, they just don't have the resources to enforce all the (stupid) laws at the same time...

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    77. Re:And they say ... by kclittle · · Score: 1

      A government wants to do ONE thing -- survive at all costs. Unfortunately, this very easily morphs into "grow at all costs". When it grows too much, if you believe Mr. Jefferson, you must kill it and start over.
      Question is, are we at that point? Dunno 'bout that.

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    78. Re:And they say ... by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      Is this her home phone or her business phone?

      I hope her house gets picketed.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    79. Re:And they say ... by azav · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've had at least one idiot try to convert me to Christianity while I was trying to have dinner at a wine bar in Dallas. I've had another try to in a coffee shop.
      The IDIOT at the wine bar started asking me about Noah's Ark. Our discussion went somewhat like this:
      Me: Ok, explain why we don't have dinosaurs now?
      Idiot: They wouldn't fit on the ark.
      Me:
      Me:
      Me: WOW. Ok, what about the little ones? And what about the ones that didn't need an ark, like the ones in the ocean? Then why aren't our oceans FILLED with nothing but dinosaurs?
      Me: Ok then, what about all the animals that couldn't make it to the ark, like any animal from Australia, North America and South America?? Why do we have Koalas and Sloths if they couldn't make it to the Ark??
      Me: Are you REALLY that stupid?

      I hated that dinner.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    80. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The far left and the far right both have exactly the same goal: To tell others how to live their lives.

      Which is particularly ironic, because Massachusetts is spending some billions of dollars of their taxpayers money to "promote biochemistry" in the state.

      So they want to try and force people into biochemistry - but only on their own terms. Dare to do it on your own, and it's the gestapo treatment.

      What's really sad is the number of posts saying "oh, it's OK, it was just a zoning violation." Well, that's nice, it's illegal, and I'm glad the sheeple are willing to accept that without bothering to think about whether or not it should be illegal.

      And I think every rational person would agree that you should be allowed to do science on your own, without having to put up with the bullshit restrictions on what you're allowed to research. I don't know what the restrictions are to get money from those billions that Taxachusetts is burning for no gain, but I'll bet that if you do anything that might question liberal propaganda, you can expect to get your house raided like Deed did.

    81. Re:And they say ... by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

    82. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the key word there is "crap"

    83. Re:And they say ... by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      That's becuase the "blue-staters" defined the terms. Some of us are still independent -- I consider myself an Objectivist before Republican, and certainly before my religion.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    84. Re:And they say ... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      You make it sound pretty good, actually...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    85. Re:And they say ... by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I lived in Houston for 20 years myself, and if you're getting into arguments I somehow get the feeling that *you're* the one picking fights with people who have a different belief system. You hear a viewpoint grounded in religion or other bullshit and you just *have* to make an issue of it. But then, my college roomate was exactly like that, so maybe I'm just projecting.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    86. Re:And they say ... by cavis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The firefighters betrayed the public trust here? I don't see in the article where it says the firefighters went in uninvited or found his lab in some type of random basement check.

      In most areas, the Fire Department is the appropriate responding agency for a Hazardous Materials event. Your regulations are different?

    87. Re:And they say ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2
      ... And if a 33% tax rate can buy enough silly bureaucrats to go around doing this kind of crap, just imagine how many a nice, leftist, 75% tax rate will buy!

      Don't worry, you'll still be free to spend the remaining 25% of your money any way you want, as long as you don't try to "invest" it or start a "business", which would only serve to "victimize" the citizens.

      Besides, what do you need all that money for anyway? You'll get free health care and food stamps. We'll make sure the farmers keep working somehow. And if you company shuts down, we'll have a nice government job waiting for you building fences or something. We'll even send a bus around to pick you up, and provide you a jump suit to work in. Won't that be nice?

      Don't worry about somebody taking your house, either, it was a little to big for you anyway. Why would 1 person need 2 bedrooms? I mean, you only use the bathroom a few minutes at a time. We're building a nice big communal house for you that will maximize space, with plenty of people to keep you company!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    88. Re:And they say ... by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Informative

      by doing things like this the firefighters are jeopardizing this trust and placing the ability to protect the public safety in danger.

      I'm a volunteer fireman and I can tell you all there have been briefings from Homeland Security and other agencies about looking for suspicious materials, not all of it terrorism related. And it's not just us. Mail carriers, delivery drivers, med techs, utility crews, anyone who might be on your property or in your house on any occasional basis.

      We do have to be alert for drug labs, but most of the times the cops find them first and have their own hazmat teams.

      My question would be if they were working a fire in a window unit on the second floor, what were they doing in the basement?

      The rules for household chemicals aren't always real clear. Sounds like the state and local officials over-reacted. Unless there's a specific regulation that covers some compound he was using, it appears like his property was seized without due process. Unless we've taken another step down the road to a police state I don't think you can just declare something looks dangerous and confiscate it. In which case I could walk into anyones garage and start seizing lawn fertilizer, gasoline, paint thinner, ammonia, insecticides and anything else you might normally have around the house. All that stuff looks dangerous to me.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    89. Re:And they say ... by davester666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Um, "Jesus" cannot be a copyright. But it IS a trademark of the Republican party.

      Don't forget, Jesus(TM) died so members of the Republican Party can be forgiven for their sins.

      Now, the RP also has the copyright for The Bible...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    90. Re:And they say ... by dwiget001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I just invite them in, tell them I was getting ready to sit around the house in my underwear, smoke cigarettes and drink whiskey. They always turn a bit white, say "No thank you" and leave.

      If any ever took me up on it, I would strip down to my skivvies, break out bottle of cheap whiskey, light up a cig and tell them "Well, get your clothes off, take a swig and start puffing!"

    91. Re:And they say ... by slarrg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait till they start to explain how the Trinity works...

    92. Re:And they say ... by Missing_dc · · Score: 3, Funny

      And Libraries!!! those amoral dens of SIN and contempt!!

      [me ducks]

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    93. Re:And they say ... by Skreems · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being forced to consent to a police search before they allow you to do basic chemistry experiments seems pretty screwed up to me. What's next, consenting to have a keystroke logger installed before you're allowed to run a compiler on your home PC?

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    94. Re:And they say ... by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder how many households are breaking that law.

      Probably all of them. The law prohibits owning/operating a transformer... how many appliances do you have that actually run on 120VAC? In my house, the only ones I had until fairly recently were incandescent lightbulbs. Now that I've switched to compact fluorescent, I replaced the last incandescent last week, and don't actually have a single device in the house which uses 120VAC natively for all components. In other words: they've *all* got a transformer.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    95. Re:And they say ... by Kozz · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... redefined to "ultra religious crazy people that no one in their right mind should agree with."

      You forgot the part about guns -- the kind nobody hunts with, but "we've got our rights, so we keep 'em, see?"

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    96. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My question would be if they were working a fire in a window unit on the second floor, what were they doing in the basement?

      I, unlike yourself, am not a volunteer fireman, but my rudimentary knowledge of the subject of air conditioning units suggests that they may have been checking circuit breakers.

    97. Re:And they say ... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Not a bad point, but there are currently a lot more "you should be forced to live like I do" Red-Staters than "leave me alone and keep government small" Red-Staters. IMO that's going to change before too long, and you can thank Ron Paul for bringing the latter back into America's political consciousness.

      Here's hoping, anyway.

    98. Re:And they say ... by jebrew · · Score: 1

      You should get out of Austin more often.

    99. Re:And they say ... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Government by the gun is the most democratic of all.

      "God made men, Sam Colt made them equal."

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    100. Re:And they say ... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I attributed it (historically) to the Dixie-crats swinging over after the Civil Rights movement of JFK and LBJ.

      And after JFK signed the civil rights bills, I felt vindicated. But I was especially proud after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by Johnson. Only later did I understand why LBJ said upon signing that he had just surrendered the South to the GOP for a generation, which was optimistic.

      In terms of the current rate of acceleration of this trend, according to the Washington Post:

      Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

      Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.

      President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.
      ...
      Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics.

      ...

      Unfortunately, more danger lurks in the responsiveness of the new GOP coalition to Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals, who muster some 40 percent of the party electorate . Many millions believe that the Armageddon described in the Bible is coming soon. Chaos in the explosive Middle East, far from being a threat, actually heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ.

      ...

      Besides providing critical support for invading Iraq -- widely anathematized by preachers as a second Babylon -- the Republican coalition has also seeded half a dozen controversies in the realm of science. These include Bible-based disbelief in Darwinian theories of evolution, dismissal of global warming, disagreement with geological explanations of fossil-fuel depletion, religious rejection of global population planning, derogation of women's rights and opposition to stem cell research. This suggests that U.S. society and politics may again be heading for a defining controversy such as the Scopes trial of 1925. That embarrassment chastened fundamentalism for a generation, but the outcome of the eventual 21st century test is hardly assured.

    101. Re:And they say ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The job of conservatives was to stand athwart history, yelling, stop.

      And that's exactly the heart of conservatism: fear of change and progress.

      No, that's the fastest road to progress (as opposed to random change). As a professional software engineer, I value my QA depaptment. Their job is to stand athwart product delivery, yelling, stop. We deliver a better product faster as a result. Often my job as a very senior engineer is to say "wait, stop, did you think of X? What goes wrong if Y happens?".

      All good engineers are conservative engineers - blindly embracing new ideas for the sake of change leads to rapid change, but not to rapid improvement. Most new ideas are bad, no matter how brilliant they first appear. Critical analysis of new ideas allows focus on the few that are good!

      If you spent more time talking to smart conservatives you'd realize that they're just as common as smart progressives, and they're in general just as desirous of progress: the disagreement is over the method. Rapid change to ideas that sound good, or slow careful change to ideas that have proven good? My career in engineering has often shown that the latter approach makes for faster progress.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    102. Re:And they say ... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      My question would be if they were working a fire in a window unit on the second floor, what were they doing in the basement?

      Checking the main breaker box for shorts / illegal wiring?

      Turning off the power?

    103. Re:And they say ... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As well as needing a permit and having to accept warrentless searches to own quality glassware, it is also *illegal* to have a dildo in Texas. If they find one while crossing the border, they keep it. Wonders: is there a small mountain of Dildos accumulating in TX?

    104. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a chemistry, by industry, by education and if I saw 1500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes sitting around full of chemistry stuff I'd want some authority to check it out.

      If you had said

      "I'm a Chemist, by training and profession and if I saw 1500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes improperly stored, full of chemicals I'd want some authority to check it out."

      your troll would have been much more effective, especially if you exclude fireman with a bit of hazmat training and building inspectors from being considered an authority.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    105. Re:And they say ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes, we don't want government to tell us that we can't ... end our own lives painlessly when terminally ill,

      Move to Oregon, dude. The state will actually pay for your euthenasia even when it won't pay for treatment. How advanced is THAT!!

    106. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am from Texas, don't be a moron that subscribes to stereo types. Anyway, this sort of thing is ridiculous. The police need some police.

    107. Re:And they say ... by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      3 on every corner!? Is this some kind of trick physics question? Are they stacked on top of one another?

      In Texas we have multiple churches on the same corner. This is done by renting/leasing space out of a strip mall. Adding dark curtains and security bars to the door.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    108. Re:And they say ... by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1

      If you visit a street corner, you will notice that every right-angle intersection of two continuing streets has the ability to have 4 structures. It is common to say something might be "at the corner of 9th and Pine." If something like "NE corner" isn't specified, then there can easily be 3 churches at the corner of 9th and Pine.

    109. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark curtains and security bars in a strip mall sounds more like a cult house than a nice, open, cheery, and light-filled church.

    110. Re:And they say ... by slarrg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's almost impossible for a household not to be breaking this law. If you own a glass container and a heating device (say a coffee pot) and any substance such as allergy medicine or acetone (nail polish remover, anyone) then you have three items on the list and are in violation of the law. In addition, the law states that the act of owning any combination of three items proves intent to manufacture drugs. This law is so broad that everyone has a drug lab and the intent to produce drugs in Texas.

    111. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I lived in Houston for 20 years myself, and if you're getting into arguments I somehow get the feeling that *you're* the one picking fights with people who have a different belief system.

      Different belief system? You mean delusional bullshit. Sorry to nitpick, but you later refer to said belief systems as bullshit yourself. And sorry, I'm not the kind of person to pick a fight, but when someone attacks my character or spouts a bunch of "Mega-Churchian" Voodoo in my face, I will vigorously defend logic and reason.

      You hear a viewpoint grounded in religion or other bullshit and you just *have* to make an issue of it. But then, my college roomate was exactly like that, so maybe I'm just projecting.

      Sometimes that's the case, but most of the time it's when somehow I'm targeted personally, directly or indirectly -- it's when someone spouts some "Christian" garbage and everyone else except me is wagging their heads. In that situation, for me at least, to not respond would be to let others think that you believe in the garbage being talked about -- I'm not one of those people.

      jdb2

    112. Re:And they say ... by sunami · · Score: 1

      Try living in a place called "Falls Church" and talk to me about too many churches.

    113. Re:And they say ... by toddhisattva · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy--although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).

      What if socialists are more narrow, short-sighted and selfish than any capitalist in history?

      Hell, there ain't no "what if."

      Socialists, and the Left in general, are narrow, short-sighted, and the level of hypocrisy attained by their selfishness-for-me-but-not-for-thee attitude requires uncountable infinities to grasp.

      Notice that the most hard-core socialists, even back to Robert Owen, are rich, usually through the capitalist hard work of their immediate ancestors. "It is easy to be socialist if you're rich."

      Socialism is the ultimate feel-good, spoiled brat belief system. By that, I mean that its purpose is to make spoiled brats feel good about their idiot selves. Instead of making themselves better, they seek to make themselves feel better.

      They think they help the poor by taking from the rich and pocketing the cash. "Hate the rich" until you are rich, then target "corporations" until you own them too. The short-sightedness feeds the hypocrisy.

      Of course that makes them feel good. All guilt is absolved because their intentions feel good. It's not stealing, it's not selfish, and it feels so good.

      That is the narrow view and short-sightedness of the Socialist. Nobody has ever come up with a better way to rationalize pure hedonism - not Caligula, nor Bentham.

      Socialism is a parasitic system that can only exist at the sufferance of Capitalism. Socialism produces nothing, moves no goods, adds no value.

      Capitalism is the natural extension of trade, and is a human right.

      Socialism is crap.

    114. Re:And they say ... by snowraver1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      30 miles = ~105,600 cubits.

      Converstion posted!

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    115. Re:And they say ... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Most red-staters really are "leave me alone and keep government small". The politicians frequently say "you should be forced to live like I do" because that's the way many people who seek political power think.

      Politicians from a red state =/= red-staters. When there's a choice between "you should be forced to live like I do; like a blue stater" and "you should be forced to live like I do; like a red stater" the red staters hold their nose and vote for the latter. The word is slowly getting out that there are still a couple "leave me alone and keep government small" politicians, but we've not seen one for a while, so we're skittish.

    116. Re:And they say ... by parc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try going to the site and _reading_ the search waiver. It includes a time limit on the search, location limitation, and specifically requires your presence for the inspection. Yes, some of these are for the convenience of the DPS (so they can arrest you), but the waiver is _not_ a waiver of all 4th amendment rights.

      No doubt this is a stupid law, but it is level-headed and appropriate when compared with the vast majority of laws we manage to pass around here.

    117. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... bhahahaha.

      I'm here in your friendly northern neighbor (oklahoma) and I've been yelled at in public places simply because I was talking about being an athiest.

      (and yea yea, I know that really I'm agnostic, but it makes it easier to just say atheist than try to explain that the burden of proof is on those with the assumptions.)

    118. Re:And they say ... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy

      I thought you had a funny definition of freedom when you said it included forcing people to contribute to the common good (socialism), but then I read the rest of your comment...

      When there are fewer restrictions on the rich and how they are allowed to push the rest of us around with their wealth, power and privilege, then it means the rest of us have less freedom.

      It's not so much that you have a funny definition of freedom, as it is that you're a complete and total hypocrite. Freedom to you means freedom for you, but not necessarily freedom for those that use it in a way you disapprove of. You just said so yourself. In other words, the last sentence of my original post describes you spot on.

    119. Re:And they say ... by Teun · · Score: 1

      lawn fertilizer, gasoline, paint thinner, ammonia, insecticides and anything else you might normally have around the house. All that stuff looks dangerous to me.

      This looks suspiciously like a receipt for explosives, we'll have to get your IP and save the homeland.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    120. Re:And they say ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I somehow get the feeling that *you're* the one picking fights with people who have a different belief system.

      Different belief system? You mean delusional bullshit.

      Yeah, so it's pretty clear that the problem here isn't Texas. :)

      As the saying goes: if you meet more that two assholes a day, look in the mirror.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    121. Re:And they say ... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      They'd need a warrant for that. So no, they didn't assume it was a meth lab, they just chose to raid the home without any legal right to do so.

      That being said, typical household chemicals can make some pretty lethal chemicals when mixed together. Mixing together multiple types of cleaning products has been known to cause some pretty serious illnesses or death.

      Ultimately it's bullshit, any chemistry student, knows not to randomly mix chemicals. And a retired chem prof definitely knows not to. More likely than not, it's less dangerous allowing him to have and use them than it is the general public.

    122. Re:And they say ... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      While, I didn't get a religious wacko vibe from people in the short time I was doing work in AZ, using a self description is a poor way to decide whether people are religious wackos or not. After all, if you lived in a community that burned people as witches, you might not consider yourself religious if you only go to church 3 times a week, and disown your daughter if she has premarital sex.

    123. Re:And they say ... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      None of that has anything to do with this case, which is a set of actions by a small town comptroller. Go look up "straw man". Whether or not other things are tripping your ridiculously oversensitive conspiracy sensor has literally zero to do with this.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    124. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 1

      "You hear a viewpoint grounded in religion or other bullshit"

      And when you imply someone is an asshole you're usually a hypocrite.

    125. Re:And they say ... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Can't they sail across the ocean and set up shop over there?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    126. Re:And they say ... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I think you've confused "point" with "result".

    127. Re:And they say ... by nickhart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Socialism is a parasitic system...

      Please. Capitalism is the ultimate parasitic system. The capitalists add no value. They perform no labor. They reap the rewards of others' labor. Without workers capitalism could not exist, because the entire system is based on the exploitation of labor. Capitalists are the very definition of parasites.

      Under capitalism production is socialized--we work together to produce commodities. However, the product of our labor is appropriated by private individuals and sold for their profit. Social production with private appropriation is organized theft. The capitalists need us to create their profits, but we don't need them. We can re-organize society so that everyone benefits, not just a handful of tiny parasites who think they "own" everything.

      PS: in anticipation of others' diatribes, the USSR, China and Cuba are not and never were socialist. They were/are capitalist--because they employ the capitalist mode of production (exploitation of workers, accumulation of capital for accumulation's sake). Only in their systems there's one big capitalist: the state. These regimes merely use the language of socialism to lull workers into accepting the status quo--much as capitalists in the US and Western nations talk about "democracy" to delude their workers into thinking they're free. It's much easier to control people with these illusions in place.

      PPS: Robert Owen was a utopian socialist who thought he could dream up a new society and bestow it upon the poor, hapless workers. Marx and Engels were scientific socialists, who discovered how capitalism works, what its internal contradictions are and how the working class (capitalism's essential product, without which it cannot exist) holds the key to overturning it and ending class society forever. Utopian and scientific socialism have little to do with each other.

    128. Re:And they say ... by nuttycom · · Score: 1

      No doubt. But this definition of conservatism is orthogonal to conservatism as it is practiced as a political ideology in the United States.

    129. Re:And they say ... by mliikset · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i think that emergency crews would want to turn off the gas and electricity before going very far in fighting a fire. a lot of windows have electrical boxes under or beside, and i sure as hell wouldn't put an ax on live wire. when i was a pup, i drove a 20d nail through the main feed to my house. the fact that it was an estwing is why i can type this, instead of being in a box.

      otoh, if they already suspected (many fire and police departments are merged these days) the occupant they may have used a plausible excuse to get around a no warrant situation.

    130. Re:And they say ... by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      That is why I am a Libertarian. Ron Paul is too GOML to switch and thinks he can bring traditional Republican values back to the party, but I think it is too far gone. Switch to Libertarianism; our motto is "Smaller Govt, Lower Taxes, More Freedom" or that's one...
       
      OT: I wish they would switch the nominees to Root/Barr. I'm voting for RootBarr!

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    131. Re:And they say ... by Derosian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a guncollectory, by industry and by education and if I saw a couple of pistols, rifles, and semi-automatics sitting around full of gunnery stuff I'd want some authority to check it out. My response to this is based simply on my understanding of what someone can easily do with guns and ammunition let alone ammunition bought special and assault equipment. However, I do have to wonder if the outrage at the fascist authorities would be replaced by support if the guy's name was Ali Akid Jabbabi or equivalent and he had an extensive(for home use) gun collection. Now ideally, our Mr. Deeb would have had an inventory[or the government] of everything and [would] have separated the guns appropriately for saftey[safety's] sake.

      Forgetting everything else that makes this comment seem worthless like your inappropriate use of the word chemistry and quickly followed up by your note of the "chemistry stuff", I'm sure you feel that the government has every right to search every single house at least once a year to make sure nothing illegal is going on inside, and if they find something which scares them even if it isn't illegal they can take it anyway, because it is best if the government watches our for our well being. After all what other reason would the government exist for?

      Go ahead mod me troll...

    132. Re:And they say ... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I think that it is you, sir, that needs to look up "straw man".

      From Wikipedia:

      A "straw man" argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

      I did not refute some other position and then claim it represented a valid argument against yours. Instead I provided a list of examples to demonstrate that this type of policy which dictates how people can live their lives and use their property is typical rather than an isolated incident.

      Now, it is true that this isn't a "conspiracy", but you made two statements. The one which I have refuted was that this is something that is fairly unique to this "one small town's small-time comptroller". I do agree that there is no conspiracy. You don't need some nefarious plot to have a majority of a state's population be made up of idiots when it comes to public policy. However this is *not* an isolated incident that is being overblown. Given the opportunity, this person would make this same decision again tomorrow, and so would people in her position in most other towns in the eastern half of her state.

    133. Re:And they say ... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      All politicians by definition think they are better than everybody else, that they alone know what is best for everybody else.

      Right wing politicians got that way from too many rough dealings with other people. Therefore they think people are too evil to be allowed to think for themselves.

      Left wing politicians got that way by watching others make mistakes and do dumb things. Therefore they think people are too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves.

      But all politicians think people should not be allowed to think for themselves, that they should do all the thinking for everybody, whether as part of the government or business.

    134. Re:And they say ... by digitig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Variant records.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    135. Re:And they say ... by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that a large amount of the "Leave me alone and keep the government SMALL" Red-Staters only want the federal government to leave them alone so their state governments can force their religion on people.

      These are the same people who threw a hissy fit about Lawrence v. Texas. These are the same people who supported segregation at the state government level. They only want small federal government because they don't want the federal government preventing their totalitarian state governments from being totalitarian.

      Sure, there are some genuine libertarians, but you'd be surprised at how many people want totalitarian state & local governments with no federal interference.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    136. Re:And they say ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but my point was "that's not so". This definition of conservatism is orthagonal to the caricature of conservatism so often used to paint Republicans or "Red Staters" as zealots and hicks. Both parties are a coalition of groups with more specific concerns. The Bible-Bashing Crackers are certainly one such group, and a vocal one, but hardly represantive of conservative poltical ideology as a whole.

      Of course, we're currently in a mess where neither party acts towards either fiscal conservatism or less instrusive government, so it would be a misake to label either party "conservative" or "liberal" at the moment. Note that those two ideas are not opposite in any way, they've just been championed by opposing parties in recent decades, so a lot of marketing has been done to convince us that we must choose between them.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    137. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The guys air conditioner caught on fire, how is that a hazardous materials event? If calling the FD starts resulting in a monumental legal brouhaha, how likely are people to call the FD while they still have a chance to contain the blaze before it burns down half the neighborhood?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    138. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waco is in Tx

    139. Re:And they say ... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      or spouts a bunch of "Mega-Churchian" Voodoo
      Voodoo (or Vodou or a couple of other spellings) is an entirely different religion.

    140. Re:And they say ... by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      By the way, Ron Paul is one of these people. Read his vile, disgusting We The People act. Paul just wants the federal government to stay away from the totalitarian state governments he dreams of.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    141. Re:And they say ... by bar-agent · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't call her up. The guy was in violation of zoning laws but she's not pressing charges.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    142. Re:And they say ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "The law prohibits owning/operating a transformer... "

      Ruh roh....that means all my tube amplifiers are illegal??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    143. Re:And they say ... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yea I never understood why a conservative would want Barak Obama to have the executive powers that Bush has pushed for, or why a liberal Obama supporter would want the next George Bush to determine their healthcare requirements. What ever powers you give your favorite president, remember the next one may not be your favorite and he will then have those powers.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    144. Re:And they say ... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Sadly, a lot of the red staters where I am *are* of the "you need to live like I do" variety.

      The Bible Belt is fun like that...

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    145. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have trouble with the idiomatic use of the English language. If you read the dictionary entry you'll discover that it also means "Deceptive or delusive nonsense."

    146. Re:And they say ... by Jesrad · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      "Please. Capitalism is the ultimate parasitic system. The capitalists add no value. They perform no labor."

      Buuullshit.

      Earning money and then not spending it into tastier food (or whatever non-capital good) but rather into the building of a useful tool that will save efforts and time has no value and performs no useful function ? You are out of your mind.

      The value represented by interest and profit in a capitalist system comes from this saving of efforts and time, which allows the creation of more wealth with equal amount of work. This value comes from the improvement of the efficiency it causes. This is the one big thing that Marx got entirely wrong, even though people like Leibniz had written about it decades before Das Kapital.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    147. Re:And they say ... by CKW · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is there any blame necessary? Or are you following the lead of an over-reaction by the poster, some right wing anti-guvment type?

      Look at these direct quotes from the article:

      > Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.
      >
      > Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said.
      >
      > Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

      If I was a neighbour or someone renting a room or floor in their house, I'd be thanking GOD the fire department noticed that place before I died in a fire fed by "1500 different chemicals ... (that were) all over the furniture and floor".

      If he wants to do science with 1500 chemicals, he should rent a space in an industrial park. Then the fire department can use Fire Codes to force him to properly label and store his shit according to the appropriate guidelines.

    148. Re:And they say ... by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

      Are you an American?

      If so, congratulations, you are one of the very few who actually seem to have understood what capitalism and socialism are REALLY about rather than parroting the usual tripe.

      The big problem with both is that people are involved, so neither really ever exists in a pure form, for which we should probably be truly grateful because life under either of them in pure form would be unimaginably dull and constricting.

      Its a delicate job trying to implement the best of both and keep everything in balance, which is why western societies (which all do this, with different balances) are so "dynamic". They need to be or they will slide to one side or the other and fail.

    149. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, since we're talking about Massachusetts, the difference between red/blue is about 20%/80% when you look at polls.

      There are currently no one who is not a Democrat in Massachusetts. Both senators are. All representatives are. The governor is.

      So, yeah, when talking red/blue, Massachusetts is True Blue.

      And, in a surprising coincidence, almost completely irrelevant to the US economy. Gee, wonder why that might be?

    150. Re:And they say ... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Yes, voodoo economics and the like. You should probably still avoid that sense of the term when you're talking about religion.

    151. Re:And they say ... by danomac · · Score: 1

      My question would be if they were working a fire in a window unit on the second floor, what were they doing in the basement?

      As someone else pointed out, probably checking the electrical panel.

      However, it is possible that a fire can jump a floor. If it was a 2-storey house with a basement that had a chimney/elevator shaft a fire can start in the basement and ignite the second floor before the main floor.

    152. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the wonderful sacrifice he made for you...

      Only joking, of course. I'm not from Texas.

      Clearly. Otherwise you would have said "the wonderful sacrifice He made for you..."

    153. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >This looks suspiciously like a receipt for explosives

      The word you were looking for was "recipe", not "receipt".

      HTH. HAND.

    154. Re:And they say ... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ...I replaced the last incandescent last week, and don't actually have a single device in the house which uses 120VAC natively...

      What? No space heaters, tea kettles, electric frying pans, or toasters? No fans, or rice cookers, or blow driers? Surely, you've got a mixer, or a blender, or a vacuum cleaner, no? What about that table saw, or your skillsaw, or that drill, or the hedge clippers?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    155. Re:And they say ... by jdb2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I misinterpreted your post as inflammatory. I have problems "reading between the lines" in real life social situations ( Asperger's ) not to mention on-line where there aren't any non-verbal social cues to begin with.

      jdb2

    156. Re:And they say ... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bit much to be inciting what's effectively a DDoS. For some reason, if it's one person repeatedly calling a person, it's harassment, I haven't heard of a lot of people making one call each to the same end being called the same, but it's just as vicious.

    157. Re:And they say ... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Huh? Did you RFTA? TFA doen't say what chemicals are actually there, nor does it say anything but vagueness about quantities. There's quite a bit of dangerous stuff in what's considered "ordinary" supplies in household bathrooms and kitchens, but they seem to be treated as harmless by some people.

    158. Re:And they say ... by nickhart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This value comes from the improvement of the efficiency it causes.

      Efficient? Capitalism? Have you been spending your profits on ganja?

      Look at the health insurance system in the US. Hundreds of different insurers, all with their own little bureaucracies and red-tape (ironically designed not to provide care, but to DENY it). Each has their own marketing departments and collection of overpaid executives. Every clinic and hospital in the US has to navigate this maze of bureaucracies in order to get paid, which wastes countless hours and dollars. Medicare spends 7% of its budget on overhead, whereas private insurance companies spend 15-30%. Collectively the people of the US spend as much on health care as a single-payer system would cost, and yet we have 50 million uninsured people and 18,000 die premature deaths every year due to lack of coverage. A marvel of efficiency at getting the capitalists paid, but not at healing people.

      Or consider the millions of out of work people in the US. It's not that there isn't any work to be done--there's plenty of stuff that needs working on: fixing our crumbling national infrastructure, repairing levies, building mass transit systems, schools, hospitals... the list goes on. Yet none of that happens because it wouldn't be profitable for the capitalists who have all the money. Efficient at making a handful of parasites rich, but not efficient at providing necessary public services.

      What about the 6 million children who die of hunger and treatable illness worldwide each and every year? UNICEF estimates it would cost $80 billion annually to feed them all--a figure that is a fifth of the US's annual military budget (and not including supplemental budgets for our wars or interest payments on those debts). The government would rather pay companies to not grow food or destroy their surpluses than to feed the hungry.

      Or consider the billions of people who will never get a chance at a decent education. There could be Einsteins, Bachs and geniuses all over the world who will never be allowed to achieve their potential because capitalists are loathe to spend money on educating people any more than is required for them to work in their factories and offices.

      So much human potential is squandered and so much misery is caused all in the name of profit and "efficiency." The only thing capitalism is efficient at is ruining lives and generating profits for those parasites at the top who perform no labor but reap the rewards of others' labor. Thanks, but no thanks.

    159. Re:And they say ... by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Beat them with a rock. then ask their opinion.

    160. Re:And they say ... by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Please pardon us for incorrectly naming our oppressors. :o

    161. Re:And they say ... by verbamour · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well until Valentine's Day this year, you weren't allowed to own too many sex toys either...

      http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202904864073

      Of course, you can still have guns. I mean, we're not savages here...

    162. Re:And they say ... by dosius · · Score: 1

      Most places here don't even sell pseudoephedrine anymore but only phenylepherine.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    163. Re:And they say ... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think there's some bit about probable cause if it looks like a chemistry department in a residential neighborhood. It wasn't discovered by some arbitrary home invasion but by firefighters coming in to put out a fire, so I'm not sure if a warrant would be required.

    164. Re:And they say ... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Lal, sir, and lal again: to cite Wikipedia as authority shows that you aren't particularly interested in the quality of your reference. Either way, I'm not particularly worried about it; that you should attempt to provide justification on the explicit contrary of grounds I provided for distrust, using non-germane topics such as your satisfaction with the personal support provided by a company at some point in the past, is the refutation you think isn't there. I'm sorry that you think an adjoinder that directly refutes the parent post is somehow not a refutation, but I'm rather sorrier that I have to listen to you, and I'm about to end the problem.

      Instead I provided a list of examples to demonstrate

      ...your inadequate control of fundamental logic. Yes, we saw. I don't know why you're banging this drum; it's obvious that I find your arguments laughable. It's not as if anyone but you is falling for (or even listening to) this self adulating diatribe.

      Maybe you should steal a logic 101 class. I'm pretty done explaining the obvious to you, though, so make sure to fill your next post with asinine things like "this type of policy which dictates how people can live their lives", wherein you act as if you somehow have the fundamental right to steal other people's work. For someone so interested in rights, it seems curious that you have not yet considered the rights of the author. But, then, that's because the warezer's worldview does not extend outside their own skin.

      You should be happy there are laws enforcing the common sense that people other than you have. That's why nobody's beaten the hell out of you for your self serving reprobia.

      I also don't know why you'd think I'd give a damn what someone who steals from me has to say. I'm not the blog poster. I still hate you, and I don't give a shit about your opinions.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    165. Re:And they say ... by jabithew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The capitalists need us to create their profits, but we don't need them.

      Unfortunately, we rather do. Labour cannot labour without capital, so capital is actually a key part of adding value. After all, a workman without capital is simply unemployed.

      Also, if the state can't own capital, then who can? If it's held in common, then some way of administering capital (i.e. allocating it in the best way) would have to be implemented. It could be a person (in which case you'd have a monopsonistic capitalist, fantastic) or some sort of communal administration, or a state as most people prefer to call it. In reality, the worker benefits more from competitive sale of capital (i.e. many capitalists) and from the use of price signals to assign capital (after all price is the place where people can't afford to lie).

      The old myth that capital doesn't add value is based on a discredited economic theory; the labour theory of value, which states such more or less by definition. However, the LTV fails to explain observed economic facts (e.g. why does coffee cost more in a station than from the same brand 200m away?) This is why economists have switched to the marginal utility theory of value, which makes more sense a priori anyway to me.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    166. Re:And they say ... by BLAG-blast · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My question would be if they were working a fire in a window unit on the second floor, what were they doing in the basement?

      You fail at pretending to be a volunteer fireman.

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    167. Re:And they say ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're lucky and live in Austin -- the "Silicon Hills" - the land locked country in Texas where everyone usually has a brain that can think independently. Unfortunately I live in Houston, deep in the "Bible Belt", where there is a church every half mile.

      Sorry, but you're deluded if you think that way about Texas.

      I've lived in Austin from 2001 to 2006. Both before and after that time I've lived in Houston all my life. Given the fact Austin is a university city, it should come to no surprise that it's home to many progressives and liberals (voting record proves it too). As for them thinking independently; yes, creativity is a requirement for being an artist and/or musician. But being a "free thinker" doesn't make one more intelligent or properly informed.

      Houston on the other hand is a religious city being that you can find many churches, synagogues, mosques and temples in the area. However, you won't find many evangelicals Christians here like you would in a typical bible-thumping state. Given the fact Houston has more engineers and doctors compaired to Austin, I'm willing to bet most Slashdotters would prefer this city over an artsy-fartsy place like Austin or San Francisco.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    168. Re:And they say ... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy--although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).

      Yeah, right. The way to increase freedom is to reduce freedom. Everybody is equal, but capitalists aren't as equal as everybody else. (With apologies to Orwell.) Brilliant thinking, there.

      The Christian right (or any fundamentalist religious sect--be it Zionist, Islamic or whatever else there is)

      Since when is Zionism a religious sect, much less a fundamentalist one? Plenty of Christians are/were Zionists, possibly more Christians than Jews at the end of WWII.

      wants to reduce everyone's freedoms based on their religious dogma.

      Yeah; and you want to reduce their freedoms based on their level of income, so you're MUCH better than they are.

      When there are fewer restrictions on the rich and how they are allowed to push the rest of us around with their wealth, power and privilege, then it means the rest of us have less freedom.

      How? You already have as much freedom as you take. If you don't want to work for a capitalist, then don't. That's not against the law, and thousands of people do it every day of their lives. (Maybe you've heard of the Amish? Nothing's stopping you from adopting their lifestyle.)

    169. Re:And they say ... by melikamp · · Score: 1

      The capitalists add no value. They perform no labor.

      What are you smoking? Whether a capitalist is an owner or an important board member, he does perform quite a bit of work. I would agree that the reward he gets is many times bigger that that of a hired worker, for the same amount of labor, but that is besides the point. Someone needs to run the factory. Show us a car factory that runs without the top management. No such thing exists.

      in anticipation of others' diatribes, the USSR, China and Cuba are not and never were socialist.

      They were never Communist. The difference is huge. From the Wikipedia:

      In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers' councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments.

      Russia and Cuba are a GREAT examples of Socialist countries which exemplify both strengths and weaknesses of the state-run economy. To say that Russia is not Socialist is wrong by definition of the term.

    170. Re:And they say ... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Three things:

      1. I RTFA'd.
      2. I'm a homeowner, and would be perfectly happy having this fellow as my neighbor.
      3. I'm insulted.

      That latter bit is actually somewhat of a surprise; generally speaking, it Just Doesn't Happen on slashdot.

    171. Re:And they say ... by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      The only political party in the US who doesn't have an interest in controlling people is the Libertarian party... But some of their views are pretty wacky the other direction (like selling the national forests to foreign interests in order to repay the debt, etc).

      The democrats and republicans are basically all the same across the spectrum. The Greens are probably worse at telling people what to do. The Constitution party claims all their "freedom for everyone" crap, but they're really built on a platform of anti-gay and racist bigotry with a bit of corporate knob-sucking thrown in... Who else is there? Just about nobody.

      Awesome, I'm moving to Russia. They're too damn busy waving flags and invading small neighbors to give a shit what happens with their own citizens.

      heh

    172. Re:And they say ... by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Vote libertarian.

      http://www.lp.org/

      Bob Barr and Wayne Root, 2008. They're businessmen, not lawyers and they hate big government.

    173. Re:And they say ... by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      I've never seen one of those running.

      Generally, the "I'm so holy" crowd wants to institute gaggles of legislation to control people, which is the definition of "big government" to me.

      It's a little ironic, perhaps that EVERY SINGLE president of the US has been Protestant.. except Kennedy I believe...

      So.. uhm.. which "religious types" are you talking about? Ted Haggard? Awesome sauce. (literally)

    174. Re:And they say ... by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Vote libertarian.

      The Democrats, while perhaps marginally better, aren't really noticeably so.

      meh

    175. Re:And they say ... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      "Look at the health insurance system in the US."

      That trove of regulation, state-enforced monopolies and corporate-federal state cross-interests ? That's light-years away from true capitalism.

      "What about the 6 million children who die of hunger and treatable illness worldwide each and every year?"

      Everywhere except in the strongly-capitalist countries. Nice wool you have on your eyes ! Those children die not of having too much trade and too many salaried jobs thrust upon them by capitalists, but quite the opposite. They die because the people who rule them with guns and machettes will NOT let the capitalists from out of the borders deal with them.

      "Or consider the billions of people who will never get a chance at a decent education. There could be Einsteins, Bachs and geniuses all over the world who will never be allowed to achieve their potential because capitalists are loathe to spend money on educating people any more than is required for them to work in their factories and offices."

      Wake up and smell the coffee, it is private schools run for profit that are lifting the millions of poors in the third-world out of illiteracy and misery.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    176. Re:And they say ... by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the only thing to avoid is the capitalization of the word. That definitely would indicate a reference to the Vodoun practices.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    177. Re:And they say ... by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      It also depends on the size and quantity of the chemicals. If they're tiny vials then they're probably no more or less dangerous than ordinary household cleaners and other products. If they're huge flasks full of unknown and unlabeled chemicals then yeah it might more credible.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    178. Re:And they say ... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      If you lived in Texas, you'd have the intent to produce drugs too. Mostly so you could immidiately consume them.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    179. Re:And they say ... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      If the people of Texas really wanted government out of their lives, I'd be able to buy a bottle of wine late at night on a Sunday. The Red states are just as bad with the nanny state crap, just in different areas of your life.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    180. Re:And they say ... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

        Anytime there's an electrical fire, the first thing you want to do is to shut off the juice to the circuit. If the A/C was a hardwired unit or it was the outlet itself shorting* (or if the fire prevented them from coming close enough to unplug it) then the circuit breaker is your only option.

      SB
      * by an odd coincidence I had to replace an A/C outlet that was doing just that - arcing internally - at work this week. Fortunately the tenant was relatively awake and noticed the buzzing sound coming from what he thought was the A/C unit itself.

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    181. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I could, I'd mod you -1 for inappropriate use of italics.

    182. Re:And they say ... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      I am from Texas, don't be a moron that subscribes to stereo types. Anyway, this sort of thing is ridiculous. The police need some police.

      I lived there for for several years.

      If you really want to fight those stereo types stop posting a Coward.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    183. Re:And they say ... by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Oh Noes Chemicals!!!1111oenone

      Did they say 1500 hazardous chemicals? Maybe he just had a shit tonne of hair conditioner. I mean come on, until we get better info anything more is speculation which incidentally makes for good sensationalism.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    184. Re:And they say ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Troll

      Three responses:

      1. Easy to say.
      2. Easy to say.
      3. Well, my work here is done.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    185. Re:And they say ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Why would I need to RTFA when I can infer backwards from all the wailing and moaning that kids these days just aren't blowing things up like they ought to be?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    186. Re:And they say ... by stuboogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In 1857, at the age of 10, Thomas Edison set up a chemical laboratory in the cellar of his home. Good thing his house wasn't raided by the authorities.

      We soon forget that many scientific advances were made by people just like this chemistry professor working out of a home lab.

      Just because he had "vessels of chemicals all over the furniture and the floor," does not mean there was any danger. I would assume a person of his credentials would know what they are doing.

    187. Re:And they say ... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. All socialism that fails isn't REALLY socialism. Socialism is PERFECT. :-)

      Capitalists don't perform labor? They take on all the risk of a venture - I've never heard of employees complaining that they do not get a part of the LOSSES the employer might sustain -, they do the planning, they provide the capital that is responsible for increasing production and ultimately making products cheaper and available to more and more people.

      Marx was a MORON which thought that all the riches in the world amounts to a fixed sized pie. And that if the capitalists make more money, that means somebody else makes less, without ANY half-decent knowledge of how economics works and how riches come into being. Seriously. Calling that scientific is like calling intelligent design science.

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    188. Re:And they say ... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Part of the point of having persistent identity (even persistent pseudonymous identity) is assigning trust values -- if I hadn't seen you around in the past and decided that you seemed to be a reasonable person, you almost certainly wouldn't have been able to insult me (and I most likely wouldn't be responding to you now).

      Likewise, I'd hope that you'd have seen me around over the years we've been mutually frequenting this site enough to believe that I don't assert things simply because they're "easy to say".

      The article specifies that the chemicals found did not, in fact, pose any abnormal hazard; why would you expect that reading TFA would lead one to believe that confiscating them was justified?

    189. Re:And they say ... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy—although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).

      Don't you get that reducing freedoms to the capitalists reduces your freedom as well? And who is to decide what interests arent narrow, short-sighted and selfish? The far-left?

      Most of the rich in the US were poor once, they might've gotten bare handed on the continent. But the great thing about America was that people STOPPED being poor, exactly because they were free do do whatever they liked and the government didn't restrain them in any way.

      What you propose - and I can't really blame you, it's the general direction the mainstream media in the US is shoveling everybody - is a return to poverty, tyranny and a central power.

      Remember the line: "L'Etat, c'est moi" by Louis XIV

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    190. Re:And they say ... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      That's a little ironic since to most people guns are essentially sex toys.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    191. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got that wrong, that's Utah.

    192. Re:And they say ... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      You think some cop is going to know the difference?

    193. Re:And they say ... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Maybe the "leave me alone and keep government small" ppl happen to be religious types

      Would these be the same types who say, "live like we do or burn in hell forever"?

      Let's be honest. Religion has never agreed with nor supported a "live and let live" philosophy. The propagation (and thus survival) of religion depends on exactly the opposite.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    194. Re:And they say ... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      What if the genius of chemistry that would discover transparent aluminum doesn't have the money to rent an industrial space and goes to work as a janitor instead?

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    195. Re:And they say ... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      On 14 July 1789 an entire people threw off the shackles of tyranny. Two Englishmen observed this great revolution: Burke, the conservative, condemned the rebels for the enthusiasm with which they desired to create a new order of things, while Paine saluted them for having come to defense of the rights of man. When the armies of Napoleon retreated leaving the laws of Europe transformed in their wake we can say who was right and who was wrong. To defend an unjust institution on the basis of its age is lunacy; to promote a new one because of its newness is madness also. But that does not mean that we must not strive for a just and good world, even if doing so is to risk failure.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    196. Re:And they say ... by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      space heaters

      Gas furnace.

      tea kettles, electric frying pans,

      Gas range.

      toasters

      Only time I ever eat anything that's been toasted, it's hamburger buns that've been toasted on the barbecue. Propane.

      No fans, or rice cookers, or blow driers?

      Central A/C, it's a microwave cooker, and no point with curly hair.

      a mixer, or a blender,

      Hand whisk.

      a vacuum cleaner

      Have one of those, but it's cordless.

      table saw, or your skillsaw, or that drill, or the hedge clippers

      Nope. Cordless. Cordless. and Nope. Bought into that DeWalt 18.2V cordless dealey where the battery packs are interchangeable between devices, and you charge them at a central station. And my lawnmower is gas.

      So no. Good examples. But it is entirely possible to have a house without a single device which uses 120VAC natively. My point, however, wasn't that I haven't got a single device which doesn't have a transformer, it was that we *all* have something in the house that *does*. Because we all have at least one of: a radio, a TV, a CD player, a DVD player, a computer, a fridge, an oven, a clock or clock/radio, etc.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    197. Re:And they say ... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Funny if I want to turn off the power to a building I would pull the meter in an emergency, it's generally located outside the dwelling so the meter reader can get to it and verify it has not been tampered with. This has the added benefit of visible overhead lines running to it. The last thing I want to do in a fire is start assuming that all the power goes though something.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    198. Re:And they say ... by slashdotlurker · · Score: 1

      Please. Capitalism is the ultimate parasitic system. The capitalists add no value. They perform no labor. They reap the rewards of others' labor. Without workers capitalism could not exist, because the entire system is based on the exploitation of labor. Capitalists are the very definition of parasites.

      Then maybe you can please stop being a parasite and stop using that capitalist keyboard on a computer running some software produced by capitalists or generous people who are capitalists in their main line of living ?

      PS: in anticipation of others' diatribes, the USSR, China and Cuba are not and never were socialist. They were/are capitalist--because they employ the capitalist mode of production (exploitation of workers, accumulation of capital for accumulation's sake). Only in their systems there's one big capitalist: the state. These regimes merely use the language of socialism to lull workers into accepting the status quo--much as capitalists in the US and Western nations talk about "democracy" to delude their workers into thinking they're free. It's much easier to control people with these illusions in place.

      I am engineer, and if I cannot see any practical applications of your nice theories, then all you say is pretty meaningless.

      Utopian and scientific socialism have little to do with each other.

      Or with real life on this real planet.

    199. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I used to live just down the street from that lab, it was raided college student doing an archaeological dig on the site and several apothecary bottles were recovered. The train station where he boarded to sell news papers on the route to Detroit has been turned into a museum, there is a passenger car in front of the station that has really unique 3 axle trucks.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    200. Re:And they say ... by Dahan · · Score: 1

      And yet they have a shelf full of beakers, test tubes and flasks at Fry's

      Beakers and test tubes aren't on The List. Neither are flasks in general--only certain (very common) types.

    201. Re:And they say ... by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're exactly right, we pull the meter. And dispatch calls the electric utility and let's them know we did the disconnect so the owner doesn't get charged for it. Digging around trying to find a breaker box is nuts.

      But I suppose it's just possible they wanted to check the breaker box or the lines in between. It's still peculiar. We try not to have any more people in a home than necessary. We have a thermal camera that can see through walls, and we image the area of the fire and if there's no evidence of a hot spot we run the smoke ejector a few minutes, check the thermal cam again, pack our gear and go home. We don't poke around in the house, don't spray water if we can use a dry chemical extinguisher and if we have to spray water, we use as little as possible.

      The last kitchen fire we had the lady had the water mopped up before we left. Got a little dirt on the living room carpet from the hose but we didn't make a big mess. We've been on mutual aid on calls the other department had their hose open while they were walking through the front door. We don't do that. Why ruin the drywall in the living room for a grease fire in the kitchen?

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    202. Re:And they say ... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Funny

      Three different buildings!? LUXURY! We have to fit all our denominations into one building with three different altars!

      But try to explain that to the kids today...

    203. Re:And they say ... by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      While I agree in principle that law enforcement overreacted, the summary neglects to complete the quote that it goes on to misinterpret (albeit humorously). The quoted official goes on to say (and is backed up by the article itself), that Mr. Deeb was in possession of more of these chemicals than is allowed by law, and is not supposed to be doing experiments on that scale in a residential neighborhood. This is not little Johnny mixing vinegar and baking soda. He was clearly doing industrial-level experiments, as is evidenced by his declining to comment because patents are pending in relation to his work. Yes, this is a very easy target for "the govt is a bunch of ignorant reactionaries" comments, but were they really so far out of bounds? Don't local officials have the right to regulate potentially (they did not know what he was doing until *after* they raided the place) commercial research being conducted in a residential neighborhood?

    204. Re:And they say ... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Voodoo (or Vodou or a couple of other spellings) is an entirely different religion.

      Stay away from the Voodoo, mon.

      -- Church of the Holy Darkspear Faction

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    205. Re:And they say ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a professional software engineer, I value my QA depaptment. Their job is to stand athwart product delivery, yelling, stop.

      There is a very large difference between "Slow down, and be cautious in working toward your goal!", and "Stop! Keep things are they are!"

      To continue your software metaphor, the conservative position (as expressed by Buckley) is to say "The current release is perfect! Nothing could ever be better! Stop the patches!"

      It's failure of imagination: as Tim Kreider puts it: "Conservatives don't have any. The status quo seems only inevitable and right to them, the natural order of things, and anyone who protests it is an impractical dreamer who should get a job or a malcontent who needs to be medicated. They're incapable of seeing their own historical moment as in any way anomalous or provisional; as Montag's colleagues assure him in Farenheit 451, `Believe me, houses have always been fireproof. Firemen have always burned books.' They believe that they deserve their own lives; they can't imagine having been born as someone else. (Empathy, and by extension compassion, is a function of imagination.) They can't imagine what it would be like to be poor, or black, or gay, because, well, they're not, and they suspect that these unfortunate conditions are those people's own faults, a consequence of some moral failing or dereliction. (I always secretly felt this way about old people until I noticed I was aging as well.) Likewise people living in other cultures with different beliefs and customs; they're simply ignorant, deprived of the advantages of Jesus and Wal-Mart. Francis Fukyama, in a book with the straight-line title The End of History, argues that capitalist liberal democracy is the final culmination of all social progress, apparently unable to imagine a more perfect system than the one epitomized by Donald Trump and Kenneth Lay."

      All good engineers are conservative engineers

      Two different meanings of "conservative" are at play here - for example, a "conservative estimate" of the cost of the Iraq boondoggle doesn't mean one that comes from the GOP. Nor does Postel's law tell us that we should be political conservatives.

      If you spent more time talking to smart conservatives you'd realize that they're just as common as smart progressives, and they're in general just as desirous of progress

      Well, smart people of any type are a rarity. :-(

      I find most of the few smart people who identity as "conservative", simply aren't: smart "conservatives" tend toward libertarian, but have bought into the mistaken notion that "conservative" means "small government" and "liberal" or "progressive" means more government.

      Other "smart" conservatives are otherwise intelligent people under the influence of a delusional belief system, typically a religious one.

      Other than that, it's hard to find smart people who have chosen to line up with the side that has been so consistently wrong. If we take the modern conservative movement as beginning in 1955 with the founding of National Review, we see that their position has been wrong on segregation, McCarthyism, Vietnam, and the women's movement. Anyone with sense knows the current conservative position on gay rights is going to be looked back on the same way as the conservative position in the 1960s on miscegenation is viewed today. Moderate Jimmy Carter tried to encourage alternative energy development in the 1970s, had solar panels installed on the White House roof; conservative hero Reagan tore 'em out and slashes federal funding for alternative fuels.

      Over the past fifty years, if you take any issue with clear "conservative" and "liberal" positions, time and time again we see the conservative one now widely accepted as unwise.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    206. Re:And they say ... by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

      Kinda how it works here in Arkansas, the "traditional" old bible thumpers get the church in the early morning. At around noon a Hispanic church uses the same building. Then in the evening another group whose church goes by *another* name use the same building for their "contemporary" services. Of course, this is Rednecklandia.

    207. Re:And they say ... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that 3 churches can't work together, if they are all independent? The fact that they are on the same corner, and presumably not arguing, should indicate that they get along just fine.

      Are businesses allowed to operate independently? Are countries allowed to operate independently? Are cities and towns allowed to operate independently? All of these can be operated without any conflict. Conflict often occurs when they try to become a big monolithic bureaucracy.

      Small sizes are a good thing, often times.

    208. Re:And they say ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, I got it all here on paper. Now give me my $500 I spent plus the $1,000 your promised me and I'll be on my way.

      BTW MR innocent home owner, why did you need all that at once and why did I have to go pick it up for you. Most people just get it incrementally throughout the year as the need arises. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter.

    209. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your dept is a real class act, your community is lucky to have you guys.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    210. Re:And they say ... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right, we pull the meter. And dispatch calls the electric utility and let's them know we did the disconnect so the owner doesn't get charged for it. Digging around trying to find a breaker box is nuts.

        Different experiences, I guess. My experience is mostly with apartment buildings, and it's generally a lot quicker to hit the breaker panel inside the apartment than to go outside the apartment (or building in the case of my current job and it's about a two hundred foot trip from anywhere inside) and pull the meter. Of course there are variations on that... older buildings have their electrical panels in the weirdest locations, I once saw one in a water heater closet. (!)

        BTW your sig is great; it's so damned true it makes me weep, especially since I've spent the last two years working in subsidized housing. Gah. Pay is good but it's demanding... ;)

        To the GP:

        The last thing I want to do in a fire is start assuming that all the power goes though something.

        Good point, although any breaker panel really should have a mains breaker. (a lot of apartment buildings I work on don't, unfortunately) and yeah, I realize that even that isn't 100% foolproof, but when you're in a hurry, well...

        Cheers!
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    211. Re:And they say ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      These are in dangerous neighborhoods where there is a lot of theft.

      You can't really have a cheery open church in an area that someone will kill you and your friend for the $20 between the two of you just to get some more Crack or whatever the drug of choice is. The churches act pretty much like resource centers helping the poor with food, some money in the form of assistance on utilities or electric or fixing a car and so on which makes them a candidate for robbery.

      I don't live in Texas but I had to reinstall a security alarm and add a monitory company to the plan when someone broke in and stole all the PA equipment, all the musical instruments, the wiring, all the brass plates on the pews and chapel and about any other source of metal they could find. I guess a week or so after this, they came back and stole the aluminum from the air conditioners outside the building. A neighboring building's surveillance system caught them and they were arrested. Half of the musical instruments were recovered and all the metal had been recycled for about $50.00. It costs around $25,000 to replace it all and there was no insurance because "who would want to steal from a church".

    212. Re:And they say ... by genner · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that 3 churches can't work together, if they are all independent?

      I didn't say can't I said don't.
      Repeated experince has lead me to this belief.

    213. Re:And they say ... by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      Each live wire in the main feed to your house is only 120 volts relative to ground. It wouldn't be that bad, you'd probably drop the hammer. I doubt you would be in a box.

    214. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked on the article thinking I was on Mr. Zeeb's side. However, Thomas Edison was (presumably) not breaking any laws at the time. Incidents of people storing excess amounts of chemicals leading to spills and fires since then have led many munincipalities to enact the zoning laws mentioned in the article. They're generally targeted at businesses, etc, that might pose a risk of an industrial accident, but at some point definitive definitions of what is allowable an what isn't have to be made. It sounds like he exceeded that despite not being a commercial entity.

      Personally, I'm not inclined to like those laws because I'm sympathetic to his hobby and they could also affect my ability to take up similar pursuits. I trust guys like him. But the laws were formed by due procedure (city council or whatever), and the first solution to bad laws is political involvement, not contemptuously violating them. Furthermore, it is a functional necessity of democracy that the law apply equally to all (except as explicitly excepted). It would be a circumvention of the justice system if he was merely presumed exempt while someone with lesser credentials or justificaiton was presumed subject to the law.

    215. Re:And they say ... by warsql · · Score: 1

      Don't waste time searching for the breaker box and guessing which circuit you're looking for. Go to the meter and pull it. Power off to the entire house.

      --
      878659 - yep its prime.
    216. Re:And they say ... by wolf12886 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he wants to do science with 1500 chemicals, he should rent a space in an industrial park. Then the fire department can use Fire Codes to force him to properly label and store his shit according to the appropriate guidelines.

      The number of chemicals indicates nothing as far as the how hazardous his lab was.

      By your logic, cooking should be limited to industrial parks as well, or even isolated bunkers, since your average pot of stew's going to be made with ingredients containing TENS OF THOUSANDS of different chemicals. What's important is not how many chemicals, but which ones, and in what quantities.

      The fact that people saw fit to mod you insightful despite your display of such blatant ignorance astounds me.

    217. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that reading cato.org makes your brain melt and dribble out your ears. It certainly appears to be full of nonsense and sleight of hand deception.

    218. Re:And they say ... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1, Troll

      "In 1857, at the age of 10, Thomas Edison set up a chemical laboratory in the cellar of his home. Good thing his house wasn't raided by the authorities."

      Actually it's not a 'good thing' since a 'raid' on young Edisons lab may have saved his friends life.

      After Edison set up the lab he convinced a younger friend to drink a mixture he had made by telling him it would make him fly. The child died from poisioning. As punishment his father dismantled the lab and took Thomas into town where he flogged him in public for his mis-deeds.

      Edison did not have a lab for a few years until he started work on the railway (IIRC at age 14). He obtained permission to set up a lab in the caboose of a train for a while but after another chemical accident the train conductor slapped him on the side of the head so hard that it caused permenant deafness in one ear.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    219. Re:And they say ... by supertjx · · Score: 1

      "The capitalists add no value." This is a popular misconception. Capitalists are rewarded for RISKING their capital. You are rewarded if you take risks. In a capitalist system, private individuals can take risk and be rewarded for it. In a pure socialist system, only the government can take risks. As to which system is better, that is a separate issue. But to state that capitalists add no value is misleading.

    220. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to learn one day the difference between "If you don't do as I say, bad things will happen to you" and "If you don't do as I say, I'll cause bad things to happen to you". Religion is the former, big government is the latter. The second one is coercion, the first - simply a warning. And not incompatible with "live and let live" - you'll do as you please anyway.

    221. Re:And they say ... by morkk · · Score: 1

      when we have something solid and legitimate to complain about.

      I wish to complain about your incisive and thorough investigation of the facts - this is /. don't y'know.

    222. Re:And they say ... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Aha! The fridge! It runs on 120VAC natively, unless it's gas too, or one of those new fangled ones with a built in digital TV. Simple AC compressor motor and a thermostat. The freezer is probably the same. I agree, though. Pretty much everything these days is digital, and has some sort of transformer in it. As a matter of fact, it was kind of tough coming up with my original list, since most of those things are now digital in some way or another too.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    223. Re:And they say ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Vote libertarian.

      If I knew nothing about a candidate other than party affiliation, my preference would be: Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican.

      Kevin Zeese ran for Senate here on a Green/Libertarian unity ticket, which was pretty nifty.

      But I may well write my own name in for President this time around...I am now Constitutionally qualified. I was excited about Obama for a few minutes, but he's backpedaled away from his interesting stances. Cynthia McKinney's not doing much for me; Bob Barr has come a little bit toward sanity from his nutcase positions in the House but not enough to make me trust him.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    224. Re:And they say ... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if standard operational procedure after putting out any fire doesn't include a complete walk-through of the building to ensure that nothing is still smouldering. After all, somebody will get sued if the fire dept clears the building and then it catches on fire again after everybody goes back in.

    225. Re:And they say ... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Please try to keep up. The current creationist theories (that they pass to kids in high school) actually have kangaroos and koalas in the ark. And after the flood, they travelled to Australia. Of course, why there's no skeletons on the way is a different question, but you didn't ask that, nyah nyah.

      And I've wondered, why don't the creationists use the easy excuse - their God wanted to kill off all the dinosaurs, and so, drowned them outside the ark.

      But, if you're asking, are they really that stupid, yes they are. The current creationist thinking actually say that the ark does not need to be as big as people make it out to be, all you really need is one pair of "horse like" animal, and they can breed those out to all the asses, horses, ponies, etc. One of of "dog like" animal, and you can have all the wolves, foxes, etc. That their "breed changes" is in fact, evolution, is irrelevant. That their rate of change is millions of times more than anything science has advanced, is irrelevant. That they're beyond stupid is the only issue. That they're breeding, that is the problem.

      And of course, seeing that I'm a Civil Engineer by training, I always ask the practical questions - if there's only Noah and his family - how the fuck do they have time to feed all the animals, and a bigger how the fuck did they clean up after all the animals! That's a shitload of shit to clean up, daily, for 40 days and 40 nights.

    226. Re:And they say ... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      It's Massachusetts, part of the Axes of Dumb asses in the U.S.

      FL - Incompetent because they can't help it.
      CA - Incompetent on purpose.
      MA - Very competent at what they do which is to oppress it's citizens.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    227. Re:And they say ... by jagdish · · Score: 1
    228. Re:And they say ... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      To me it depends on what those 1500 different chemicals were, and the quantities involved, how they are stored, and what he really is doing with them.

      I probably have more than 1500 different chemicals in my body at the moment. Big deal.

      If they came in, investigated and he was not doing anything illegal (which is quite amazing nowadays given the amount of laws they can throw at you), it is wrong to shut him down AND take his stuff.

      --
    229. Re:And they say ... by Von+Rex · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain they even needed a warrant. I've heard from people before that you absolutely do not want to fuck with the fire department. They have even broader authority to enter a house than the police if they suspect a fire hazard. But I couldn't tell you for sure if that is true. Because I don't fuck with the fire department.

    230. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the Libertarian candidate is a Republican who has a voting record that is in stark contrast to Libertarian ideals.

    231. Re:And they say ... by Cbs228 · · Score: 1

      Each live wire in the main feed to your house is only 120 volts relative to ground. It wouldn't be that bad, you'd probably drop the hammer.

      Speaking as an Electrical Engineering student, that is woefully incorrect. To quote Bernstein, "Electrical Shock Hazards and Safety Standards," IEEE Transactions on Education 34.3 (Aug 1991): 216 - 22,

      When dealing with electrocution (death caused by electricity), the discussion will primarily be concerned with the shock effects on the cardiovascular system as lethal electrical shocks usually cause death because of the effect on the heart. It is generally agreed that it is the magnitude and time duration of a continuous current which passes through the body which causes a given effect. The voltage in a circuit is only important insofar as it will produce a given current depending on the impedance in the circuit path.

      The path the electricity takes through a shock victim's body is important. While a shock that passes through the fingertips might be painful and annoying, a shock that passes through the chest or head area can be lethal. Ordinary household current can induce ventricular fibrillation, which causes unconsciousness within 10 seconds and irreparable brain damage in about five minutes. The above article explains the conditions for lethal shocks in more detail.

      When working around or with household current sources, always take electrical safety precautions. Turn off nearby wiring at the circuit breaker—and make sure it's off. Because prompt medical attention is the only thing that can save you from death by cardiac arrest, never work alone.

      --
      At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
    232. Re:And they say ... by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      I am going to have to agree with bladejester. Where I currently reside ( red-stater), which is going to be remedied this Jan. I am seeing more "Live like I do", and less and less of the "small government" type. Some of our laws here in Texas are draconian at best.

    233. Re:And they say ... by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ultimately it's bullshit, any chemistry student, knows not to randomly mix chemicals. And a retired chem prof definitely knows not to. More likely than not, it's less dangerous allowing him to have and use them than it is the general public.

      Agreed. My dad could probably, as a knowledgable ham operator, cause all sorts of havok across a wide band of radio with great detriment to emergency services, airports, etc...

      But he doesn't. Now retired, he's got the time to experiment with whatever ideas come up, responsibly. He's approaching 65, mentally active, and recently affirmed he'll never stop learning. Similarly, ol' Vic Deeb could research all kinds of ideas, maybe even finding something new and wonderful for our benefit.

      I'm getting pretty annoyed with the government taking away our most entertaining/educational toys just because they're afraid we'll poke our eye out.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    234. Re:And they say ... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      "With great power comes great responsibility." This is a quote I think everyone knows, especially after the movie came out.

      Freedom is this great power. Freedom is the greatest power. To decide for ourselves what we want to be, to do, to think is the ultimate responsibility. It is not only that we have a choice, but that we understand that we have this choice, and we know the options before us, that is freedom.

      And it scares the crap out of most people today. That there are choices means that there is a question. And that there is a question means that there is a need for a logically justified answer. After all, if a question can be answered irrationally, then there really never was a question. And to have freedom, everything must be questioned, and any answers to the questions must be justified. Instead, most people want to be told what to do, to be told how to think and what is right and wrong, because they cannot or do not want to by themselves decide such important things. They hold on to religion and tradition for this reason, because they find comfort and security in not having to think, to question their choices at every turn, to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. They want the simple, content life of following directions, so that they won't have to question, so that they won't have to take responsibility for their answers. It is fairly obvious that the trend over the past 60 years has been to point fingers at other people, to find blame in others at our own shortcomings. We have often wondered what happened to personal accountability. The paradigm shift away from thinking about "what not to do next time" to "how to make someone else pay for my mistake" has resulted in the desire to give up the power to rule onself.

      So in the US, everyone has freedom, most of whom do not want it, more of whom do not understand what it fully means. Some of whom want it think it is something it really isn't. How can a democracy remain free if an overwhelming majority desire comfort and not freedom?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    235. Re:And they say ... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I have more than 1500 "chemicals" in my refrigerator. They're all pretty harmless as a whole, though, and mostly mixed together in the form of thinly sliced animal muscles, plant reproductive organs, and various suspensions of hydrocarbons and acids.

      Sheer quantity of "chemicals" does not a hazard make.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    236. Re:And they say ... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      This law you describe is sounding less and less like a "anti-drug" law and more and more like a clandestine "how-to" guide.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    237. Re:And they say ... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      "Please. Capitalism is the ultimate parasitic system. The capitalists add no value. They perform no labor. They reap the rewards of others' labor."

      By your "logic", which says that there exists no value outside of the work input by the worker and that the impact of the tools he uses is absolutely negligible, wood cut in two hours with a blunt axe is twice as valuable as the same amount of wood cut in one hour with a sharp axe. That's the kind of nonsense Marx based his entire theories upon. This is the elephant-sized hole in his work, the gaping chasm between communist ideas and the facts.

      "the USSR, China and Cuba are not and never were socialist."

      Oh, yes, the same old lie. In fact, if you listen to the communist apologists, there has never ever been a single socialist country anywhere in the world, not even remotely. The documented historical fact that every single time socialism (in the classic sense) is applied to anything, that thing suffers epic failures (famines when it is applied to food production and distribution, as in every single country that has had famines in the 20th century), evades them entirely.

      But the truth is that any amount of socialism requires organisation of force and violence (and gun superiority to boot) for its application, and enough socialism to call a country "really socialist" requires a full-blown police state to enforce it.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    238. Re:And they say ... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Fascism is, economically, rooted in Socialism. It is basically Socialism with Nationalism overtones ....

      That is presumably why Hitler was backed by "socialists" like the Krupp dynasty and German aristocracy domestically and various other tycoons and robber barons internationally, no?

    239. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he wants to do science with 1500 chemicals, he should rent a space in an industrial park.

      Hopefully my thousands of electronic components, etchants, solder, epoxies, protective coatings, solvents and tools don't attract this kind of attention. They're also kept in my home, in one room and the garage.

      There's no way my hobby is a threat to anyone or anything, IMHO. There's also no way I can afford a building in an industrial park; I don't even have a job, I'm a college student. Now I guess I've got more reasons to be paranoid. That's great.

      How many small businesses and hobbyists could this affect?

    240. Re:And they say ... by Atario · · Score: 1

      The Red/Blue split isn't primarily a state-vs.-state dichotomy. It's largely an urban-vs.-rural one.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    241. Re:And they say ... by famebait · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm a chemistry,

      Are you, now. I'm a skepticism.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    242. Re:And they say ... by davester666 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Flamebait! How can this be anything but either "Informative" or "Insightful"? :-)

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    243. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure talk a lot about money, money and some more money, as if it were the solution to all of mankind's problems, neglecting the bigger issue of violence and domination among men. I call penis envy on you. You just wish you could steal all that money and buy yourself some sainthood (presumably keeping some for yourself, too).

    244. Re:And they say ... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Now we just need the ability to search our lawmaker's houses. Once they're all safely in jail we'll revamp the system.

    245. Re:And they say ... by CaptainDefragged · · Score: 1

      We knew that this was coming when DHS started training the firemen to spot terrorists.
      "The Homeland Security Department has been secretly testing a pilot scheme in New York in which firefighters are trained to identify suspicious material or behaviour. If successful, the programme will be extended to other large cities." I'm only surprised it's taken this long for the abuse to become public.

      --
      Don't tailgate - the end is near!
    246. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each live wire in the main feed to your house is only 120 volts relative to ground. It wouldn't be that bad, you'd probably drop the hammer. I doubt you would be in a box.

      I've touched in passing a 240v (UK) live wire a couple of times. Mildly painful tingle. All depends how well grounded you are - I was wearing thick soled shoes and not touching anything else at the time, or near to any good earth for arcing.

      Taught me to *always* use a live circuit tester though, even when you *know* it's been disconnected.

    247. Re:And they say ... by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      It sounds like he exceeded that despite not being a commercial entity.

      Not really. It sounds more like they thought he might have exceeded the limits, so they booted him out of his home to find out. If they had a warrant to do this, fine - judicial oversight is all that's required to make this whole mess OK. The article doesn't say that they did, though.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    248. Re:And they say ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Except that's not actually the conservative position esposed by Buckley - that was just his quote for the founding of a magazine. Of course Buckley was also totally in the grip of his Catholicism, but that was orthagonal to the rest of his views.

      And make no mistake, progressives are wrong 10 or 100 times as often as conservatives. It's just that history rarely bothers to record the bad new ideas that didn't go anywhere, unless they're extremely bad or silly, like the many failed utopias or the crazy 19th century health fads. *Of course* if you look at the ideas that actually *worked*, the progressivs are nearly always right - but that's trivially true, and not very interesting.

      Look at the current bad debt/mortgage crises as an example of how we can easily go astray as a culture - certainly there were many speculators and people living impossibly beyond their means who were convinced they were just smarter than everyone else, and those pointing out that the whole situation was unsustainable were ridiculed as foolishly conservative. I know I was - heck, my simple statement that "house prices are an unsustainable bubble" was almost met with physical violence on one case. As a culture, we often make such mistakes, collectively deluding ourselves that because "all the smart people" believe something, anyone who disagrees must not be smart. But we do our best to forget them afterwards, and pretend the new ideas were always good.

      Are the progressive wrong on the danger of global warming, or were they wrong when I was young on the danger of the coming ice age? Only time will tell. Certainly the progressive fear that population growth would doom us all unless we take action has fallen by the wayside, as the Earth's population is expected to flatten out within a decade or so. The progressive belief that lowering taxes could not possibly raise revenues was wrong - now we argue about which side of the Laffer curve we're on, conveinently forgetting that I was told by many experts that this was flat-out impossible - but wait, maybe that one was a progressive idea.

      Don't make the same mistake as people make when they see evolution as directed progress towards the present. You try 100 variations, and go with one of them, over and over. Even if better ideas were missed - how do you know? It's an easy illusion to think of the way things are now as better in every way then the way things were, since we're comfortable with the familiar, and what about even better ways of living that we missed in our rush to pick something that sounded good at the time?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    249. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As vicious as storming someones home and taking their property BEFORE determining if it's illegal?

      I am sure disrupting someone lightly is incredibly harmful... OMG! OMG! OMG!

    250. Re:And they say ... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, mixing ammonia and bleach produces chloramine gas, which is a strong irritant and people have died from inhaling it.

      Don't be afraid to say it. Truth is more important since we aren't all idiots.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    251. Re:And they say ... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      If your home has a DOORBELL, you most likely have a small transformer somewhere that powers it....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    252. Re:And they say ... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      It kind of depends on what they saw. I get the impression the guy's house was a mess. If they saw bottles labeled "nitric acid" dripping all over a box labeled "cellulose" their suspicion would be more than justified. Were I his neighbor, I may be rather glad. What if there had been a fire? The guy was definitely not storing his material properly.

      When I was a kid the cops raided a neighbor's house and found live hand grenades, mortar shells, thousands of rounds of ammo, guns of all sorts including automatic weapons, etc. The guy was actually a collector and firearms expert who had been used as a consultant by the city of Philadelphia. He got raided because he pissed off some city official who dropped the hammer. Power politics? Yes, but ask the people who lived next door (it was a twin home, too) if they were glad about it. What if there had been a fire? There was enough ordnance to take out a city block. Sometimes public safety wins out.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    253. Re:And they say ... by JimFive · · Score: 1

      When we moved into our current house (built ca. 1950) the meters were inside the basement. They have since been moved outside. So it is possible that the fireman in the basement was pulling the meter.

      Also, How well does your thermal cam work from the outside into a basement. Is it possible for the fire to travel between the walls down into a finished basement?

      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    254. Re:And they say ... by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 1

      As well as needing a permit and having to accept warrentless searches to own quality glassware, it is also *illegal* to have a dildo in Texas.

      This is no longer correct. The 5th Court of Appeals recently struck down the law when a conviction under it was appealed by an adult toy store in Houston. However, when the store's attorney requested that the Houston police return the several thousand seized items, they all seem to have disappeared from the Houston Police evidence store room.

      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
    255. Re:And they say ... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. There may also be legal provisions for investigations of chemical compounds on an emergency basis, sans-warrant, that would absolve these authorities from honoring the usual Fourth Amendment protections if they had reason to believe something nefarious was going on and thought they needed to act without delay for public safety reasons. I have no idea. That's why I think the hoopla around this article is embarassingly premature, and the MAKE article is way too alarmist for my taste.

    256. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with the governing body setting ordinances on what people who "do not own" the land, which the government always maintains ownership of, say you can and cannot do in certain areas? You would be complaining if they opened a strip mall, gentlemen club, smog producing factory, chemical factory, land fill, right next to your house because there was no ordinance stopping them. There's a far difference from a hobby chemist in his house, and a full blown laboratory with enough chemicals to put a school to shame right next to a residential house. PS There are also ordinances on construction, and whether you can have a tank of certain substances. Public Safety is the phrase.

    257. Re:And they say ... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Dang, Igw. You nailed that one...clean and hard.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    258. Re:And they say ... by Otter · · Score: 1

      1) The article is indeed vague and quotes from officials who don't seem to know what's going on, exactly. But to me that's a reason not to "translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English" and pitch hysteria over creeping totalitarianism.

      2) At any rate, you and a lot of other people seem to think about chemical safety only in terms of Dangerous and Not Dangerous. Most organic solvents are "harmless" in the sense you mean, but it's still illegal and extremely dangerous to have large stocks of them stored improperly, especially when your air conditioner is catching fire. Again, if the people who are so freaking concerned about chemistry had ever taken an orgo lab class, they'd know that.

    259. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope someone uncovers Pamela Wilderman personal information and posts it so that everyone here can voice their concerns.

      WORK:

      Pamela A. Wilderman
      Code Enforcement Officer,
      Office of Inspectional Services
      140 Main Street
      Marlborough, MA 01752
      (508) 460-3765 (direct line)
      (508) 460-3776 (main line)
      (508) 460-3736 (FAX)
      email: building_dept@marlborough-ma.gov

      Her boss is Mr. Stephen F. Reid, Commissioner


      HOME:

      Pamela A. Wilder
      47 Pleasant Street
      Marlborough, MA 01752

      (unlisted phone #)

    260. Re:And they say ... by Bovarchist · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read TFA, you will note that the they did not "choose" to raid the home. Firemen were called to put out a fire in an air conditioning unit. While there, they noticed the lab and called the authorities. Granted, they probably over-reacted, but to the un-trained eyes of a fireman, the lab probably looked pretty scary. After the investigation, officials noted that Mr. Deeb had violated zoning laws and some other minor regulations, but that he had been very cooperative and they were not planning on citing him for any crime.

      --
      Hell is other people's code.
    261. Re:And they say ... by ozphx · · Score: 1

      Fat Tony has 6 votes of around .45 calibre that would like you mod me up.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    262. Re:And they say ... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Wonders: is there a small mountain of Dildos accumulating in TX?

      As an Okie, I'm dying to respond to this. But I'd probably better not. :-)

    263. Re:And they say ... by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it possible for the fire to travel between the walls down into a finished basement?

      Usually it goes up but yeah, especially in older homes. That's what the horizontal braces between studs are supposed to do in modern construction. Keeps a fire downstairs from using the wall space between studs as a chimney to the attic.

      To answer your question about our thermal cam...from the outside, it depends on the home construction and how well it's insulated. Usually no. And through a concrete basement wall, not at all.

      It does probably make sense they were going to cut the breaker to the outlet, just to be safe. In older homes the breaker boxes are usually in the basement. Few homes here have basements or are that old. And if you see a large quantity of chemical, even if it's not obviously hazardous, it would be SOP to report it.

      I'd still maintain the responding agencies may have over-reacted but after thinking it over, I'm not certain they would have many options. In densely populated areas your discretionary threshold will be a lot lower. Out here, where it's a 1/2 mile to the neighbors house and we're dealing with someone we've known for years, we can exercise a little more flexibility. It's not really fair to compare how we have handled similar situations. It still sucks that people doing things off-normal but not threatening get swept up in the same mechanisms as people being really stupid, or doing something truly dangerous and potentially life-threatening. You can always escalate the level of response but it's tough to unring the bell when you call in the cavalry.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    264. Re:And they say ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that's not actually the conservative position esposed by Buckley - that was just his quote for the founding of a magazine.

      It's not "just" a quote, its his a pithy summary of his own thoughts. It's his summary of the conservative ideology.

      And make no mistake, progressives are wrong 10 or 100 times as often as conservatives.

      So give at least 10 examples of times when the modern (post-1955) conservative movement has been right on a major issue. Should be easy if you're right.

      like the many failed utopias

      If we're going back to the 1800s, I'm laying slavery at the feet of the conservatives, abolition on the shoulders of the progressives. Massive, massive win for the progressives.

      As for utopianism, many of these 19th century utopian communities were extremely Christian, heavy on the Old Testament - hardly progressive. But the secular and progressive ones pioneered such "failed" ideas as equality for women and public schooling.

      or the crazy 19th century health fads.

      Citation needed that "crazy 19th century health fads" were somehow the exclusive domain of progressives. Kellogg, for example, was a Seventh-Day Adventist who favored segregation. (Of course, his ideas that a vegetarian diet and execise are good for you are hardly crazy. He was even right about probiotics; but his love of enemas, plus his extreme views about sex, let us file him in the "crazy" bin.)

      *Of course* if you look at the ideas that actually *worked*, the progressivs are nearly always right - but that's trivially true, and not very interesting.

      So according to you, progressives have lots of ideas, many of them bad, but nearly all of the ideas that worked came from them? So you admit that conservatives rarely have ideas that work?

      Are the progressive wrong on the danger of global warming, or were they wrong when I was young on the danger of the coming ice age?

      There was no scientific consensus of a ice age coming soon back in the 70s. It was a misinterpretation by popular media. I am unaware that were any progressive ties to this.

      On the other hand, there is strong scientific consensus that "global warming" is real and is largely anthropogenic.

      And the deliberate conflating of the two by anti-science conservatives shows, yet again, why few smart - or at least, smart and honest - people will align themselves with this movement.

      It's an easy illusion to think of the way things are now as better in every way then the way things were, since we're comfortable with the familiar, and what about even better ways of living that we missed in our rush to pick something that sounded good at the time?

      When were these "better ways of living" around? Back when we had segregation? When women were second-class citizens? When America was so dominated by ignorance that we had to argue over whether science should be taught in science classes?

      Whoops, we're still in the total grip of that last one, and the partial grip of the second. And really, one look at the inner cities and the prisons show that the first hasn't gone away either. Still lots of progress needed.

      Are there some good policy ideas in the past? Sure. I was recently arguing that we ought to return to the Eisenhower days' top marginal tax rate of 90%. But as a whole, that era of segregation, McCarthyism, and sexism belongs in the dustbin.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    265. Re:And they say ... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      1500 chemicals ... just be thankful he didn't have any dihydrogen monoxide!

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    266. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The guy was a retired professional chemist, the chemicals were in vials, bottle ect. a vial implies a quantity in the range of 15 - 60 mL, and the chemicals were described as about as hazardous as common household cleaners by people who have a cover-their-ass interest in the event. Sorry I'm still not impressed.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    267. Re:And they say ... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      I've lived in "red" states most of my life, and I happen to be one of the people I described. Many of my friends are, too.

    268. Re:And they say ... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      My response to this is based simply on my understanding of what someone can easily do with household products let alone ordered chemical and prep equipment.

      Fine. You've seen the stuff, now get a warrant.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    269. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a homosexuality, by upbringing, by nature and if I saw 1500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes sitting around I'd want to shove them all up my ass.

      Fixed that 4 ya, faggot.

    270. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Small", of course, not including our ridiculous military spending; and leave me alone" means "feel free to go into other people's bedrooms and tell them how and with whom it's acceptible to make love."

      Actually I'm more leaning toward the idea "live and let live". As in, I don't really care what you do in your bedroom, and I don't really see why you need a sticker on your car announcing that sort of thing. It's just inviting the idiots to harass you, and the people who really don't care still really don't care, although if they're like me they wonder why you need to announce it. I mean, I could go out and make a bumper sticker that said "Straight Pride"... but why would I want to go around announcing how I live? Besides, I'd just be targeted by idiots who claim that I'm bashing gays... yeah, double standards are fucked up.

    271. Re:And they say ... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      If they saw bottles labeled "nitric acid" dripping all over a box labeled "cellulose" their suspicion would be more than justified.

      And was that the case?

      If this, if that. If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a '57 Chevy.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    272. Re:And they say ... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      That sounds good but I'm afraid history disagrees. Religion has been proven to be the latter of your examples time and time again.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    273. Re:And they say ... by edittard · · Score: 1

      1500 vials? Sounds like it's a series of test tubes.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    274. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little inflammatory, but (modded) underrated. Someone mod parent up?

    275. Re:And they say ... by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      You mean you never get those "Jesus" letters delivered to your door? I get a church letter about once a month. They don't even know my religion (how could they?). Other than that, I don't have people trying to convert me, just littered with spam mail really.

      Needless to say, pushing a religion is as bad as pushing any other agenda and I'm more likely to avoid it.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    276. Re:And they say ... by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Citations please?

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    277. Re:And they say ... by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      It's not really woefully incorrect. Ask any electrician that has inadvertently grabbed 120v multiple times. Residential electricians tend to have it happen to them more often for some reason. I've touched 120v a couple times myself. So it still stands...if you drive a nail through 120v with a hammer, you are most likely going to drop the hammer (if that). Especially if you are wearing work boots. Pretty much the only major injuries/fatalities are from 208V, 347, 600, and up. The paper you quoted says it all...magnitude and duration. Current induced in the body from externally applied 120v is very low in magnitude, and the duration of conduction of a hammer striking a nail is very short.

    278. Re:And they say ... by phorm · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the cops in Texas aren't just "acting" like they have something stuck up their ass?

    279. Re:And they say ... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The people who keep saying stuff about the breaker box and the wiring don't have a clue what they're talking about. That wasn't why they were in the basement. From here:

      Marlborough Fire Chief David Adams said firefighters were checking that all of the rooms had been ventilated when they discovered the basement cache.

      Which leads me to my next question: Was the basement door standing open? How did smoke, which is hot and usually lighter than air, get from the second floor to the basement? Was it exceptionally thick, dense smoke or were the firefighters just nosing around with no good reason?

      Also, I'm tired of hearing people talk like the chemicals and vials were laying all over the house, on the sofa, on the floor, etc. Nothing I've read said anything to that effect. They were in the basement: yes, unmarked and unlabeled, but for all the articles say it might have still been meticulously organized.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    280. Re:And they say ... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Thomas Edison was a hack. He achieved nothing that wasn't superseded by Tesla within his own lifetime, except perhaps exploit people.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    281. Re:And they say ... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "I'm fairly sure that a crime syndicate is NOT democratically managed..."

      Sure they are. Every dollar gets one vote...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    282. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, dinosaurs were on the ark. The idiot was an idiot... well, he was uninformed, at least. Your questions, while valid, are pretty easy to answer.

      Dinosaurs are reptiles. They start small and continue to grow throughout their lifetime. For this reason they'd be at a distinct disadvantage against other carnivores when young, which a lot of the dinosaurs on the ark quite possibly were (yeah, they'd take less room that way).

      Dinosaurs weren't the killing machines we see in movies. The planet wasn't plagued with dinosaurs before the flood, and they didn't have some magical advantage. They went extinct, although enough cultures have dragon myths to indicate that such creatures probably did exist, however much hype and exaggeration was involved.

      Reptiles don't have very good tolerance for extremes in temperature. After the flood, they would have been best suited to warm climates, which typically don't have enough food to support massive creatures. Now you find mostly small reptiles in those climates, although some reptiles are still large enough to really be considered dinosaurs. (e.g. the Komodo dragon)

      As far as the last question... look up the hydroplate theory. Not only does it explain the cause of the flood, it also explains the climate change, the question of how animals got to Australia, etc.

    283. Re:And they say ... by smorpheus · · Score: 1

      You totally just made that up.

    284. Re:And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the last name "Deeb" is middle eastern. End of story.

    285. Re:And they say ... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      *Sigh*. I know, but the children are busy having a tantrum. Hopefully once they calm down, they'll RTFA later, and ponder for a second whether they'd like to be living next door to this fellow once they move out of their parents' basements.

      I would have no problem living next door to him. He violated no laws, had no hazardous chemicals, not even mercury. They said in TFA that he had nothing more dangerous than any household cleaner. Also, the fire was completely unrelated in a second floor air conditioner (his lab was in the basement).

      Do us all a favor and RTFA yourself.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    286. Re:And they say ... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Deebs was doing "research and development." This doesn't make him dangerous, but it's entirely possible that he really was violating local zoning laws.

      By that same logic, you could have your house raided, computers confiscated, and property stolen just because you were doing "research and development" in your spare time by contributing to an open source project. What exactly is a chemistry hobby other than personal "research and development".

      The minute you let them define all research and development as a business only activity, to be done by big business and corporations alone, is the minute you doom us all to modern day serfdom toiling away for our corporate overlords. You might as well outlaw all personal inventions and just give the megacorps a monopoly on our future.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    287. Re:And they say ... by anyGould · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *Sigh*. I know, but the children are busy having a tantrum. Hopefully once they calm down, they'll RTFA later, and ponder for a second whether they'd like to be living next door to this fellow once they move out of their parents' basements.

      Well, the first thing that struck me is that after all the scary talk about proper disposal and such, that they've made no charges, no citations, and thus far have found nothing that he was doing wrong. Heck, they haven't even found anything more dangerous than what's under your sink right now.

      My sense is that our chemist friend (and remember folks, he's a *retired* chemist - I think we can spot him a few points in the "not blowing oneself up" skill) is waiting quietly and cooperating while the authorities slowly figure out that they just did an illegal search and seizure.

    288. Re:And they say ... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the "leave me alone and keep government small" ppl happen to be religious types, and they get ridiculed on the latter point in order to demonize the former ideas by association. Just a thought.

      Good point, but if so, why do they keep electing people that try to pass "faith-based initiatives"? If they were really for small government and lower taxes, why do they want the government to fund their churches?

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    289. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      For example, I'm fairly sure that a crime syndicate is NOT democratically managed...

      Sure it is, they just have extreme voting procedures. You load up your tommy gun and unleash a hail of no votes.

    290. Re:And they say ... by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Brilliantly insightful... kudos.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    291. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that elected Republicans don't seem to show much interest in small government fiscal responsibility or keeping out of people's lives.

      The Bush administration's actions would have made an old-school republican violently ill at the mere thought.

    292. Re:And they say ... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Sometimes...

      Back to Arizona, sorry for using it as an example again, I know it best. Results may vary. The largest city in the state, Phoenix, is notoriously conservative. While the second biggest city is largely liberal. Many of our rural towns up north are very liberal, while an equal number of them are uber-conservative.

      Really it comes down to district by district, with the happy usage of gerrymandering.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    293. Re:And they say ... by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

      No, you've just watched "It's a Wonderful Life" one too many times..

      Nice try, though.

    294. Re:And they say ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So according to you, progressives have lots of ideas, many of them bad, but nearly all of the ideas that worked came from them? So you admit that conservatives rarely have ideas that work?

      Yup, that about covers it. The job of the progressive is to adovcate every new idea that looks good. The job of the conservative is to resist all the new ideas, demanding proof that they will result in progress (not merely change), demand cost-benefit analysis, etc. This contention causes resources to be focused on the good ideas.

      Progress comes from the fight, not from either side. (Let's not forget that a Republican freed the slaves, and while neither party was easy to place on today's left-right axis, the civil rights issued factored minimally into the decision: it wasn't done for "liberal" reasons in the modern abused sense of that word, the slaves were freed to resolve the fight.)

      BTW, you've been proven wrong on the 90% tax rate thing - we really do get higher revenues from lower rates - unless your goal is *actually* to punish success, in which case I can't argue with a 90% tax rate as a means to that end.

      I bet you a dollar that in 20 years the "consensus of scientists behind global warming" will be explaining that they've been predicting an ice age all along, and the global warming scare was a simple misunderstanding by the layman. Science is merely the best way we have to understand the world - sometimes it's still not a very good way, and fails due to social factors.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    295. Re:And they say ... by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      A "demonstrator", never your... demonstrator.

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    296. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      A big inefficiency in capitalism is that after we optimize production, streamline and strive for efficient production, we promptly pile on the costs of sales and marketing.

      That is, we spend piles of cash convincing people their lives are unfulfilling because they don't have enough stuff and convincing them that THIS toothbrush isn't just a stick with bristles on it like the others.

      In many industries (like pharmaceuticals) we spend far more on marketing than we do on inventing the product and streamlining it's production.

      The consumer products market is flooded with false economies. Products that cost half of what a durable model would cost, but last only a tenth as long. Meanwhile, marketing (as in lies, damned lies, and marketing) makes sure that we cannot distinguish an overpriced crappy product from a fairly priced durable one without spending way more than the product is worth in man-hours researching it.

    297. Re:And they say ... by daniel_newby · · Score: 1

      "The problem was that they came to put a FIRE OUT and found ~1500 bottles of chemicals that could've posed a major fire hazard."

      Compared to 25 kilos of sodium hypochlorite? Or leaky 2000 gallon tanks of petroleum distillates? Or badly-sealed oxygen concentrators? Lots of people have these in their homes, often in appalling combinations, but we don't see The Authorities throwing them under a bus and then bragging to the press.

    298. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, we rather do. Labour cannot labour without capital, so capital is actually a key part of adding value. After all, a workman without capital is simply unemployed.

      In the capitalist system, labor needs capitalists, not very surprising really.

      The inescapable is that labor needs capital. Capitalists (people whose contribution is essentially to have money) are not the only conceivable way to provide it ( in a non capitalist system)

      Many capitalists hate the idea of unions because they threaten to make labor more scarce than capital so that (for once in history) labor gets to call the shots. They much prefer for capital to be the more scarce resource (as long as they have it). Their greatest fear is a workforce that can honestly say "If I quit now, I'll have three job offers by the time I pull out of the parking lot".

    299. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. All capitalism that fails isn't REALLY capitalism. Capitalism is PERFECT. :-)

      Actually, neither is perfect. Marxism has it's holes and Capitalism has plenty of it's own. Which set of problems is routinely swept under the rug is a matter of your own preference.

      Both are quite susceptible to corruption.

    300. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Given that they've found nothing more dangerous than cleaning products (according to TFA) and that his professional life suggests he's well qualified to handle the chemicals he has, unless he has a habit of mowing his lawn at 7AM on Saturday, I see no reason I wouldn't want him as a neighbor.

      The state is currently taking his property away and destroying it without due process (or any process) while telling him he's LUCKY if they don't do him further harm.

      As for safety regulations, it doesn't sound like he's doing anything unsafe. According to TFA, the fire is unrelated to the basement chemistry lab.

    301. Re:And they say ... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      True. But I'll say that the constitutionally limited government in the US worked pretty well for about 150 years. And look where that got them? Compare with 80 years of the U.S.S.R.. Got the picture? NOTHING is perfect, but some things are more perfect than others.

      Actually I'm not FOR capitalism, I'm for freedom. The thing is that in a free society, capitalism is the natural outcome. And a free society beats a collectivist one any day.

      I'm sure in the next iteration of bloody revolution we'll get it better fine tuning. Maybe a constitution that says "Thou shalt not tax. Ever. And just in case you're trying to interpret it any other way, let me rephrase. Nobody, no person, animal, citizen. No taxes.".

      I also liked that thing that came up on a Heinlein book about two legislative bodies. One to pass laws at 2/3 of the votes and one to repeal laws by 1/3. Call that the political version of Garbage collection. Who knows? :-)

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    302. Re:And they say ... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Which kind of people, the "leave me alone and keep government small"/religious people, or the people who ridicule them to demonize the former ideas by association?

      --
      ResidntGeek
    303. Re:And they say ... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That would be Young Tom Edison

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    304. Re:And they say ... by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Did you read my post at all?

      The inescapable is that labor needs capital.

      That's exactly what I said!

      Capitalists (people whose contribution is essentially to have money) are not the only conceivable way to provide it ( in a non capitalist system)

      Fine. Since it's easy to suggest an alternative and I already illustrated why communal ownership and state capitalism fail, why don't you point out other systems? Allow the workers to own capital? This is a fantastic idea and is what our society currently does. "Destroy the notion of ownership of capital"? That's basically back to holding it in common, with the myriad flaws that presents.

      Trade unions are monopolies. Socialists don't like to confront this uncomfortable truth, but there is no fundamental reason that the behaviour of a unionised workforce is more moral than the behaviour of Microsoft et al. Historically they've adopted a beggar-my-neighbour attitude here in the UK, in which they look after the interests of their membership over and above everyone else in society. This is, after all what they're made for, but it doesn't really distinguish them from the "evil" capitalists you're vilifying. My solution, incidentally, is competition between unions to prevent over-exploitation of everyone else.

      Lastly, can I just point out that straight forward economic growth, i.e. the goal of capitalism, makes capital more scarce than labour. Adam Smith observed this in the wealth of nations, and used it to explain the disparity in the standards of living in China, Britain and America at the time.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    305. Re:And they say ... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Citations please?"

      Edison by Mathew Josephson.
      Public whipping - Pg-13.
      Deafness - Pg-31.

      But now I have to admit I totally mangled what the book says, my feeble excuse is that I read it nearly two decades ago.

      I admire Edison and liked the book so much it's still on my bookshelf, so to set the record straight: His father publicly whipped him on several occasions, the worst of his offences was setting fire to the barn, he also got caught screwing with the minds of civil war troops camped near his home. The railway worker was called Stevenson, he did not smack Edison in the head, he lifted him on to the train by his ears!!! ( Tom had his arms full of glass beakers, Stevenson was trying to help? ).

      Edison himself blamed the deafness on Stevenson, without ill feeling since by 19th century standards Stevenson was good to him as was his father. Edison said that he heard a pop and went deaf in that ear when he was picked up however modern medical experts think it had more to do with an earlier bout of scarlet fever and that Stevenson was simply the "last straw", they belive the pop that Edison heard was the sound of ligaments snapping and had nothing to do with the loss of hearing.

      I have no idea where the poision thing came from but I now have something to (re)read. ;)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    306. Re:And they say ... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Nah, that would make me a troll when I'm really just a confused old fart - see my reply to Venom619.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    307. Re:And they say ... by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    308. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Did you read my post at all?

      Of course. You said capitalists are essential. I corrected that capital is essential.

      While the way we do that now is through capitalists, it would be a mistake in economic theory not to consider the two at least potentially separable (though certainly, the capitalists would like to see that error perpetuated).

      You presume that I vilify capitalists. I do not. I do consider them consistently over-valued and that in part, that over-valuation is the result of deliberate political manipulation. I recognize that were it not for the actions of labor unions in the '30s, things would be considerably worse all around today. I also believe that a number of trends in play now which enhance the capitalists at labor's expense are unsustainable.

      Given that, I would certainly seek to increase the scarcity of labor or increase the availability of capitol in order to restore balance. Since the last correction when the 8 hour day and 5 day work week became standard (reducing the labor supply), we have seen a massive consolidation of employment (many small businesses replaced by mega-corps), a vast increase in the productivity of labor due to mechanization on a scale Smith could scarcely have imagined, and the rather large increase in labor supply as women have gained equality (more or less) in the workplace.

      The natural result of the progress in the mid 20th century to present has been the concentration of wealth into ever fewer hands (currently, the top 5% of the population has 50% of the wealth).

      It's notable that like any market correction, small steady ones are barely noticed and large ones create a great deal of suffering. At the most extreme end, the society itself is torn apart. I consider that an unacceptable option, so would seek a more gentle set of corrections now.

      Die hard capitalists (proponents of the economic system, not necessarily the owners of capitol) should note that as capitol is concentrated into fewer hands, the system approaches socialism's unmanageable centralization without even a pretense of fairness. We're seeing the result of that in the housing and mortgage industry now. The insult added to injury is that these fools will now get a nice big government handout because they're "too big to fail".

      This is one place where Marx was dead on. Without external forces, capitol naturally aggregates and that aggregation is harmful in the long term. Only the force of law prevents capitalism from reverting to feudalism.

      Options include government legislating changes that restore labor scarcity, government legislating an increased supply of capitol (that's a hard one!), labor organizing itself to increase scarcity, or capitalists become more enlightened and realize that unless they loosen the purse strings a bit, some combination of labor, government, and/or the consequences of their own actions will make life really suck for them in the mid to long term.

      Another factor in the U.S. that has drifted out of whack, when income tax was implemented, the intent was that the majority of people wouldn't even be required to file (much less pay) income tax. It was presumed (mostly correctly) that anyone required to file would already employ an accountant. It is only through bracket creep that the tax has become steadily less progressive and has now become a burden on all but the poorest. While many staunch capitalists bemoan progressive taxation (and indeed practically everything FDR did), it did lead to a period of great general prosperity for the U.S. that didn't really falter until the '70s.

      I do agree with you that the unions are not in any way better than a corporation of the same size. Neither is the desirable state of affairs, but one (either one) without the other is much worse.

    309. Re:And they say ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Marxism as implemented by the USSR (that is, mostly in name and not very well) was a big flop. I'm not by any means claiming that Marxism is even as good as capitalism, just making clear that neither is "the right answer". Both suffer glaring flaws.

      I suppose that's a reaction to the all too common state of affairs where all that is not capitalism is called communism and communism is a swear word. It's a case of "not as bad" being the enemy of "good".

    310. Re:And they say ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      There's a school of thought that proposes that all online forums naturally devolve into puerile trolling. However, I don't subscribe to that theory: I think the process needs assistance.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    311. Re:And they say ... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      You win the Internet. :)

    312. Re:And they say ... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      At first I thought you were dividing progressive/conservative along the new/old line. But that couldn't be true because anti-abortion and prohibition were fairly radical, new ideas when they came out. Then based on "was a Seventh-Day Adventist" and "many of these 19th century utopian communities were extremely Christian", I thought you were dividing between religious and secular. But they weren't any more religious than the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement.

      Kellogg for example, was a Seventh-Day Adventist who favored segregation. (Of course, his ideas that a vegetarian diet and execise are good for you are hardly crazy. He was even right about probiotics; but his love of enemas, plus his extreme views about sex, let us file him in the "crazy" bin.)

      Then I saw the above, and realized that, when it comes to the past, anything successful you label "progressive", and anything that's become unpopular you label "conservative". Thus, progressive ideas always win, because if they won it must be progressive. The problem is that you can't use that to predict the future - environmentalism is seen as liberal right now, but in 50 years it might seem like some old-fashioned conservative idea that's now out of style. You might see a large, secular movement to ban abortion some day - which would then be progressive. The content of the ideas haven't changed, but you would end up relabeling them based on how successful they are.

      So give at least 10 examples of times when the modern (post-1955) conservative movement has been right on a major issue. Should be easy if you're right.

      I can't, because you get to decide what shall be considered "right". If you want political success:

      Kelo vs New London - liberal supreme court judges rule one way, backlash alters law in 42 states
      DC gun law - won supreme court case
      Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act - also won in the supreme court
      Defense of Marriage Act - plus 26 states with constitutional "traditional marriage" amendments
      Regan tax leveling - still in effect

      And if you really want to go nuts, democracy and laws against murder are quite old ideas that we still use.

  2. The More Things Change by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chemistry for chemistry's sake has been banned all along. Check out this article on how to get your banned pdf copy of one cool 1960s chemistry book with some not-so-cool experiments...

    1. Re:The More Things Change by Emb3rz · · Score: 5, Funny

      After all, who knows when you might accidentally violate the laws of equivalent exchange and lose an arm...

    2. Re:The More Things Change by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We all do chemistry on a daily basis, the difference is that we usually don't do it as our daily plan. Brush your teeth, take a bath and even breathing. Cooking is actually an advanced version of chemistry.

      The area of chemistry is so wide that it's in no way possible to ban it all. And some people are stupid enough to think that it's dangerous to create huge soap bubbles or analyze the water yourself.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:The More Things Change by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Dude, if I had mod points, I'd give em.

      I'm gonna put that pdf on my laptop for the next time I go through customs. My God, they talk about ACID in that thing!

    4. Re:The More Things Change by hey! · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Krebs Cycle. That's a lot more advanced than, say, keeping your Hollandaise from curdling.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:The More Things Change by initdeep · · Score: 1

      or turn your brother into a mere voice inhabiting a set of japanese armor.......

      sadly, most won't get the reference.

    6. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that book, I read it when I was a kid, fantastic book full of information. Did many experiments and never had an accident (except a few minor burn from hot glass).

    7. Re:The More Things Change by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure FMA has been watched by lots here.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    8. Re:The More Things Change by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Haven't watched it, but I did get it ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    9. Re:The More Things Change by archont · · Score: 1

      We all do chemistry, yes, but do you think the facts have anything to do with the law?

      It's just like with the firearms ban. You can't have assault firearms. What the bloody hell are those? Telescopic stock? Black finish?! It makes no sense!

      As for hobbyist chemists, the first thing they are going to try are explosives. After a few grams of nitrocelulose they'll move on to more interesting things. They always do.

    10. Re:The More Things Change by jpatters · · Score: 1

      I wonder what's more dangerous, that book, or "The Golden Book of Wild Animal Pets" that's advertised on the back cover.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    11. Re:The More Things Change by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      or turn your brother into a mere voice inhabiting a set of japanese armor.......

      sadly, most won't get the reference.

      See, 'cause FMA is really obscure... :D

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    12. Re:The More Things Change by Sinbios · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sadly, most won't get the reference.

      /Sadly/?

      Are you suggesting that the fact most people don't understand references to Japanese cartoons is somehow a sad state of affairs?

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    13. Re:The More Things Change by Tim_sama · · Score: 0

      As someone who "didn't like anime", I loved Fullmetal Alchemist. It's what got me to give other anime a chance (still don't like 95% of it, but the 5% that is good is really superb).

    14. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cooking is actually an advanced version of chemistry"

      I doubt cooking (some call it boiling) Ramon Noodles is "advanced" chemistry. I doubt any cooking is, but I wanted to address your situation directly.

      Microwaving, though... ahhhhh yes. No, wait... still simple IMO.

      Of course, if you get down to it, EVERYTHING is chemistry. Having such a high level view, though, doesn't mean you are Mr. Wizard. :B

    15. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only when those cartoons happen to be awesome and were even dubbed for our own English ears.

    16. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that Alchemy not Chemisty?

    17. Re:The More Things Change by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 1

      Good lord, he's right. What's next, people? Our Diet Coke and Mentos?

    18. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got that book and I scrolled through it. It's a great book, and it really gives you a flavour of the U.S. in 1960. (Or, I think it may. I'm Canadian and born in 1970.) It opens, after a glossary, with these words: "There is hardly a boy or a girl alive who is not keenly interested in finding out about things. And that's exactly what chemistry is: FINDING OUT ABOUT THINGS - finding out what things are made of and what changes they undergo." After a quick history, the book talks about cutting glass tubes, fire glazing, making a jet point in a glass tube, proper lab technique, reproducing Faraday's candle experiments. And then it really gets going. One more example, then you have to go and download it: a sidebar on page 29 is entitled, "Playing Safe With Hydrogen."

      In chemistry things change, but in politics times change. There is no way this book would be sold to kids today. In another sign of changing times, on page 5 it says, "United States is [the] world's leading producer of steel." At the time this was true, and most readers probably cared. It sure seems that the authors did. Now the U.S. is #3 or #4, depending on how you count (reference). I'm sure these two differences between 1960 and today are a coincidence.

    19. Re:The More Things Change by qualidafial · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cooking is actually an advanced version of chemistry.

      In my kitchen, cooking is a form of alchemy:

      1. Light stove
      2. Grease skillet
      3. Add ingredients
      4. Read slashdot
      5. ...
      6. Carbon!
    20. Re:The More Things Change by vaporland · · Score: 1

      peruse the contents of this "golden" book beforehand, and the experiments will be much more fun....

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    21. Re:The More Things Change by Ozrius · · Score: 1

      Cooking is actually an advanced version of chemistry.

      Which is just applied physics

    22. Re:The More Things Change by FrozenFrog · · Score: 1

      We all do chemistry on a daily basis, the difference is that we usually don't do it as our daily plan. Brush your teeth, take a bath and even breathing. Cooking is actually an advanced version of chemistry.

      You're new here, aren't you?

    23. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link, I'll keep the pdf for my children to maybe get them interested (like I was interested, but bored by the official "harmless" kits my parents were allowed to buy).

    24. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Tim_sama is totally not a weeaboo name

    25. Re:The More Things Change by TheTornOne · · Score: 0

      It actually cost an arm... and a leg.

    26. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a leg. And a brother! ...although, to tell the truth, that last part would have been fine with me for most of my teenage years.

    27. Re:The More Things Change by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      One limb was lost in the original attempt to restore their mother's life, the second limb was sacrificed in saving his little brother's life by transferring him into a suit of armor. I don't remember which limb was lost when. :)

    28. Re:The More Things Change by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Yes. Kek-ke--ke-ek-ekke-ek-ek-ek-eke-kek-e-k-e-ke!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    29. Re:The More Things Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha. Best comment ever, on this planet or any other. Or an alternate dimension that is eerily like Nazi Germany.

      --Metblack85

  3. Typical by lastchance_000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like the actions of typical small-minded, small-town bureaucrats who are skilled mainly in keeping and expanding their power.

    1. Re:Typical by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Informative

      Liked blog is crap. Here is the real story:
      http://www.telegram.com/article/20080809/NEWS/808090323/1007/NEWS05

      "Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

      Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement. "

    2. Re:Typical by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this would most likely be a valid reason to get a warrant to search the premises further. However, that is not what happened.

      And IANAL so that may not even be good enough for a warrant.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    3. Re:Typical by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials."

      I'm reminded of a fireworks shoot I worked 2 years ago. It was raining on and off all day, but the sponsor insisted, despite the contract, that we go on. The fire marshal agreed with us that the situation was unsafe, but he wasn't willing to pull the plug because he didn't want to piss off the county supervisor.

      So we shoot, and there is stuff bursting right over our heads because the charges got wet, and going up in the tubes, and blowing up on the ground. But we finish the show in the pouring rain, and then we need to clean up - also in the pouring rain. And we're finding all sorts of unexploded pyro on the ground, but it's dark as 6' up a well diggers ass, so we try our best. We get done at 6:00 AM and then drive back to the magazine to drop off all of the crap that just didn't go off.

      Then my boss gets a call from the fire marshal - it seems we missed a 3" ball and a few stars, and he is DEMANDING that we come back and retrieve them (remember, this is the guy who KNEW this was going to happen but didn't have the balls to do his job). Our boss tells him to fuck off and call back when we get some sleep. 2 hours later he calls back - he's called out the BOMB SQUAD to handle it, and that's the last show we'll ever do in this town, blah, blah, blah. Response? "What makes you think we want to come back to your pissant town, you little shit?"

      Fast forward to this year - we get the call to do the show again, because last year's went so well! And before the boss could hang up, they say "BTW, everyone involved with last year's fiasco has been fired".

      I didn't shoot the show, but I heard it went well.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      "Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home."

      I probably have more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in my basement right now. That doesn't mean that any of them contain anything dangerous. Most of them, in fact, are empty.

      "Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said."

      Again, the same is true of my home. Mostly cleaning supplies, but there's a few cans of paint from when my wife didn't like the color of anyone's bedroom, some fertilizer and insecticide, and other things I'm sure I've forgotten.

      Just because the "authorities" say something, doesn't make it so.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    5. Re:Typical by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I don't believe that a warrant is needed if the officers involved believe there is an imminent danger. (For example, if they see through an open window that someone is passed out on the floor, they can enter right away) Apparently there was a significant question in their minds about the safety of the chemicals. 1500 vials and jars all over the furniture and floors is way more than the "kid's chemistry set" image the blog and summary would like us to believe. I'm not a chemist any more than I am a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like that was the most responsible way to store his stuff.

      FWIW, Marlboro is not some hick podunk town whose officials have nothing to do but harass people. That being said, Massachusetts is the ultimate nanny state, and I think it's stupid that his chemicals will not be returned to him. If there was belief of imminent danger, I'd guess that officials were within their rights to test them, but if all they found was nothing more dangerous than household cleaners, everything should have been returned.

      I wonder what he was working on.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    6. Re:Typical by pha7boy · · Score: 1

      This is why this is still important: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    7. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what law was violated? I mean other then illegal warrant less search, violating Mr. Deeb's constitutional rights, breaking and entering, grand theft, vandalism and generally just acting like the stupid criminal bullies that the town are? I hope he presses criminal charges and sues all involved into poverty.

    8. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Most of them, in fact, are empty.

      So your situation is not at all comparable.

    9. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I gotta ask: WTF was your boss thinking? OK, the sponsor was an idiot, and the fire marshal's cowardice was criminal. But no way should your boss have gone ahead with the shoot. Why didn't he simply refuse, regardless of the fire marshall's failure to do his job. What was he afraid of, getting sued? Losing his job? These are bad things, but not as bad as one of his employees getting his hands blown off while searching for duds.

    10. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Most of them, in fact, are empty.

      So your situation is not at all comparable.

      No, my situation is exactly comparable. Read the news report again: "Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home." Nowhere is it stated what proportion of these containers actually contained anything. Although I must confess that I slightly exaggerated my situation. Most of them are only empty of liquid chemicals; they do contain various sorted nails, screws, nuts and bolts. In bad light, someone picking them up would realize that they contain something, they just might not realize exactly what.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    11. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Nowhere is it stated what proportion of these containers actually contained anything.

      Right, they saw hundreds of empty containers and panicked.

    12. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Nowhere is it stated what proportion of these containers actually contained anything.

      Right, they saw hundreds of empty containers and panicked.

      No, they justified their response by noting the presence of containers. This is similar to the 2007 Moonite bomb scare, where the police found that the devices shared "some characteristics with improvised explosive devices", and Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley said that one of them "had a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires."

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    13. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Fix your sarcasm detector. Despite your contorted logic, all the news reports I've seen indicated that Deeb had a huge number of containers that were manifestly not empty. According to the original story (follow the links in the TFSA) "there were vessels containing chemicals all over the furniture and the floor".

      There's hysteria here all right: the standard blogosphere kind where one blogger's ill-informed and angry rants get magnified over and over by a lot of other ill-informed, angry bloggers. And yes, the same goes for goes for the Moonite thing too. People get badly injured on a regular basis because of stuff that happens in secret labs. Same goes for mysterious electronic devices that appear out of nowhere. It happens every day. It's happened to people I know.

      If the fire department in this case and the cops in the Moonite stunt had underreacted, and those incidents had turned out to be the real deal, people would be demanding their heads — literally. I don't think they overreacted in either case, but if they did, who can blame them?

      A bunch of immature, self-righteous bloggers, that's who.

    14. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Fix your sarcasm detector.

      Huh? What sarcasm? All I've done is recite the published facts. But if you want sarcasm, I can provide that, too.

      Despite your contorted logic, all the news reports I've seen indicated that Deeb had a huge number of containers that were manifestly not empty. According to the original story (follow the links in the TFSA) "there were vessels containing chemicals all over the furniture and the floor".

      And that's a good reason to call in the hazmat team. But did those firemen who discovered the situation bother to count the number of vessels? I seriously doubt it. They left that for the next team, who (like the officials involved in the Moonite case) might have felt a need to justify their actions by inflating the seriousness of the situation.

      There's hysteria here all right: the standard blogosphere kind where one blogger's ill-informed and angry rants get magnified over and over by a lot of other ill-informed, angry bloggers. And yes, the same goes for goes for the Moonite thing too. People get badly injured on a regular basis because of stuff that happens in secret labs. Same goes for mysterious electronic devices that appear out of nowhere. It happens every day. It's happened to people I know.

      You forgot to say "Think of the children!"

      If the fire department in this case and the cops in the Moonite stunt had underreacted, and those incidents had turned out to be the real deal, people would be demanding their heads — literally. I don't think they overreacted in either case, but if they did, who can blame them?

      A bunch of immature, self-righteous bloggers, that's who.

      Yeah, you're absolutely right! Under-reacting might let the terrorists win, so it's our patriotic duty to over-react whenever we can.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    15. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to say "Think of the children!"

      Let me get specific: I guy who had an office near where I used to live, pissed somebody off, and got a parcel bomb. He now has no hands. I guess you think that's a big joke. He doesn't.

    16. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To shoot firefighters putting out your burning air conditioner?

    17. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Let me get specific: I guy who had an office near where I used to live, pissed somebody off, and got a parcel bomb. He now has no hands. I guess you think that's a big joke. He doesn't.

      And I had just left the Mansion House Garage on October 16, 1981, when âoeSonnyâ Faheen's Volkswagen Beetle blew up. You can still see the soot on the ceiling where he died.
      http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/family_epics/louis/9.html

      No, I don't think that it's a big joke, but that doesn't mean that I accept anything that a public official says when someone may have over-reacted to a situation. Well over a hundred death row inmates have been found innocent due to DNA testing that didn't exist at the time of their convictions. In most of those cases, the other evidence didn't fit, either, but the prosecutor's office didn't want to back down after accusing someone. The Moonite bomb scare showed the same pattern of behavior, and this case has some disturbing similarities.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    18. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      If you're not saying it's all a big joke, respond to my arguments with arguments of your own, not jokes. Quotes from "The Simpsons" are particularly lame.

      Anyway, now you seem to be saying that all government officials are dishonest, therefore anything they say is true must be false, even if there's physical evidence. I have no idea how to respond to that.

    19. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      If you're not saying it's all a big joke, respond to my arguments with arguments of your own, not jokes. Quotes from "The Simpsons" are particularly lame.

      Are you sure that you're hitting the Reply button on the right posts? I ask because nothing I said in my last post was a joke, and I haven't used any Simpsons quotes anywhere in this thread.

      Anyway, now you seem to be saying that all government officials are dishonest, therefore anything they say is true must be false, even if there's physical evidence. I have no idea how to respond to that.

      Well, try re-reading what I said, because you seem to have misunderstood.

      I expect that most government officials consider themselves honest. However, it's human nature to resist evidence that one has made a mistake. Hillary Clinton blamed "a vast right-wing conspiracy" rather than believe that her husband had cheated on her. Michael Nifong decided that a bunch of Duke Lacrosse players were trying to cover up a crime and tried to suppress all evidence to the contrary. In Boston, the police still use the word "hoax" rather than admit to their misidentification of a guerrilla advertising campaign. The FBI leaked misinformation about Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfill because they thought they had correctly identified perpetrators and just needed more evidence.

      In this case, no one has said that anything bad was found. Instead, you find a lot of weasel words being used. Let's go back to the article.

      Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for [the Massachusetts town of] Marlboro stated, 'I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.'

      Not "He admitted that he's keeping explosives/poisons/carcinogens." Mr. Deeb has apparently been cooperating with the investigators, and I have a feeling that he's already told them what was in every container that they found and none of it was all that bad. (And, no, I don't object to the authorities double-checking his chemicals, because I understand that he just might turn out to be a secret admirer of Timothy McVeigh or something.) "Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement", but nary a word about what was contained therein. If it was anything significant, I'm sure that the reporter would have been told, but all we get is innuendo.

      I've been to Marlboro before; it seems like a nice town. But the city officials seem to think the hazmat squad was scrambled, damn it, and that means that somebody has to be guilty of something. And that sort of thinking is what I find objectionable.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    20. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Simpson's quote: "Think of the children!"

      Bored now.

    21. Re:Typical by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Simpson's quote: "Think of the children!"

      Ah! I knew that it was a common meme here on Slashdot, but I don't watch the Simpsons and I didn't realize that it originated there.

      Bored now.

      I fully understand. Lots of people don't like learning something new.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    22. Re:Typical by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I love learning new information. It's the convoluted arguments and personal insults that you use to defend your misinformation that's gets tiresome.

  4. Is anyone surprised? by fractalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what the environment of hysteria is doing to the US.

    Who exactly is terrorizing us these days? Seems like our "elected officials" just want us to be scared all the time so we won't really think about what's going on.

    --
    People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
    1. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 30+ years of life, the only people who have directly terrorized me are police officers.

      I live in the United States of America.

    2. Re:Is anyone surprised? by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      Who exactly is terrorizing us these days? Seems like our "elected officials" just want us to be scared all the time so we won't really think about what's going on.

      Bingo. Oldest trick in the book.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    3. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

      It's your duty to be scared prole. Now shut the fuck up and get back under my boot heel.

    4. Re:Is anyone surprised? by wolf12886 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wish I had mod points for this, I've had the same experience.

      Also, I'm just going to f***ing say it, I'm not the least bit afraid of some guy building a bomb or buying an "assault weapon", and killing me with it. Yes, it could happen, but I could also be struck by lightning, get hit by a car, or any number of other things (all of which would probably be more likely), taking chances is simply part of life.

      What I am afraid of is our growing police state. Right now its disarmament of the population, and overly restrictive laws that can be enforced at the governments discretion, all made possible by the gradual repealing and (appalling) reinterpretation of protections designed to guard us against this sort of thing, God knows where all this is going.

      Come to think about it, I'd feel a hell of alot safer if all my neighbors possessed bombs and actual assault weapons (select fire).

    5. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Come live next to me. ;-)

      I've had the same experience with the police. The Seattle police are all over the papers right now with some officers' misadventures in Sturgis this weekend. The authorities feel impunity to act how they will. We should be frightened, and I, for one, am.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    6. Re:Is anyone surprised? by winomonkey · · Score: 1

      How is this an insightful comment? This is not a hysterical response with words like "terrorist" or somesuch nonsense. The article quotes the code enforcement officer as saying that, due to his compliance, he isn't being charged with the laws that he violated.

      Which laws? The zoning laws which state that you cannot do scientific research of this scale in a residential environment. While people may decide that they really dislike the zoning laws, these are not the sort of hysterical laws passed as a response to some loss of perception after 9/11.

      This guy a) had an unrelated fire in his house, b) had quantities of legal chemicals that were stored throughout his house in a manner inconsistent with the law, and c) was told that he was out of compliance but that they wouldn't press charges or slap fines on him at this point.

      If I want to do metal work in my home and have an oxy-acetylene torch in my house, there are rules and regulations about where I store the bottles of gas, how I mark my house to indicate that flammable gases are present in case of, say, a fire in my AC unit and the firefighters respond, and, in some regions, who I have to register with to inform them that my house contains things that may pose a threat to civil servants in case of an emergency. The same goes with other chemicals.

      So, I guess the question you pose - "Is anyone surprised" - should be responded to with a "no" answer, as it is no surprise that Slashdotters read part of an article or an inaccurate article summary and then make sweeping statements that criticize government officials for "not getting it" or "being afraid of terrorists."

      This doesn't mean that I disagree with the sentiments about a fear-mongering political body that aims to manipulate through misinformation. However, this just may well be a case where the government is doing something that is justifiable (although they had better not throw out his chemicals without a better reason - he should just be required to come into compliance at this point).

    7. Re:Is anyone surprised? by pyro_peter_911 · · Score: 1

      Come to think about it, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if all my neighbors possessed bombs and actual assault weapons (select fire).

      You're in luck! My neighbor's house is for sale... and I've got a bomb!

      Stay on your side of the fence and we'll get along fine.

      Peter

    8. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before jumping to conclusions, check into who is elected and who is hired to do a defined job. Civil servants are often hired for their skills, not elected by the public.

      Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

      That code enforcer was most likely hired to verify that people follow the zoning laws and other local jurisdictional codes. Zoning in the US typically splits land uses up into primary functions for a given "zone." There are residential, commercial, open space, and industrial to name a few.

      Residential zoning is usually full of, well, residences. And you can have home occupations in most places, but those are limited to small-scale things that won't impact the neighborhood (usually you can't have restaurants, because they'd generate a lot of traffic, or scientific research, because things might blow up and hurt people who aren't related to you).

      Yeah, he might have been a skilled chemist, but keeping "[v]essels of chemicals [...] all over the furniture and the floor" seems a bit hap-hazard to me. Then again I'm not a chemist. I work with building plans and business permits.

      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

      Those firefighters and other civil servants weren't out to stop home experiments, they got involved because of a home occupation that looked to be a bit too big for the location. Maybe they were quick to worry, but they weren't looking for people attempting to "do science" and thwart them. They were looking out for public safety.

    9. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think about it, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if all my neighbors possessed bombs and actual assault weapons (select fire).

      You're in luck! My neighbor's house is for sale... and I've got a bomb!

      Stay on your side of the fence and we'll get along fine.

      Peter

      Your nick "pyro_peter_911" tells the whole story right there!

    10. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm only 29, but I have the same thing to say.

      I have been jailed twice for... nothing. I hire expensive lawyers and everything is dropped an hour before the trial... seems they had no intention of prosecuting, "they did it just to fuck with you" (my lawyer's words)

      I have had some friends who had crimes committed against them and opted NOT to call the police because they were more put off by being prodded by investigators than they were by the actual crime itself.

      That's a sad state...

    11. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind the man behind the curtain.

    12. Re:Is anyone surprised? by pyro_peter_911 · · Score: 1

      Your nick "pyro_peter_911" tells the whole story right there!

      In all fairness, the "911" in the nick refers to an automobile, not a date in September. (My slashdot nick substantially predates The 9-11)

      The "peter" in the nick is actually my name. (Definitely not a dick joke...)

      And, well, "pyro" probably does mean exactly what you think it means... (There's this great thing you can do with rubber cement, a roman candle, and a box of matches)

      Peter

  5. Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SO call the FBI and complain that the local police entered and arrested you without a warrant. Call the local and national media. Make a big stink about it. Start a website. The Massachusetts police are morons and they need to be put in their place.

    1. Re:Call the FBI? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and they need to be put in their place.

      Which is 6 feet under, IMO.

    2. Re:Call the FBI? by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      post it on slashdot?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Call the FBI? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed. Massachusetts, allow me to introduce you to the fourth amendment:

      >i>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      This fellow needs to make sure that the local authorities are smacked down. HARD.

    4. Re:Call the FBI? by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      It's not that I have faith that the feds would do anything - I guess it's more hope than anything...

    5. Re:Call the FBI? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the FBI going to do, laugh? The feds use the exact same tactic, under the guise of "Civil Forfeiture".

      People don't care, because the government tells them that it is only used against drug dealers and terrorists, not that such allegations generally get proven beyond the assertion that "the guy must be one or else we wouldn't have taken his car/money/chemistry set".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Civil forfeitures are in rem. In rem refers to a legal action directed solely against the property based on a legal finding that the property itself is used in an illegal manner.

      The point is a court decided that the forfeiture was deemed acceptable. In this case no court heard the case that I'm aware of.

    7. Re:Call the FBI? by richardellisjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article doesn't say anything about him being arrested, just that the police were called and a hazmat team was called. From the article it doesn't sound like he was arrested at all just told to stay in a hotel until the cleanup is done.

      As for confiscation of his chemicals, it sounds like he had way more chemicals than he should need, and wasn't storing them properly. TFA also says that some were potentially explosive and doesn't mention his qualifications.

      Now a lot of people here will be screaming because his property was taken but keep in mind that no illegal search was made (the chemicals were found during an unrelated fire by the fire department), his housing area wasn't zoned for this (do they actually zone housing areas for chemical work?), some of the chemicals were potentially explosive, he had lots of chemicals some in large quantities, he wasn't arrested just asked to leave during the cleanup, his qualifications sound like a hobbyist not a professional.

      I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of potentially explosive material (stored improperly) doing "experiments" next door to me and my family.

    8. Re:Call the FBI? by edalytical · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh come on mods, that was funny I nearly spit my coffee out. Someone fix that please. Now to be on topic, in my experience police are criminals and police have cause me more hardship than archetype criminals. In fact the only time I needed a police officer they didn't do shit, they just wrote a report.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    9. Re:Call the FBI? by kmcarr · · Score: 4, Informative

      First I want to make it clear that I am not "taking the city's side" but how can a post be insightful when it makes it abundantly clear that the poster never read the linked article. (Yes, I know this is /.) His home was originally entered by firefighters because of an air conditioner fire, they don't need a warrant when you ask them in to please keep your home from burning down. In the normal course of their duties the firefighters observed, in plain sight, what they reasonably believed could be hazardous materials. They contacted the appropriate authorities. Second, Mr. Deeb was NEVER placed under arrest or even taken into police custody. He and his wife were asked to stay at a hotel (or some other location) while DEP and hazardous material crews cleared the home.

    10. Re:Call the FBI? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Irrelevant. What you want and what is legal are two different things here. Were the chemicals illegal for an individual to possess? If not then no matter how many he had there's no good legal reason to take them. You do know that a lot of cleaning chemicals are potentially explosive right? Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.

      If you want all potentially explosive material not stored in a proper state removed from people's houses then let's start with yours, I'm sure we can take 10 or 15 items away that you might not have even known were potentially explosive.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    11. Re:Call the FBI? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      And what are we supposed to do? Does the Massachusetts police department have a website that we can slashdot?

    12. Re:Call the FBI? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      from TFA:

      "Mr. Deeb declined to comment yesterday. Authorities say he has patents pending and had been using his basement as a science lab to conduct experiments, possibly for many years.
      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.
      Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboroâ(TM)s code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws."

      so the firefighters were at the house legally and found the stuff (he may have told them about it to make them aware of the chemicals when fighting the fire) and the 'residential' community in question has zoning laws that prevent people from developing A-bombs and other such crazy stuff; i.e. serious research and development.

      This was not just a small backyard tinkerer. He has patents pending and is a retired chemist.

      Right or wrong, ff you don't like the zoning laws, change them or move.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    13. Re:Call the FBI? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

      they'll just claim it's a reasonable search then... big get out clause there...

      Why in this day and age does slashdot not have buttons to allow you to wrap sections of text with tags is beyond me, especially after all the other monkeying around with the styling

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    14. Re:Call the FBI? by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.

      References, please.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    15. Re:Call the FBI? by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This fellow needs to make sure that the local authorities are smacked down. HARD.

      Yeah, and the next time he has a run-in with the authorities they'll find out he's a drug dealer. because you don't have to sell or aven posess drugs for the cops to find them on you.

      When something you can plant is illegal, anybody can go to prison, no matter how innocent they are.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:Call the FBI? by rokstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      FTFA:
      "Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor authorities said."

      They were already there responding to a air conditioner fire. They saw large amounts of chemicals that they probably didn't know what they were for or what they could do. Thats your probable cause. We know that he wasn't doing anything dangerous _now_ after the hazmat folks had a chance to check it all out, but you want the cops banking on that?

      Question. Say this guy had turned out to actually be making bombs or meth, and it came out in the news that the police were there a few days back and didn't do or say anything? How pissed do you think people would be at them then.

    17. Re:Call the FBI? by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Heat it or rapidly freeze it in a sealed container? Electrolyze and recombine it?

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    18. Re:Call the FBI? by thermian · · Score: 1

      zoning laws didn't exist back then did they.

      They do, he broke them. Possibly they over-reacted, and he'll have a case for compensation, but what he was doing sounds like a business.

      Also, if his house had caught fire in a more serious way, there would have been a large number of evaporating/burning chemicals about the place, of the level you would expect in an industrial setting, not a residential area. It doesn't matter whether many were toxic or not, they shouldn't have been there in such quantities to start with.
       

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    19. Re:Call the FBI? by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      "Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboroâ(TM)s code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws."

      It's a good thing Ms. Wilderman wasn't around when Hewlett and Packard and Steve Wozniak were doing "research and development" in their garages or she would have undoubtedly shut them down too.

    20. Re:Call the FBI? by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      They don't care about the 4th amendment, and nothing will happen to the police.. mark my words. They can search whatever they want whenever they want and _nothing_ will ever happen to them. We live in a police state now, get use to it.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    21. Re:Call the FBI? by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.

      References, please.

      Hullo? Separate it out into hydrogen and oxygen.

    22. Re:Call the FBI? by torqer · · Score: 1

      Google, please.

      http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html

      That's simply H20 by itself. Pressure + water can also be explosive to the container of the water.

    23. Re:Call the FBI? by whoda · · Score: 1

      Presumably he let the authorities in to fight the fire which occurred in his home.
      I'm also guessing that there is a rule or law about a structural safety inspection after a fire before occupants can be let back in.
      I would also guess that a fire inspector seeing 1500 vials, cans and jars of chemicals of unknown origin, composition and stability laying around may consider it unsafe, and in that case would wisely call in for assistance.

      But, that's just me.

    24. Re:Call the FBI? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out how you DON'T do scientific research and development in your home. Maybe it's because I am one of thouse 'homeschool nuts', but we do scientific research and development with our child almost every single day.

    25. Re:Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      So they see what they "SUSPECT" is an illegal cache of chemicals. Because most people are not competent enough to determine if they are illegal or not without making an inventory of them the usual course of action would be to ASK if they could come and inspect it or to file for a search warrant.

      Note that it would be completely different if the firefighters found an illegal cache of rocket fired missiles or an illegal cache of crack cocaine in his house. However what they DID FIND was not Immediately INCRIMINATING. In other words they didn't know whether he broke a law or not.

    26. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he let them in, it isn't illegal.

    27. Re:Call the FBI? by autocracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Add sodium.

      Water on its own? Boiler explosions are amazing. The almost instantaneous expansion of the steam from 150 to 180 pounds per square inch of atmospheric pressure produced a terrific force, which was usually violent enough to rip the firebox sheets and tear the entire locomotive boiler off of the locomotive frames. The effect was pretty much like a rocket taking off and exploding. Boilers were sometimes hurled hundreds of feet away. http://small-leavedshamrock.blogspot.com/2008/05/1892-pottsville-train-explosion-how-why.html

      --
      SIG: HUP
    28. Re:Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Pretty much everywhere (Except I guess backwards Massachusetts)the zoning laws just prevent you from running retail storefront space or a business with over a certain amount of employees from your home. If you work by yourself and you don't have a storefront and customers never come to you then the zoning laws mostly don't apply. The whole zoning bullshit argument is way out of hand here.

    29. Re:Call the FBI? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      some of the chemicals were potentially explosive

      Whoop-de-fucking-do! So are lots of the things normal people keep under their kitchen sink, or in the red container on the shelf next to their lawnmower, or any number of other places!

      his qualifications sound like a hobbyist not a professional

      So what? Are hobbies illegal now?! Exactly who the fuck do you think you are, to dictate what hobbies are acceptable?!

      I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of potentially explosive material (stored improperly) doing "experiments" next door to me and my family.

      Translation: "Waah! Waah! Think of the children! I'm a damn, sniveling coward so I'm gonna whine and cry until the nanny government stamps out all that evil, dangerous LIBERTY AND FREEDOM!"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re:Call the FBI? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.

      References, please.

      Basic Chemistry and physics.
      1) Heated to over 250f in a sealed container.
      2) Addition of elemental aluminum.
      I can go on, but those came to mind first. However the 15 gallons of explosive liquid in your garage come to mind first.

    31. Re:Call the FBI? by richardellisjr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hardly irrelevant, there are zoning laws that he broke. While I agree that those laws were vague enough they could potentially apply to just about anyone whats important is that they were broken and the police/government can choose to enforce the laws when they want. I personally don't like vague laws or laws that are only enforced when they want to charge you with something but that's a problem for another day.

      Also there's a big difference in intent, having a couple of bottles of drano will and never should be illegal, however I think it's perfectly reasonable to make owning large quantities of explosive chemicals that by them selves have no purpose. Do you really think anyone is making their own household cleaners? If someone really is mixing explosive chemicals together for whatever reason they want I sure as hell don't think they should be doing it less than 100 feet from where my kids are sleeping, and if the neighborhood is zoned for that sort of thing, I'll be moving.

      If there's ever a time to use a law it's when a sloppy at best person is keeping and experimenting with large quantities of explosive chemicals. And that's the point one of the reasons for zoning laws is prevent stupid people like this from blowing their family and house up and taking their neighbors with them.

    32. Re:Call the FBI? by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      not if you want anyone to actually DO anything about it :P

    33. Re:Call the FBI? by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.

      References, please.

      Apply extreme heat in an enclosed environment and you can get a steam explosion. Can be a problem with sand casting of iron, which a few people also do as a hobby.

    34. Re:Call the FBI? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked none of the equipment in the computer industry generally doesn't have the possibility of explosions and noxious gas clouds (laptop batteries and cabbage diets not withstanding ;-).

      If it's zoned residential, it's residential. Lots and lots of examples exist on both sides of the argument as you suggest. But I think most people would probably not have a problem with keeping an industrial type chem lab out of their neighborhood.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    35. Re:Call the FBI? by hob42 · · Score: 1

      Works even better if you carbonate it, seal it in an aluminum can, and leave it in the center console of a car parked in the sun on a 105 degree day in Arizona.

      Think little gooey specks of Pepsi residue covering the entire car from the windshield to the back window. Not that I'd know from personal experience, or anything.

    36. Re:Call the FBI? by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

      Lets see, the fire was put out in 1 minute. So there was no chance the fire was reacting with the chemicals.

      So they don't know whats in the jars, humm.. could have been 20 years of piss samples for all they know.

      The next item to do is get a warrant, it would appear they didn't.

    37. Re:Call the FBI? by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      Just drop a sliver of pure potassium in a bowl of water.

      Kaboom!

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    38. Re:Call the FBI? by LionMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As for confiscation of his chemicals, it sounds like he had way more chemicals than he should need[...]

      So the government is in the position to decide how much of something a person needs in their home? "Hey, this guy's a Mormon and he's hoarding a year's worth of food in his home! Nobody should need to keep a year's worth of food in his home!" (Many of my Mormon friends routinely keep that much food on hand, and I'm told this is common.) "Hey, this guy's an audiophile and he's got scads of speakers and amplifiers all over the place! Nobody needs that much consumer electronics in his home!" Or, particularly relevant to people in places like Arizona (where I live), "Hey, this guy has a huge gun collection! Nobody should ever need more than one firearm! Heck, who needs guns at all, unless they're in law enforcement?"

      If you want to argue about proper storage, fine. But don't start talking about what you think someone needs or doesn't need. That's not for you to decide.

      TFA also says that some were potentially explosive and doesn't mention his qualifications. [...] his qualifications sound like a hobbyist not a professional.

      He's a retired chemist. That's plenty of qualification in my book!

      In case you missed it, the first five words of TFA were:

      Victor Deeb, the retired chemist[...]

      How is it that you could miss the very first sentence of the article and say you don't see any mention of his qualifications, and then turn around and make the claim that you think you know what his qualifications "sound like"?

    39. Re:Call the FBI? by jwiegley · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of potentially explosive material (stored improperly) doing "experiments" next door to me and my family.

      and THAT sentiment is exactly why a court order should have been obtained first.

      Court proceedings, due process and that sort of thing protect the interests of people like me and the chemist from your interests. You may not want Jewish/black/Muslim people living next door to you either. You might want your house to be taller than all your neighbors. Maybe you want your neighbor to give away most of his excess wealth to your favorite charity. But your "wants" are biased. They have to be mitigated by court order and procedure to ensure that you are not oppressing your neighbors and civilization is being kept fair and balanced. While the firefighters may have obtained knowledge of illegal evidence while performing their duty they are not officers of the peace and therefore the fourth amendment would still apply to his chemistry properties. Yes, the firefighters could make public their knowledge to a judge who could use that second hand testimony to issue a search warrant making the whole thing legal but that never occurred.

      All you have is assumptions about his storage/flammability situation and a personal fantasy of how the world should be. They didn't say which chemicals were stored on furniture. Maybe it was just the harmless Baking Soda-like chemicals he stored on furniture. The more hazardous items may have been stored in a perfectly professional and safed manner. The article also mentioned that nothing was any more hazardous/flammable than what you or I have under our sinks. So I am inclined to believe that your "hobbyist", "extremely large amount", "potentially explosive" and air-quoted "experiments" are all exaggerated descriptions drummed up by your personal fears designed to lure others into accepting what you want based on feelings rather than rational thought. ("I don't know about you" is also a fallacy phrase designed to lure people into adopting an argument out of fear of being different or ostracized rather than solely on the logical merit of the argument.)

      The point is: He *may* have crossed a zoning law. You don't know, I don't know and neither, apparently, do the people that seized his property without court order. He has an unalienable right from unreasonable search AND seizure. Only a judge has the authority to determined what is or is not unreasonable, not firefighters (not even the police). They should have obtained the court order first. Otherwise, what is to prevent them from coming into your house after you have a fire and taking your adult nude fine art paintings? your bible? your Children? Or anything other item or behavior that might offend somebody holding a position of power or in league with an unfriendly neighbor?

      A simple court order would make this whole situation a non-issue.

      --
      I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    40. Re:Call the FBI? by scotsghost · · Score: 1

      you know what water's made of, right?

      google 'electrolytic decomposition of water'. follow directions. apply spark to resulting gases. duck.

      seriously, was that hard?

    41. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try using that when the fire spreads from his AC to the floor (where he has ridiculous bottles of chemicals lying around) and the ensuing explosion takes out both of his neighbors houses and due to the chemical nature proves to be *much* more dangerous to firefighters and other neighbors, possibly even causing toxic fumes.

      4th amendment doesn't mean squat when it endangers the safety of those outside your home.

    42. Re:Call the FBI? by Jadecristal · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the problem is that "smacking down the local authorities" is by no matter "easy." They're not likely to, short of the media going ahead and crucifying them in advance, admit a mistake. If anything, drawing attention to yourself tends to make them even nastier.

      The only thing that actually seems to get through to them is loss of funds, which, of course, are in fact your funds, and your neighbor's funds, not "theirs." At least when you sue them, though, they notice that the amount of money that they have for playtoys goes down some, and tend to reconsider their bad behavior.

    43. Re:Call the FBI? by rokstar · · Score: 1

      "Lets see, the fire was put out in 1 minute"

      Must have missed that part of the article.

      You don't know how long they were there or where they had to go in the home. Sure the AC was on the second floor but there are a whole host of reason to go into the basement. Thats usually where the breakers are for one thing. Also the article says they found some of these things around the furniture and did not specify which floor they were talking about. INAFM (fireman) but i would imagine that if they see chemicals that they can't identify they are required to call someone to handle it so as to avoid things going boom.

      You don't need a warrant if there is the possibility of danger/probably cause.

    44. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A warrant may not have been needed if the the police officer would have noticed the chemicals during a post-fire investigation of the area. Police generally respond to all fires staff permitting, and state law may authorize a preliminary search of the premises for any blatant evidence of arson. However, in that event (except possibly for arson evidence), only clear contraband in open areas would be legal to confiscate. To go any further would require a warrant.

    45. Re:Call the FBI? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of potentially explosive material (stored improperly) doing "experiments" next door to me and my family.

      We'll I wouldn't want a gun/hunting enthusiast storing and training with automatic and semi-automatic weapons of all calibres living next door to me either. But I doubt that Massachusetts law enforcement would be so quick to intervene on my behalf.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    46. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of gasoline (stored improperly) doing "driving" next door to me and my family, moving around in a large 3000lb metal object at high speed with flammable materials stored in an unsafe and potentially explosive metal tank.

    47. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a long time US fan watching with increasing horror from faraway shores, I think it's high time you lot concentrated on the Second Amendment to the exclusion of all the others until your country is sorted out.

    48. Re:Call the FBI? by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Water, microwave, spoon?

      Sure, not a big explosion, but a nasty burn if you are not careful...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    49. Re:Call the FBI? by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      "Potentially explosive"?

      You moron. I can make *water* explode given the right circumstances...

      What an open-ended statement. And you're defending them? Turn in your radical/liberal/geek card.

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    50. Re:Call the FBI? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Right or wrong, ff you don't like the zoning laws, change them or move.

      If I've ever seen flamebait, this is it. The trite challenge "if you don't like a law, change it" assumes a person should mount a huge effort to change something which should not be there in the first place, with little likelihood that his effort would succeed. The burden of moving, which might involve selling and buying houses at substantial loss, is not a trivial or just result, either.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    51. Re:Call the FBI? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      No need, even. Just heat it up past the boiling point in a smooth container. Then tap.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    52. Re:Call the FBI? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess you could. If you wanted to.

      http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/MarlboroughMA_PoliceDept/index

      Looks like the article got the name of the town wrong... it's Marlborough. At least I'm pretty sure... when I put Marlboro, MA into Google Maps it goes to a location in Marlborough.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    53. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...'zoned' for chemical work? A PERFECT example of ignorance! A human, house, neighbourhood, city, planet, etc. is a gigantic mix of chemicals, reacting at various rates, in various combinations, under variable conditions. Bathroom cleaners, laundry detergents, propane BBQ, gasoline powered car/lawnmower, insect repellents, herbicides, pharmaceuticals of various sorts, cooking/baking ingredients...hell, the list is endless, and we won't even begin on biochemistry (human/insect/plant/pet/animal, etc.). It is definitely the case of powertripping officials overstepping/attempting to extend their ever increasing powers of arrest/intrusion, etc. and erosion of freedom of all types, including the freedom to investigate how chemistry works, etc.

      I hope these idiot officials/police are taken to the cleaners for millions, have to supply him with a complete replacement lab, etc. Someone needs to get these idiot clowns destroying liberty under control.

    54. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not post th Massachusetts Police website URL on slashdot?

    55. Re:Call the FBI? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLEVE, and yes, this can happen with water. Ever heard of geysers?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    56. Re:Call the FBI? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The question is, why were they in the basement if the fire was on the second floor? I don't think they had to go through the basement to get from the first floor to the second floor.

      This is just a sad example of the guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality of authorities: "Hey, ok if we go downstairs, right? No? Why, are you hiding something?" Well, maybe this guy figured he wasn't doing anything wrong, so it was ok if they went downstairs. That doesn't change the fact that he wasn't able to exercise his 5th amendment right to not testify against himself... if he'd said "No, you need a warrant", everything would have been kosher -- but then he'd look like a criminal for trying to hide stuff (even if there was nothing there! which he probably thought was the case anyway).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    57. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for confiscation of his chemicals, it sounds like he had way more chemicals than he should need, and wasn't storing them properly. TFA also says that some were potentially explosive and doesn't mention his qualifications.

      Potentially explosive? You should see my house, it has air in it! Man if some fuel got vaporized into it it could go off like a fuel air explosive. I am so crazy I have taken to storing this air in my neighbor's yard and all down the street. I even have it stored in the neighboring gas station!
      As for more than I need? Man, I got to tell you I have this stuff piled up so many kilometers high you would grow pale thinking about it.

    58. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, TFA states that he is a "retired chemist," so I'm sure he's qualified to handle those chemicals which were all "no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products."

    59. Re:Call the FBI? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      No need, even. Just heat it up past the boiling point in a smooth container. Then tap.

      I'd forgotten about that -- but yup, it surely will do the trick.

    60. Re:Call the FBI? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Bad laws are passed every day. Most Americans can't be bothered to be involved in community civics anymore. This is what you get, bad laws passed by power hungry twits. But if they run unopposed, well someone could have run against them.

      Sorry, but that's how life works. We live in communities. Communities have rules.

      Either this guy has lived there for many years and did nothing as (in your opinion) bad laws were enacted, or he moved into a house without checking (or caring) what the existing laws were.

      Either way, yes he bears the responsibility.

      along with the community if they indeed disapprove of these laws, but if they do approve of the laws, well as I said, we live in communities.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    61. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at all the paranoid police state posts above when this whole matter is being blown out of proportion.

      I think Slashdot has reached a tipping point where the users are becoming mentally sick with their obsession of a police state and how 'the man' is out to get all of them.

      "Home science under attack..."
      No wonder there is no credibility to hold up on Slashdot.

    62. Re:Call the FBI? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Technically, the liquid gasoline isn't explosive, it's just volatile. The gasoline vapor is explosive. But I'm being pedantic... yeah, I'll stop now.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    63. Re:Call the FBI? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      So they see what they "SUSPECT" is an illegal cache of chemicals. Because most people are not competent enough to determine if they are illegal or not without making an inventory of them the usual course of action would be to ASK if they could come and inspect it or to file for a search warrant.

      You've forgotten that probable cause can negate the need for a warrant. For example, if you see someone drinking from a bottle labeled "Miller Lite" while you've pulled them over for speeding then you have probable cause to inspect the bottle or their breath. You don't need a warrant.

    64. Re:Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      This is a case where a car analogy just doesn't work. See we lost our Fourth Amendment rights while in cars a long time ago. Now they can just search your car just because they pulled you over for a broken tail light. Oh and who do you think broke that tail light?

      Secondly a bottle of chlorine solution is not quite up there with a bottle of miller light in your hand when you are driving. Your analogy is totally insufficient.

    65. Re:Call the FBI? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Now they can just search your car just because they pulled you over for a broken tail light.

      That's inaccurate and misleading. I should know, as I worked on this specific issue for the US Attorney General about two months ago (a man tried to get evidence found in his car suppressed, and I had to address this specific issue in a response opposing the suppression). The officer cannot search unless (1) you give him permission, (2) he has a warrant, or (3) he has probable cause based on something illegal he perceived (e.g., he smelled weed when you rolled the window down or he sees a beer bottle in the passenger seat, open).

      On the other hand, a police officer cannot search the trunk of your car when he pulls you over for any reason unless he perceives something illegal going on (say, he sees weed on the floor by the passenger seat).

      Secondly a bottle of chlorine solution is not quite up there with a bottle of miller light in your hand when you are driving. Your analogy is totally insufficient.

      You know, you're right. Based on what I've read about the man's situation, my car analogy should be "police saw three hundred beer bottles in the passenger seat."

    66. Re:Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You ever watch Cops? It never goes down that way. They just pull the guy out and put him in the back of the car and search away.

    67. Re:Call the FBI? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and COPS is the norm. Just like Judge Judy depicts a courtroom accurately. And just like The Real World accurately depicts urban life.

      If the cops do that, a court will rightly suppress any evidence obtained in that manner. This is black-letter law and judges do it all the time. There are so many cases out there saying this in every jurisdiction.

      Also, I've never seen that happen on COPS. Then again, I haven't watched COPS since I was a kid.

    68. Re:Call the FBI? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      So you just took COPS which follows REAL POLICE OFFICERS and compared it to a Fake Court show (Where they agree to be bound by the decision) and The Real World where they pick the most ridiculous people to live together possible to create drama. COPS IS the norm.

      To get down to the legal aspects there is all this bullshit about how since cars are mobile then police have an easier time searching them for fear they may never be able to again and how police can look in the windows and "Think" they see something and search the whole damned car. Combine this with people not knowing their rights and almost every search of a car is actually illegal but the evidence is included in the case anyways.

    69. Re:Call the FBI? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The officer cannot search unless (1) you give him permission, (2) he has a warrant, or (3) he has probable cause based on something illegal he perceived (e.g., he smelled weed when you rolled the window down or he sees a beer bottle in the passenger seat, open).

      And there is zero punishment for perceptions being wrong. "I smelled what I thought was weed." Well, then search the car. No weed? Then it was an honest mistake by a cop that works long hours in the defense of our personal safety. Does it matter that he lied and just didn't like their haircut? Nope. Also, a "search" is different to some people from others. Pulling you from the car and patting you down and looking at the area you had direct contact to in the car is ok. So is walking around and looking in all the windows with mechanical assistance (flashlights). As well as holding the vehicle there until the dogs get there and have the dogs search the outside of the car. I'd call holding someone until there could be a chemical analysis of the outside of the car (whether done by dogs or a chemical "nose") a search. Because of the specific legal protections of the use of "search" as a word, it isn't considered a search by the police or the courts.

      On the other hand, a police officer cannot search the trunk of your car when he pulls you over for any reason unless he perceives something illegal going on (say, he sees weed on the floor by the passenger seat).

      Right, and those are almost always illegal or agreed to by someone that was threatened with violence (and yes, holding someone on the side of the road for an unspecificed time greater than an hour against their will is a threat violence). The cop says he smelled whatever he found in the trunk. He says the driver was acting suspicious and continually checking the rearview to look at the trunk and looking over his shoulder. It's a bad cop that can't justify an illegal action after he has done it. It's a good cop that can. If a cop does something illegal and gets caught, they are both a "bad" cop in the sense that they shouldn't be a cop as well as being identified as a dirty cop. A "good" cop is one that never gets caught doing something illegal (whether he does or not, no one can know) and catches bad guys. So, all else being equal, cops that break the laws will be better cops that those that don't. When you have a system like that, it creates some problems. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what those problems are and the best ways of dealing with them.

    70. Re:Call the FBI? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      So you just took COPS which follows REAL POLICE OFFICERS and compared it to a Fake Court show (Where they agree to be bound by the decision) and The Real World where they pick the most ridiculous people to live together possible to create drama. COPS IS the norm.

      I admit that my analogies were flawed. But my point was that COPS is emphatically not the norm. I have had the privilege of knowing police, and they're not like that. Yeah, yeah, anecdotal evidence and all that. But citing COPS is anecdotal evidence, too.

      Combine this with people not knowing their rights and almost every search of a car is actually illegal but the evidence is included in the case anyways.

      All people get lawyers in court. I've sat in on in forma pauperis proceedings where a judge determines whether a person is poor enough to appoint counsel for free. It's ridiculously easy to get counsel appointed.

      Even really crappy lawyers will challenge evidence obtained in the search and seizure of a car. Interesting fact: stopping the car counts as a seizure. This is why pulling a car over without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment (the act of pulling a car over is clearly not a "seearch").

    71. Re:Call the FBI? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Police, there in minutes when you only have seconds.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    72. Re:Call the FBI? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      You do realize most people spend their free time staring at the television or drinking, right? They don't even read books, much less do scientific research with their children.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    73. Re:Call the FBI? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      nice straw man arguement. There are plenty of laws governing how much of certain items you should have, food isn't a really good choice to make your claim. Nor are guns, funny how the constitution handles that issue already.

      Prescription Drugs for instance?
      Homes can be declared unfit for habitation for too much garbage

      Do you want to be living next to 5000 gallons of highly reactive unknown substances, just waiting for a 'made for TV' explosion moment?

      We live in communities, communities have rules. Don't like them, leave, or work to change them, but violating them isn't something I'd suggest we champion on a regular basis.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    74. Re:Call the FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      totally irrelevant. crackhead

  6. Thus the saying... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Better living through chemistry!

    Please make note that there are ignorant LEFTIES as well, and that this didn't occur in some religious-frenzied backwater.

    1. Re:Thus the saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison

      Stupidity is more than happy to cross party lines.

    2. Re:Thus the saying... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is soo 1970's... Its now better living through pharmacology.

      Sad, we got a pill for that
      tired, we got a pill for that
      sick, we got a pill for that
      taking too many pills, we got a pill for that.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:Thus the saying... by ObjetDart · · Score: 1

      Please make note that there are ignorant LEFTIES as well

      I agree that there are ignorant lefties, but what evidence do you have that the law enforcement officials involved are lefties? I scanned the TFA as best I could and could find no mention anywhere of the political affiliations. Note: just because MA is considered a "blue state" doesn't mean anything about these particular cops. I've lived in MA and believe me there were plenty of very right-leaning folks around.

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    4. Re:Thus the saying... by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find ignorance to be basically politically agnostic. It's just that different political groups choose to be vocally ignorant about different matters.

    5. Re:Thus the saying... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity."

      I'm not so sure. If this was really the case then given our locally oxygen rich environment you'd expect one to cancel out the other. This suggests that the relative abundance of stupidity greatly exceeds that of hydrogen.

    6. Re:Thus the saying... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Stupidity needs oxygen.
      Take that away, problem solved.

    7. Re:Thus the saying... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Please make note that there are ignorant LEFTIES as well

      I'm ambidextrous, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  7. Chemicals by jmpeax · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While I agree that this seems rather overzealous on the part of authorities, the original article mentions something that may be fair:

    There are regulations about how much [of various chemicals] you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of.

    Depending on the specifics of what this guy's dealing with, he may be subject to rules regarding the safe disposal of certain chemicals, etc.

    1. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but you usually get a warrant before you bust into someone's house.

    2. Re:Chemicals by c41rn · · Score: 4, Informative

      For what it's worth, the comments in the linked article say, "What Victor Deeb was working on is the elimination of Bisphenol A, Bisphenol F, (used in container closure coatings) PVC, pthalates (used in food container sealants) BisPhenol A, Bisphenol F and pthalates ( carcinogens) have been detected in baby food, and Dioxin( a very powerful carcinogen the product of incinerating food container closure to recover the metal) from the environment"

    3. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, it is generally not legal to raid someone without some sort of reasonable suspicion. It's also not legal to search through someone's possessions wholesale after confiscating them and finding that the person did not, in any way, break the law you were thinking about; unless it is glaringly obvious they've violated another law.

      Otherwise, you have the exact police state Atlas Shrugged told us about: That everyone's guilty, the government just needs the time to find out what they're guilty of.

    4. Re:Chemicals by pxuongl · · Score: 4, Informative

      and also if the original article was actually read before making a sensationalist headline and summary, this isn't as bad as it's made out to be:

      1. there was a fire in an air conditioning unit in the home.

      2. the fire department responded, and in the course of responding, found hundreds of vials of chemicals.

      It's illegal to enter a private residence w/o a warrant, but in this case, the home owner invited the cops in when he called the fire department.

      only lesson to be taken home here: hide your stash before calling the cops

    5. Re:Chemicals by jc42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [Y]ou usually get a warrant before you bust into someone's house.

      Correction: You used to get a warrant before you bust into someone's house.

      For about 7 years now, that has no longer been necessary in the US. The authorities (at any level) can just chant "terrorists", and that gives them permission to go anywhere, and do anything with the people and things they find there.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    6. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeh, but most people aren't busy stockpiling vast quantities of dihydrogen-monoxide and hydrohydroxic acid!
      in this case, i think the emergency actions were needed.

    7. Re:Chemicals by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Pamela A. Wilderman / Code Enforcement Officer / 508-460-3765

      Joseph Ferson / Department of Environmental Protection / Joseph.Ferson@state.ma.us / 617-654-6523

    8. Re:Chemicals by Entrope · · Score: 1, Troll

      "[T]he home owner invited the cops in when he called the fire department"? Tell me, when you invite a friend over for a party, do you invite their roommate over to steal your television? If so, I'd like to make your acquaintance. I think I'd get a lot of other new friends.

    9. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well I usually keep several 5 gallon bottles of the stuff in my dining area and one on a dispenser so I guess the cops are coming for me next.

    10. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought some iron shavings for some simple magnetic experiments from a chemistry supply store, and had to show my id and they recorded my purchase for some sort of FBI registry.

      I asked why, since it's just basically metal shavings, and they said because it had a potential to be an oxidizer.

      I am guessing online chemical stores have the same rules and FBI reporting requirements. So this guy just may have bought too much over a period of time to raise warning flags.

    11. Re:Chemicals by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      You should know better than to bring facts into a discussion like this!

    12. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, except that the original problem was a HVAC fire upstairs. They didn't bust in just to raid his lab.

      I'm not saying what they did was right, but I understand the why of it. 1500+ containers of various chemicals on the furniture and floor doesn't sound like a nice cleanly labeled lab. I can imagine what 'most' folks would think when they see such a site.

      In this day and age, he's pretty fortunate they didn't Patriot Act his ass just to be on the safe side.

    13. Re:Chemicals by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Ahem, he's a retired CHEMIST.. I bet he knows a whole lot more about disposal of the compounds than the morons that wrote the laws. I have yet to meet a haphazard chemist.

      "Oh that jar of mercury? put it in this spray bottle and go spray it in children's faces."

      "Oh get rid of this 1 mole hydrocloric acid by dumping it on kittens and puppies as well..."

      Come on, as Chemists they know more about how to safely handle and dispose of even the non reactive stuff better than any of the guys that not only wrote the laws but who wrote the MSDS sheets.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Chemicals by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Sigh. People quote Atlas Shrugged now as the revelation. At least the Bible is pretty good literature, if you skip the bad parts...

    15. Re:Chemicals by Tenrosei · · Score: 2, Informative

      they didn't need a warrant at all it was a potential crime scene there was a fire. Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home. http://www.telegram.com/article/20080809/NEWS/808090323/1008/

    16. Re:Chemicals by rufey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Usually I would agree that a warrant would be needed, except in this case, the fire department showed up due to a fire at the residence.

      According to the Telegram article, the house had a fire in a second floor air conditioning unit, which was responded to by the fire department. It was then that the fire department found the lab in the basement.

    17. Re:Chemicals by igotmybfg · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't bust into the house - they were firefighters responding to a fire; Mr Deeb had called them for assistance. Furthermore, the stuff was lying around in plain sight. So no warrant was needed.

    18. Re:Chemicals by captaindomon · · Score: 3, Informative

      He didn't call the fire department to invite them to his house. He most likely called the local emergency dispatch center (911) and requested help. it is well established that the emergency dispatcher can send whatever help she feels is necessary (car accidents usually get police, fire, and medical, for example). Having a nearby cop without a current call respond to a nearby fire call is not unusual at all. I have worked heavily with emergency dispatch software in the past, and I have talked to lots of dispatch operators-

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    19. Re:Chemicals by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    20. Re:Chemicals by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

      True, but apparently the chemicals were noticed by the fire department when they entered the house to deal with a fire on the second floor. The authorities were already in the house to deal with an incident and found these chemicals lying around in plain sight.

      An argument could be made as to whether the firefighters were legally allowed to check the basement for flammable materials, but I wouldn't be surprised if firefighters are given leeway concerning checking a house they have already entered for other fire safety violations.

      This is definitely not a case of entering the house without a warrant. This is a case of you calling the cops to report a burglary of your bedroom and them noticing your huge stash of drugs lying on the kitchen table after you let them in.

      Any legal objections over this should less be about the lack of a warrant and more about issues of zoning laws and whether or not Mr. Deeb was violating regulations concerning proper handling and disposal of laboratory chemicals.

    21. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's illegal to enter a private residence w/o a warrant, but in this case, the home owner invited the cops in when he called the fire department.

      They will enter your home to fight a fire even against your wishes. You can't just torch your own house.

      You are correct that the law generally works in their favor (the fire dept.) but that doesn't make it "right" or even constitutional.

      This is similar to why drug users don't always seek help in an emergency.

    22. Re:Chemicals by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      I have yet to meet a haphazard chemist.

      You never met my high school chemistry teacher. He was seventy years old and didn't mind handling mercury without gloves. He'd make giant pressure detection systems with mercury flowing through tiny glass tubes for fun. Inevitably, someone would accidentally break the tiny glass tubes and he'd clear out the lab and pick up the little bits of mercury himself while we waited in the hall. Fun times. He also taught us how to make those explosive "BANG SNAP" things.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    23. Re:Chemicals by bradgoodman · · Score: 3, Informative

      No warrant needed. The firefighters were there fighting the fire, and the chemicals were "In plain sight".

    24. Re:Chemicals by mpe · · Score: 0, Redundant

      yeh, but most people aren't busy stockpiling vast quantities of dihydrogen-monoxide and hydrohydroxic acid!

      What about "hydrogen hydroxide"?

    25. Re:Chemicals by Znork · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depending on the specifics of what this guy's dealing with,

      Depending on the specifics of what you use to clean your oven, polish your silverware, wash your car or your bathroom and the jurisdiction you're in, you may be subject to rules regarding your disposal of such waste chemicals.

      Perhaps raiding houses with shiny silverware and bleached tablecloth would be in order?

      Disposal rules are not limited to chemists, and I'd assume (perhaps naively) that a practicing chemist would be more aware of how to handle his waste than the average user of various hazardous and toxic household chemicals.

    26. Re:Chemicals by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depending on the specifics of what this guy's dealing with, he may be subject to rules regarding the safe disposal of certain chemicals, etc.

      Then wouldn't a more sensible response have been to talk with the guy, make sure that he knows the rules and possibly get a warrant and make an inspection if you were not satisfied? This sounds far more like trying to save face after finding out that the guy was not a drug manufacturer or terrorist.

    27. Re:Chemicals by mizhi · · Score: 1

      The article says the authorities were responding to a fire on the second floor.

      IANAL, but I think if they saw the chemicals in the course of responding to the fire, then the warrant is not needed.

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    28. Re:Chemicals by Now.Imperfect · · Score: 1

      Cops and fire dept go hand in hand in these kind of situations. Cops come to maintain order.. so yes inviting the fire dept was also inviting the cops. As to the legitimacy of taking all the stuff... I would need to know more, TFA doesn't supply enough background for me.

    29. Re:Chemicals by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you usually get a warrant before you bust into someone's house.

      Except if you, say, come in to put out a fire in the air conditioning and then discover a chem lab in the basement.

    30. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK Hydrogren-Hydroxide is only used as a precursor in the production of Hydroxyl-Acid - and as such its use is restricted under schedule III of the controlled substances act.
      Reading the reports, no trace of either was found in the Massachusetts underground laboratory.

    31. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess in the name of personal freedom to break the law you would rather an entire neighborhood burn to the ground?

    32. Re:Chemicals by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      "yeh, but most people aren't busy stockpiling vast quantities of dihydrogen-monoxide and hydrohydroxic acid!"

      That's what you'd think, but you'd be wrong. My neighbor, along with many other people in my neighborhood, have tanks containing over 10,000 gallons of deadly dihydrogen monoxide in their back yards. If this isn't a terrorist plot, then I don't know what is...

    33. Re:Chemicals by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      Just ignore the comment where "Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

      "It is a residential home in a residential neighborhood," she said. "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby. He's still got bunches of ideas. I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere.(Emphasis, mine) This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation. ... There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of." "

      OK. He violated zoning laws. Slap him a ticket, give him 30 days to remove the materials to a proper zoning location or turn them in for proper disposal. If he fails to make things right, THEN serve a warrant and have the offending materials disposed of. Taking his property without a warrant is a blatant disregard of his rights as a citizen of the US or Massachusetts. This is, IMNSHO, a blatant abuse of power by Mrs. Wilderman and she should be reprimanded, publicly, by the highest governing authority for her role as a Code Enforcement Officer.

    34. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you usually get a warrant before you bust into someone's house.

      They were there in the first place because they were responding to an air conditioner fire on the 2nd floor, they didn't just bust in and raid the guy out of the blue.

    35. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Yes but since when is a lab illegal? What if I turned my bathroom into a dark room to make enlargements from some black and white film negatives I have laying around? What if I purchased the fixer in quantities that didn't require a license and I disposed of them correctly? Just because my bathroom is a "LAB" with "CHEMICALS" in it does that mean the firefighters should call HAZMAT on my ass?

    36. Re:Chemicals by explodingspleen · · Score: 1

      Depending on the specifics of what this guy's dealing with, he may be subject to rules regarding the safe disposal of certain chemicals, etc.

      But the obvious fact is that he was not being persecuted under any of those regulations. The didn't see "vial x" and a think "this guy has too much of vial x, it is against the law." Or take a swab of his drain and say "this isn't being properly disposed of!"

      What actually happened was that they decided to seize all of his crap so that they could look through it and find laws that he was in violation of. That's a definite NO. Should the police be able to drop by your house and raid all of your stuff on the same justification--"hey, maybe something in there is illegal."

      Besides being a clear violation of constitutional protections, this seems a terrible attack on science. How many of the great chemists of history do you think could or would have started up if held to such limiting regulations?

    37. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      No warrant is needed IF and ONLY IF the items spotted are obviously ILLEGAL. I sincerely doubt that they could actually determine that before they came in and confiscated everything.

    38. Re:Chemicals by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's not a "stash", every chemical on that property was legally owned.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    39. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Spotting drugs is an obvious violation of law. Having some chemicals including some flammable chemicals is not. I'll say it again. I've thought of turning my bathroom into a dark room to make enlargements of black and white film negatives. This involves Developer, Stop bath (a weak acid), Fixer (supposedly the most dangerous to the environment) and a rinse that that always suspicions dihydrogen monoxide. If I had a fire and my dark room was spotted would all my chemicals be confiscated "JUST IN CASE"?

    40. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the home owner invited the cops in when he called the fire department.

      How does that work? The fire departmnet is not usually part of the police department, or do you implicitly invite the police in when you invite anyone else into your home? Or only other government employees? What about the postman? An EMT? What's the list of people whos explicit invitation into your home gives an implicit invitation to the police to come as well?

    41. Re:Chemicals by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

      Well, the article claimed that having a chemistry lab was a violation of the zoning laws in the area. In addition, it described the condition of the lab as being not particularly safe with the chemicals lying around, etc., meaning that even if it wasn't a violation of zoning laws, it probably violated safe storage and disposal laws.

    42. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Do you also equally discount inventions made in the home because they're not exacting enough to meet your standards? You might not like the quality of the literature (Personally, I have the same thing to say about Shakespeare; the man couldn't even spell his own name correctly), but the points made are very valid. Ignore them at your peril...

      >At least the Bible is pretty good literature, if you skip the bad parts...

      Some would suggest that only leaves the cover, assuming it's made of leather.

    43. Re:Chemicals by servognome · · Score: 1

      "Sorry your house is on fire, but we can't go inside to put it out until we get a warrant... should only be about 10 more minutes"

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    44. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not have said it better myself! Maybe if people invested half the energy learning about the situation before just jumping on the "Massachusetts authorities suck" bandwagon maybe there could have been some good discussion about this topic... or better yet.. find something more worthwhile to occupy your time.

    45. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I take it you've never been to a school dark room. Chemicals like fixer and developer and negative cleaning solution are left willy nilly all over the place in bottles with caps on the tops of counters.

    46. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Did you think for just a moment to see if maybe the 20 other people who responded before you posted the same thing? I mean seriously it's getting old. Plus as I pointed out to all of those people of course the firefighters are allowed in but the sight of chemicals doesn't mean he did something illegal and looking at them to inspect them is one thing but just coming in and taking them all is highly suspicious.

    47. Re:Chemicals by TheOddOne · · Score: 1

      The homeowner didn't exactly invite the police by calling the fire department, but the docterine of
      Exigent Circumstances govern this. When you call the fire department for a response, and your home or property is involved, the Fire Department becomes the owner of the involved property until such time as the last member of the department releases the property back to the owner. While it under the control of the Fire Authorities, they have the right to call any additional resources they deem necessary. While I am not in any way trying to blame this on the homeowner, it would have probably much simplified his situation if he had merely mentioned the fact that he had a basement chemistry lab. As a fire officer myself, if I was checking a structure for any additional hazards from an incident and came upon something like what was described, I certainly would be cautious. Had the owner mentioned what might be found, I would be considerably less concerned.

      The age that we live in that has Methamphetamine labs being found in homes, hotel rooms, and car trunks has made all responders to emergency incidents much more skiddish about things that may have been commonplace years ago.

      Again, I'm not attempting to place blame on the owner, but providing another point of view from someone who might have made a like decision to call other authorities.

    48. Re:Chemicals by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The police are there as part of public safety and investigation into the possibility of suspicious circumstances behind the fire. They can't search your house without probable cause, but a fire qualifies as probable cause.

    49. Re:Chemicals by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have the same thing to say about Shakespeare; the man couldn't even spell his own name correctly

      Heh. Hopefully, you are just joking. But, anyways, this is quite characteristic of people who appreciate the 'points' being made in that kind of texts: a deeply ingrained anhistorical perspective. There lies, also, the greatest flaw in those 'points'.

    50. Re:Chemicals by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't. Then again, just because they do it in a school doesn't make it right. Also, we just don't know how disorganized and messy this dude's lab was -- it may have been much worse than the school dark room you're describing. You're also ignoring the issue that having a larger scale chem lab (as opposed to just a dark room) is apparently a violation of local zoning laws.

    51. Re:Chemicals by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Right but should zoning laws have that kind of scope? Most zoning laws pertain to running a business with employees or a storefront out of your house. They usually don't delve into which profession you can be self-employed in and work from home with.

    52. Re:Chemicals by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

      That is a valid argument one could make. Another valid argument is whether or not, ignoring zoning laws, any laws concerning proper storage and disposal of chemicals were violated (the article didn't go into enough detail about that). If this guy was illegally dumping toxic chemicals into the public sewer system, then confiscating the chemicals was also warranted. While supposedly the chemicals weren't any more toxic than standard household chemicals, it's possible that the sheer volume being used and dumped could constitute a violation.

      However, the fire department was certainly within their rights to call in an investigative team once discovering the chemicals and then to remove them for toxicity/flammability/etc testing. Once that testing is completed, however, and if those chemicals were shown to be relatively harmless, they should've been returned. To use my drug example, this would be akin to a police officer coming across a white powder that appears to be cocaine (even though it might just be something harmless, like talc, that the officer isn't trained to recognize at first sight) during an investigation for another incident and requesting that it be removed and tested for confirmation.

      On the bright side, it appears as if this home chemist wasn't arrested or anything and is a free man while the investigation is ongoing. While I agree that the local authorities were probably overly alarmist, they did at least show some restraint by not arresting him.

    53. Re:Chemicals by cavis · · Score: 1

      Bust the Fire Department does not have to be invited anywhere. The law in my state (WV) allows the Fire Chief or his designated staff to enter the premises without being invited in the case of an obvious emergency. The AC fire certainly qualifies. Otherwise, the FD would have no chance of saving your house if you weren't around... right? And if the propery owner told them to say out, that is obstruction of the duties of a firefighter (a felony in my state).

      Also, the Fire Department has a duty to report any crime, evidence of crime, or unsafe situation to the appropriate agencies. And that is likely what happened here.

      I've been 17 years on the job as a Volunteer Fireman (a Captain at this point) with my local VFD. Over the years, we have had many incidents where such a thing has occured. Once such event was when we responded to a shed fire, only to find it was a meth lab. The State Police was called, the scene was handed over to them for investigation, and some dumbass meth-head was in a load of trouble real quick.

    54. Re:Chemicals by A440Hz · · Score: 1

      And the freakin' article states that he may have violated zoning laws and the following statement is made by a member of law enforcement:

      "There are regulations about how much [chemistry stuff] you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

      Bad summary indeed.

    55. Re:Chemicals by compro01 · · Score: 1

      If it turns out to be nothing, then they give it back.

      You need to read the article also.

      "Ultimately, they will be disposed of," said DEP spokesman Joseph M. Ferson, who said the city's Department of Public Works is making sure nothing seeped into the sewer lines.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    56. Re:Chemicals by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      First of all, though unless the fire fighters are considered peace officers in MA, they would not be able to confiscate the property, and most likely would not be able to call the police in either. However, if the law allows police to enter without a warrant to investigate the fire, then that is not a problem.

      Of course, only the chemicals "in plain sight" could be confiscated under that justification. Those in a closed cabinet would still need a warrant.

      The crime scene justification might allow the police to look beyond plain sight without a warrant. I'm not sure of the specifics on how Crime Scene Investigation intersects with warrants.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    57. Re:Chemicals by jmpeax · · Score: 1

      I agree.

    58. Re:Chemicals by rewt66 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the issue is just environmental. If I worked for the fire department, and I saw that mess, I'd worry about how many of the (1500 * 1499) different combinations might be explosive. I'd be thinking, "What if that second-floor fire had spread to the basement?" I'd be worried about people (residents, neighbors, and/or firefighters) dying from something a lot more sudden than environmental toxicity.

      And, yes, having sufficient chemicals in your house to blow up not only your own, but also your neighbor's house, is almost certainly a zoning violation - and rightly so.

    59. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be "Don't let the cops in your house without a warrant" ???

    60. Re:Chemicals by rally2xs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You should read some of the warnings for chemicals used to process E4 color slides - will the cops come and gather up your darkroom if you're still into that chemical based picture stuff?

    61. Re:Chemicals by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      It's not necessary. There are a variety of government departments that have long been immune from the need to obtain warrants for various reasons.

      I was looking at this a while back, but I'll list off a few (of course it depends on your state law and on the circumstances involved)- fire department officials, public health officials, animal control officials, child protection services...the list goes on.

      Most of those agents are only allowed to enter property without a warrant under certain circumstances, of course, and under a lot of circumstances, police can do it too; the circumstances are just different.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    62. Re:Chemicals by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase my question, then. When you invite a friend over for a party, do they also have permission to take your television? If so, I'd like to make your acquaintance. I think I'd get a lot of new gadgets.

      It is people like you who enable abusive police. As penance, read a hundred articles by Radley Balko and ask a qualified lawyer about search and seizure laws in the USA.

    63. Re:Chemicals by jc42 · · Score: 1

      You need to read the article also.

      Hey, this is slashdot. If you read the article, you lose serious geek cred. You're supposed to pick a few words from the summary, and write some sort of take-off on those words. Extra points if you connect it to a hot political topic.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    64. Re:Chemicals by Entrope · · Score: 1

      How many small appliance fires require the police to maintain order?

      But taking his stuff is the objectionable part, which is why I added the bit about the television. This was not a plain search (short of arrest, incident to arrest or vehicular) -- it was outright seizure without a warrant, in rather clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. What background would you want that would excuse the police taking that material?

    65. Re:Chemicals by Now.Imperfect · · Score: 1

      I'd hope he has some sort of background other than just "hobbiest." Does he actually have reasonable credentials that warrant having fairly large volumes of moderately dangerous chemicals?

      I mean if he had them organized and stored properly in such a way that didn't threaten as a fire hazard then the police would totally be in the wrong, in fact I doubt they would have taken them.

      I don't know how true it is, but TFA makes it sound as if vats of chemicals were just sitting on the floor and on chairs. Its just like the the fire department found rags covered in paint, they would probably confiscate them.

      I don't believe that the police should be able to walk in and take your stuff. But they were there because he called them, the found a hazardous situation and they cleaned it up. TFA even says he will not be cited with any infraction, nor was he under arrest at any point.

    66. Re:Chemicals by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Some sort of background? The first line of TFA says he's a retired chemist; later it says he continues to perform experiments. As for "moderately dangerous", the second paragraph of TFA says none were more dangerous than household cleaning products. It also characterized the containers as "vessels", rather than the "vats" you used. Vessels can be much smaller and might normally be closed. I suspect that if the authorities could have legitimately called them vats, they would have used that word rather than "vessels".

      In other news, fire departments do not have the authority to confiscate rags covered in paint. Additionally, the fact that he was not arrested and will not be charged makes it more likely that the seizure was unconstitutional: search and seizure incident to arrest is one of the permitted forms of warrant-less search.

      You totally fail at reading and at knowing civil rights in the USA.

    67. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you have to hide it? Are you admitting that America has finally crossed the line into a fascist police state?

    68. Re:Chemicals by Now.Imperfect · · Score: 1

      wow ad hominem... you have a stunning closing statement, I feel so overwhelmed by your greater comprehension and understanding of everything!

      Which house hold cleaning products though? Windex and pipe cleaner are two different things. No they don't have the authority to confiscate them, but an investigation might be warranted.

      Lack of a citation does not necessitate lack of infraction nor does it mean the absence of grounds for enforcement. Otherwise when a police officer pulls me over and just gives me a warning one could argue that speed limit laws are groundless.

      "Vessel" vs "vat" is semantics.. because a vessel "can" be smaller doesn't mean all of them were.

      Really, I think he should've received a warning.

    69. Re:Chemicals by notnAP · · Score: 1

      a fire qualifies as probable cause.
      Agreed, as does the silly quantity of poorly stored vials of chemicals. I'd say there was plenty of reason to suspect a crime was in progress, or at least an immediate threat to safety. No warrant needed here. If the cops overreacted, let him sue. If the cops didn't overreact, let me be the first to file a friendly brief in favor of his neighbors' suit. From what I can tell from the actual story - not the sensationalist anti-gov see-what-you-want-to-see summary - my bet's on the latter.

    70. Re:Chemicals by Entrope · · Score: 1

      He should have received a warning, but being kicked out of his house for three days and having probably thousands of dollars worth of materials taken -- in the absence of any clearly stated hazard, even when the government had that much time to find anything -- is somehow acceptable? I, for one, don't think so.

      Your argument about speed limit laws is a straw man: Nowhere did I suggest that zoning or storage laws were groundless. What I said was that if the police did arrest him, that would allow them to perform certain kinds of search and seizure. They did not arrest him, so that reason for seizing his property is not available to them.

      As to your lame defense of "vessel" versus "vat" as semantics: that was precisely my point. There is a definite semantic difference between the two words, and you -- whether intentionally or carelessly -- used the one that is scarier than what the closer sources chose.

      Finally, for your edification, what I closed with was not argumentum ad hominem, which is an invalid logical device that I avoid using. It was a simple personal attack. I am not afraid to deal out sharp words where they have been earned.

    71. Re:Chemicals by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hey! I work at a dihydrogen monoxide refinery, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    72. Re:Chemicals by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      Read the original article. This started when firefighters arrived at the house to put out an unrelated fire, and it was the firefighters who reported the chemicals. It's not unreasonable for firefighters to be worried about unknown (potentially flammable or toxic) chemicals while putting out a fire, even if those chemicals are completely legal.

      But it is unreasonable for the authorities to just destroy the chemicals after testing them. They're his property and they should be returned. The vague invocation of zoning laws is also pretty lame. If he had an industrial operation running from his home then that might make sense, but for personal research? That sounds like the Chemicals Are Evil brigade talking. Is there a special zoning requirement now for practicing intellectual curiosity?

    73. Re:Chemicals by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      To use my drug example, this would be akin to a police officer coming across a white powder that appears to be cocaine (even though it might just be something harmless, like talc, that the officer isn't trained to recognize at first sight) during an investigation for another incident and requesting that it be removed and tested for confirmation.

      Come to think of it, I'll have to tell my mom that sprinkling dry boric acid on the counter (ant poison) is probably a bad idea. Maybe the liquid stuff that wiki describes would be better.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    74. Re:Chemicals by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the person who said that knew absolutely zilch about what they were talking about. "Detained" sort of gives it away.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    75. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! The important thing to point out here is that they are SEIZING ALL of his lab equipment and chemicals - and destroying ALL chemicals while trying to determine if the law was broken.

      THEY ARE ON A FUCKING FISHING EXPEDITION! And they are stealing and destroying everything this man owns while doing it.

      Screw these bastards, they're the reason I own guns.

    76. Re:Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of big words. He's probably a liberal, and therefore a terrorist.

  8. How Dismal by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how long before people in possession of scary "hacking software and equipment" are subjected to similar intrusions? Welcome to the NewUSA, where all knowledge is classified.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:How Dismal by xenn · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long before people in possession of scary "hacking software and equipment" are subjected to similar intrusions? Welcome to the NewUSA, where all knowledge is classified.

      How do you know?

    2. Re:How Dismal by slashdotlurker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would be fitting too. I have travelled, worked and at times lived in many countries all over the world. In no country did I find this "I-am-*ing-ignorant-and-that-makes-me-a-cool-real-American" attitude. Its the reason why keep electing morons. Its the reason when 95% of the people unhappy with the two party system dutifully turn in every election, and choose, ahem, one of the two parties.
      Bush is not the cause of our latest troubles. He is just a loudmouthed, embarrassing symptom. I fear for America. We survived British colonial rule, we survived European interference, we survived Nazism, we survived Communism; others things being equal, I think we would even survive Islamic fascism. However, I do not think we will survive this proud-to-be-stupid anti-intellectualism now so widespread in our ailing society.
      I see these racist rednecks driving oil guzzling trucks and SUVs, and then I see these freedom always liberals turning around and making excuses for the most misogynistic, homophobic philosophy that we confront today. The future is not bright.

    3. Re:How Dismal by gparent · · Score: 1

      That would be classified, sorry.

    4. Re:How Dismal by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder how long before people in possession of scary "hacking software and equipment" are subjected to similar intrusions? Welcome to the NewUSA, where all knowledge is classified.

      This has already happened once to a friend of mine who collects large systems and does component-level development.

      The local HOA lady called the cops because he had so many computers that "He must be doing something illega! Look at all those wiiiires!"

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    5. Re:How Dismal by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      That's what he gets for living in an area with a HOA. He chose his poison when he chose where to live.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    6. Re:How Dismal by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      I think we would even survive Islamic fascism.

      There is definitely no such thing as "Islamic fascism". Nazi Germany existed. The Soviet Union existed. Saying that "islamic fascism" is a threat to the United States is a lot like saying how wonderful it is that we survived the massive threat that Nicaragua posed in the 80's.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    7. Re:How Dismal by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      That's what he gets for living in an area with a HOA. He chose his poison when he chose where to live.

      Indeed. This is why I made it a requirement not to have one when we bought our house.

      Incidentally he has lived and learned and now lives HOA-free. :-)

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    8. Re:How Dismal by drxenos · · Score: 1

      So, what eventually happened?

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    9. Re:How Dismal by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, and will not own in an HOA either, but to be fair, there are places were it is getting harder and harder to get a home HOA free. Here in CA, it seems that HOA is becoming the norm. I attribute it to two things. 1) developers getting city governments to let them build houses so close together that you have to have an HOA, and 2) It works as an end run around prop 13. As they say... A penny saved is a penny earned. They cannot raise property taxes, so they simply require new development to have an HOA, and this moves things that used to be supplied by the city like street lights and parks, onto the shoulders of the homeowners directly.

    10. Re:How Dismal by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      So, what eventually happened?

      The police (much to their credit) walked in and looked around, he explained the situation, and they thanked him for the time and went on their way.

      As to the nosey HOA lady I have no idea but I don't recall him saying he had more trouble with her.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    11. Re:How Dismal by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long before people in possession of scary "hacking software and equipment" are subjected to similar intrusions? Welcome to the NewUSA, where all knowledge is classified.

      Been there, done that! One of the resource teachers at my junior high school confiscated my copy of ResEdit back in the day...

    12. Re:How Dismal by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      The nonexistence of a HOA would not prevent a neighbor from calling 911 after seeing you with a lot of wires and boxen. (We still say "boxen," right? Is that still cool?)

  9. What I want to know... by PJCRP · · Score: 1

    Is how they knew he had chemicals in his basement in the first place...

    --
    Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
    1. Re:What I want to know... by Mononoke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is how they knew he had chemicals in his basement in the first place...

      RTFA.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the local kids he had been giving drugs to told them

    3. Re:What I want to know... by PJCRP · · Score: 1

      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

      So what were they doing in the basement I wonder...

      --
      Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
    4. Re:What I want to know... by PJCRP · · Score: 1

      Jesus christ I'm suffering from brain farts. The article doesn't actually say how they found that the dude had things in his basement :v

      --
      Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
    5. Re:What I want to know... by Thail · · Score: 1

      from the article, the chemicles wre found by firefigters who responded to a fire in the second story air conditioning unit. Unrelated to the chemicals.

    6. Re:What I want to know... by PJCRP · · Score: 1

      Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said.

      So it was his lack of tidiness that got him arrested? :O

      --
      Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
    7. Re:What I want to know... by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just a WAG, but might the firefighters need to shut off the electrical power before squirting water all over the 2nd floor A/C? Especially if it was an electrical fire...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:What I want to know... by Nos. · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not saying this is the case, but often fire fighters will want to shut off all breakers (remove fuses), and shut off gas lines in a residential fire. Often, the breaker box and gas shut off valve are in the basement. Of course, it can be done externally by the utilities as well, but it can be faster to do locally

    9. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which can be done WITHOUT ENTERING THE BUILDING.

      You know how the power company can disconnect you for non-payment? Guess what - they can do so at the request of the fire department too.

      There's no excuse for this, period, and I'm honestly dismayed at the number of people making excuses for the People's Republic of Massachusetts over their actions.

    10. Re:What I want to know... by Now.Imperfect · · Score: 1

      not arrested, in fact he isn't even being cited for anything.

    11. Re:What I want to know... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Just playing devil's advocate here.

      In a fire, you want to act quickly, and it's possible that the quickest way to disable the power is from the basement. They may even have asked him for permission - that level of detail is not in TFA.

      In NYC, for instance, our power meters are not external to the building. Presumably you'd have to go into a manhole, which is obviously the worst way to do things if it is an emergency.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:What I want to know... by terrymr · · Score: 1

      It's far quicker/safer to just pull the electric meters - can be done from the outside and quickly.

    13. Re:What I want to know... by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Assuming the metres are on the outside, which is not always the case.

    14. Re:What I want to know... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Somebody else quoted this article which said "firefighters were checking that all of the rooms had been ventilated when they discovered the basement cache." They weren't in the basement to flip the breaker. If he had the basement door shut, he should have told them to bugger off... there wouldn't be any smoke anyhow. Not to mention heat rises... unless this was extremely thick, dense smoke it wouldn't have gone into the basement anyway.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  10. AS always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Fuck first post, but mostly FUCK the POLICE! If this guy wants to play with his chemistry set so be it. Let's put all the cops in jail because I'm sure they have crossed the line.

    1. Re:AS always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck is bill?

    2. Re:AS always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Yes it is :'(

  11. They'll find something by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have enough laws, then anyone is a criminal. They'll either claim its a violation of zoning ordinances, environmental hazard or an OSHA violation.

    1. Re:They'll find something by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      And when you run out of criminals, you make more laws.

    2. Re:They'll find something by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't believe that the FBI wouldn't step into this to defend this man. After all, they're under a presidential administration that has, to date, been so pro-science.

      Oh wait.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:They'll find something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. They will likely be able to press a zoning violation if he didn't adhere to the quantity limits, and definitely for not having the containers marked. None the less I am in agreement that this is a good example of how few rights you, me, and Mr. Deeb actually have.

      The good news is that even if he is in violation of some zoning ORDINANCE he still has grounds for unlawful search and seizure. Having been on the receiving end of illegal civil right deprivation, I sincerely hope Mr. Deeb stands up for his rights and sues the living shit out of everyone involved. This is not even some country yokel just playing with chemicals.. he is a very experienced person who has even gotten patents and made all kinds of contributions to the field.

      This is just one step on the path to complete and total deprivation of our civil rights.

    4. Re:They'll find something by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      We are all criminals, but if we are convicted or not is a different case. How many of us have never been over the posted speed limit or crossed the street when the light is red?

      You will need to figure out - is it worth it to actually invoke a law or not for a certain case? Maybe it's time to clear the books and start over again.

      A few quotes:

      "In a mature society, the term 'Civil Servant' is semanticaly equal to 'Civil Master' " - Robert A. Heinlein

      "Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity - these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing. They are not ashamed." - Mark Twain

      Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing, with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for second and third place.
      Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:They'll find something by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      Who exactly is the "they" in your particular paranoid fantasy world?

  12. Police State by CranberryKing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is where we are going. The government is fostering the notion to the police that they have absolute discretion & power. Can you find the limited government here?.. Neither can I.

    1. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No limits on government ever!!!

      Paid for by Obama '08

  13. What's the big deal? by ceswiedler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA:

    "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties."

    If they discovered that you were keeping 200 cats in your home under extremely unsanitary conditions, they would do the same thing: move all of the cats to a shelter somewhere, and charge you with violating local health regulations once they had assessed the entire situation. I think it's a little bit of a kneejerk reaction to say that they're "ignorantly and irrationally afraid of chemicals" and "abus[ing] power to steal his property".

    Would you rather they just ask him "hey, is any of this dangerous?" and leave when he says "no"? There are reasons why we regulate stuff like chemicals (you have to have a permit just to own / use some professional beauty products), and if he wasn't following whatever the local regulations were, then it's his fault.

    Now, if it turns out he was indeed following all local / state laws, then the authorities certainly owe him an apology at least.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The key difference here is that in the cat example they can point
      to an obvious and clear reason that could be put on a WARRANT or
      used as PROBABLE CAUSE.

      No such thing exists here.

      Were there even any complaining neighbors?

      Even something as trivial as "a strange odor" reported by one
      of the neighbors to local police would have been enough to
      start the ball rolling correctly here.

      Put your ducks in a row.

      It's like FISA. Everyone in government is getting used to the
      idea that they don't have to obey their own rules anymore.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed that part about them not having a warrant.

    3. Re:What's the big deal? by DanWS6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i[Now, if it turns out he was indeed following all local / state laws, then the authorities certainly owe him an apology at least.]i

      Yeah, I bet they will slap their wrists and say they are very very sorry and it'll never happen again too.

      I have a computer. One of those new fancy technology machines that store "files" on it. The local cops should come take it because I may or may not have "illegal" files on it. Once they analyze it they should possibly give it back depending on how they feel. Or they could just keep it. Oh they should also do this without obtaining one of those pesky warrant things. That will help save them time. It won't bother me at all because it's not an invasion of my privacy if it keeps the world safe from evil.

    4. Re:What's the big deal? by keytoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's all well and good - and I have no problem with that. It's the lack of any due process (eg, getting a warrant) that is troubling in this case.

    5. Re:What's the big deal? by Seakip18 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we went by rule of law, every SINGLE house in America would violate at LEAST one local, county, state or federal regulation, code, law, etc.

      Per your post, how many cats is enough to make it enough too much? I know you would create an unsanitary condition, just when is the judgment call made to do so?

      I'm not even going to get into warrant less entry and search.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    6. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before they can take the cats they still require a warrant and a orders from a judge typically. The authorities can not just bust in and take your stuff. Undoubtedly, if he had not allowed the search, they would've gotten the warrant without a problem and taken the stuff anyway.

    7. Re:What's the big deal? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read TFA (the original article, not the sensationalist link):

      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

      (emphasis mine)

      The discovery wasn't a random home invasion, simply the result of doing their job. Much like police can bust you for murder if they see a dead body in your back seat after pulling you over for speeding, the firefighters reported a potentially unsafe violation of zoning and other laws.

      Now if it turns out no laws were broken and they still destroy his property, that's screwed up.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    8. Re:What's the big deal? by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      First, they investigated based on the fact that they thought anyone with that much stuff LIKELY violated the law.

      In other words, they don't know a law he violated, they just knew that we have lots of laws and they disliked what he did so they investigated.

      They even CONFISCATED STUFF without yet finding any real law breakage. How would you like it if someone said, you know your car is full of tons of dangerous explosives, then they confiscate and say "We likely think we MIGHT find something illegal on it."

      Would you be satisified if they returned it three days later? Would you be satisfied if they returned MOST of it 3 days later, but kept parts of it saying "We haven't definitely found anything illegal yet, but we want to keep looking?"

      A reasonable response would have been to let the police look around for ONE HOUR. If they want to take stuff, or even stay for more than one hour, they should have got a warrant.

      There are a ton of 'not really laws'. that the government does not enforce unless they dislike you. I won't bother to mention the president and his little "arrested but not charged for cocaine" thing.

      I WILL bother to mention the fact that large chemical companies ROUTINELY break the law and no one does anything about it. They get a pass from an inspector after a promise of "we'll fix it later".

      The citizen was trying to be nice and proove he did nothing wrong. I'm sure he expected a quick once over and nothing. He knew he was doing nothing seriously wrong.

      But instead he got shafted by a stupid government

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    9. Re:What's the big deal? by woztheproblem · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't need a warrant if they are called in to respond to a fire.

      "Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home."

      http://www.telegram.com/article/20080809/NEWS/808090323/1008/

    10. Re:What's the big deal? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      And if you are using 200 cats in a chemistry experiment, well, forget about it, sport!

      Now, if it turns out he was indeed following all local / state laws, then the authorities certainly owe him an apology at least.

      An apology?! An apology from a politician is actually worth a *negative* value. They should be removed from office and forced to do *years* of community service. Whoever gave the go command for the warrantless invasion should be indicted.

    11. Re:What's the big deal? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they discovered that you were keeping 200 cats in your home under extremely unsanitary conditions, they would do the same thing: move all of the cats to a shelter somewhere, and charge you with violating local health regulations once they had assessed the entire situation.

      Much as I like cats and wish a slow, painful death on anyone who's cruel to domestic animals, I wouldn't want the authorities busting in and confiscating anyone's cats without a warrant, either. I'd want them to go through the proper procedure, which involves ensuring there's probable cause that something illegal is going on (including, specifically, what law is being violated), getting a warrant, and then going in and dealing with the situation.

      There is a reason why our legal system has only very narrowly-defined exceptions to the rules requiring warrants (or at least, it used to) -- it's that process that keeps us from falling off the very steep cliff that ends with a police state.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:What's the big deal? by kmcarr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you missed the part about the chemicals being discovered by firefighters he invited into his home to put out an air conditioner fire.

    13. Re:What's the big deal? by onecheapgeek · · Score: 1

      Public safety (in the firefighter sense) was there responding to a fire. They found flammable chemicals. They reported it as a hazard. IT then got removed because it was an ongoing hazard to the firefighters.

      No warrant needed, unless you want the cops showing up with a warrant every time you have a fire. "Sorry, can't put out the fire. Warrant's not here. Hope you didn't want anything in there, fella."

    14. Re:What's the big deal? by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

      I think you missed that part about the fire.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    15. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No seizure can occur without already-ascertained evidence of law breaking. The we'll-let-you-know-later-what-you-did mentality these government officials have displayed here is directly contraindicated by the supreme law of the land known as the constitution. That piece of paper used to mean something. Then, at some point, the government decided it was just a piece of paper and they did not have to follow it. Unfortunately for them, the government itself cannot exist without it. If they continue down this path the predictions of the founding fathers, unfortunately for everyone, may come to pass. In summary, the government should follow the law, not flaunt it like they did here. It hurts everyone even if they only think it hurts others. We all must pay for the law-breaking of these government officials.

    16. Re:What's the big deal? by bws111 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't consider a report by firemen, having responded to a fire at the residence and finding things that could kill them, to be a 'probable cause'? I can't really think of a better cause, or a better reason why it is illegal for him to have the stuff.

    17. Re:What's the big deal? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Now, if it turns out he was indeed following all local / state laws, then the authorities certainly owe him an apology at least.

      I believe the term your looking for is "restitution."

      The big deal is that somebody got angry that his dog was pissing on their flowers (or some other unrelated infraction), and they called the cops on him, resulting in a raid and quite a bit of inconvenience and expense. And it was all done, if the article is correct, without proper documentation (referred to by some as "in accordance with the law").

      There are certain building code regulations, but practically none of them apply to residences. Even the basic structures built in accordance with the building code do not comply with standard architectural engineering practice (I know, I deal with them every day; thanks for asking). Unless he was engaged in commercial operations or was actually manufacturing something illegal or specifically dangerous to the community, there's not a whole lot he can't do. Most common operations undertaken at residences are fairly hazardous - and would require significant expense in a commercial setting - but are allowed. Refueling and maintenance of machinery comes to mind - mowers, tillers, edgers, chainsaws, automobiles. All deal with poisonous compounds and parts that can kill, but are small in scale. As long as you don't create a public nuisance and dispose of the waste properly, they're not going to raid your garage.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    18. Re:What's the big deal? by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      Except they're not going house to house looking for violators.

      In this particular case, they were invited in. If you invite the authorities in, even for something completely unrelated, and they see something amiss, they don't need to come back with a warrant to bust you right then and there for it.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    19. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As pxuongl claims further up, there was a (non-chemistry-experiment) fire and the fire department came around and was legitimately invited in.

      That's even better than a "strange odor" being reported.

    20. Re:What's the big deal? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Illegal because it can cause a house fire?

      What kind of bubble do you live in?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:What's the big deal? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      The key difference here is that in the cat example they can point
      to an obvious and clear reason that could be put on a WARRANT or
      used as PROBABLE CAUSE.

      Oh, come now! We can't allow some antiquated document like the Constitution get in the way of stopping terrorists! You must be a terrorist or sympathizer! Off to Gitmo with you!

      It's like FISA. Everyone in government is getting used to the
      idea that they don't have to obey their own rules anymore.

      But laws are for the little people!

    22. Re:What's the big deal? by omris · · Score: 1

      Authorities need ONE of TWO things to enter your home: a warrant OR your permission. He gave authorities permission to enter for the fire, and they found illegal stuff. As far as I could tell, he wasn't even arrested. They just cleaned it up safely for him.

      Now, I love science a lot more than a normal person, but in my experience, most people can barely handle some well-labeled cleaning supplies. People do incredibly irresponsible things with chemicals all of the time. You had better believe that SOME of this stuff was way out of the realm of reasonable or responsible chemical usage.

      When you know you have too many cats, you can let the authorities in to take them, and do it without involving police or wasting a judge's time. Sadly, you and your friends on the internet can blow it out of proportion and complain about it, too. Just the way the cookie crumbles, I suppose.

    23. Re:What's the big deal? by Now.Imperfect · · Score: 1

      No its more like you give your computer to a repair business and they find child pornography on it. In which case they can (read: have to) turn you in. They were already invited into the home, and due to shoddy storage techniques had reason to confiscate/clean up the mess.

    24. Re:What's the big deal? by raijinsetsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not illegal because it can cause a house fire. It's illegal because of the potential damage to neighbors. The police and fire officials legally entered his home by the owner's invitation (because of the fire). If they were to ignore the potential hazard of the described chemicals (being all over the furniture, floor, and shelving), then the fire and police departments would have to be held accountable in the event that his house blew up.

    25. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather they just ask him "hey, is any of this dangerous?" and leave when he says "no"?

      I'd expect them to not give a shit if any of it is dangerous or not. There shouldn't be any constraints on anyone handling dangerous things in their own fucking home. A knife is dangerous, but you don't get arrested for possession of a knife in your home. You get arrested if you use said knife to hurt someone.

      To be fair, since there was a fire in his home, whether they had a warrant is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, I would expect the firefighters to take notice of the chemicals, call the cops, and make sure the fire wasn't started because of the chemicals. Once they've determined that the man was handling the chemicals properly and that the fire was not due to negligence or maliciousness on his part, they should return his equipment to him and apologize for the inconvenience.

      Similarly, if I were keeping 200 cats in my home under extremely unsanitary conditions, I should be jailed for the extremely unsanitary conditions. If I were keeping 200 cats in my home and handling all 200 of them properly, they should leave me alone (or ask if I want to help out and take 50-100 more strays, because damn, If I could do that, I'd be good).

      There are reasons why we regulate stuff like chemicals (you have to have a permit just to own / use some professional beauty products), and if he wasn't following whatever the local regulations were, then it's his fault.

      If you mean "irrational fear as a justification for eroding our freedoms" then yes, there's a reason. That bullshit didn't start with 9/11.

      Now, if it turns out he was indeed following all local / state laws, then the authorities certainly owe him an apology at least.

      They also owe him an apology if the law is unjust. And if he wasn't being negligent with the materials, if he didn't use the materials to harm anyone, anything else is unjust.

    26. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something tells me the fire department finding chemicals all over the house when they responded to a fire in the air conditioning system might be "some such thing"

      but IANAL

    27. Re:What's the big deal? by obliv!on · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the fire was on the second floor of his house and his lab was in his basement. Not exactly in plain sight.

      You can expressly authorize them access to a specific area, the fire, and if they are snooping in other unrelated parts of the house still be violating his right to privacy. He doesn't forfeit a reasonable right to privacy, because he requires emergency assistance in an unrelated part of his home.

    28. Re:What's the big deal? by Newander · · Score: 1

      They violated his civil rights. I'd say they already owe him an apology at least.

      At this point they shouldn't be able to charge him with anything. Even if he violated any law. Absolutely every bit of evidence they have taken should be inadmissible in court.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    29. Re:What's the big deal? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I think you made up the point about them not having a warrant. Nowhere in the article does it say that.

    30. Re:What's the big deal? by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      So here's the question. If the firefighters saw the chemicals and LATER reported it to the police, the police had ample time to follow the law and obtain a warrant for search and seizure of potentially dangerous chemicals. If the police were there at the time and took the chemicals then, then it is less likely that it was a violation of the 4th amendment and more immediate reaction to secure a potentially dangerous situation.

      The following segments of the story make me wonder which was correct.

      Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement.

      Chemicals, especially flammable ones, should be properly stored. Chemical fires and fumes, spills and accidents pose issues to neighboring residents and first responders should something like, say, that air conditioner fire had spread to the rest of the house.

    31. Re:What's the big deal? by jacksdl · · Score: 1

      Post 9/11 logic: If the cops didn't confiscate your computers and check them for evil stuff and then it turned out that you were up to no good then everyone would blame the police after you committed your horrible acts.

      So all high-tech, blinky, science-fiction looking things should be taken for examination by law enforcement.

    32. Re:What's the big deal? by J053 · · Score: 1

      He called the Fire Department because of an air conditioning fire. When they arrived, and were admitted by the homeowner, they saw all the chemicals - then called the cops (or maybe, as in many jurisdictions, the cops routinely respond to fire scenes). No Gestapo tactics, here.

    33. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fire was on the second floor. What were they doing snooping around the basement? Playing cop? Looking for something to steal?

    34. Re:What's the big deal? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Would you rather they just ask him "hey, is any of this dangerous?" and leave when he says "no"?

      Given no reason whatsoever to believe the contrary? Yes!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    35. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From way the article is worded, the firefighters discovered the vials strewn about the house and called the police.

      Firefighters aren't police officers, they can report hazards, but any follow up searches or seizures still require a warrant. The evidence presented by the oath of the firefighter is the probable cause to obtain the warrant for the police officers to act.

      Without said warrant, the search and seizure act becomes tainted fruit.

      The only possible exception to the rule would be if a police officer responded to the fire call, which would be unusual.

      What is most likely the case, the firefighters during the process of the call probably became suspicious of the chemicals and whilst they were still engaged, called the the police to investigate. The firefighters are the ones who invited the search and relegated probable cause by warrant required by officers during the course of a normal investigation.

      That is a breach of Mr.Deeb's 4th Amendment protections.

    36. Re:What's the big deal? by drxenos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A friend of mine ran afoul of a city ordinance that required that if you have a garage, your car must be in it and not parked in your driveway. He had a busy-body neighbor with nothing better to do than report people who violated this law.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    37. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they discovered that you were keeping 200 cats in your home under extremely unsanitary conditions, they would do the same thing: move all of the cats to a shelter somewhere, and charge you with violating local health regulations once they had assessed the entire situation. I think it's a little bit of a kneejerk reaction to say that they're "ignorantly and irrationally afraid of chemicals" and "abus[ing] power to steal his property".

      What if you kept 200 cats under perfectly sanitary conditions, can they seize them and press charges?

      Would you rather they just ask him "hey, is any of this dangerous?" and leave when he says "no"?

      Yes. Unless they have evidence that whatever he has is dangerous, they should leave him alone; an absence of evidence that it's safe is not evidence that it's dangerous.

      There are reasons why we regulate stuff like chemicals (you have to have a permit just to own / use some professional beauty products), and if he wasn't following whatever the local regulations were, then it's his fault.

      We don't regulate all chemicals, water isn't regulated. Do they have any evidence that anything he has is regulated and he's breaking the regulations, or did they just see a bunch of beakers and vials and freak the fuck out?

      Now, if it turns out he was indeed following all local / state laws, then the authorities certainly owe him an apology at least.

    38. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much as I like cats and wish a slow, painful death on anyone who's cruel to domestic animals...

      I'm just the opposite. I drove over a cat yesterday, which was fine, but when I got home I saw all its guts on the underside of my car, and that really sucked.

    39. Re:What's the big deal? by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      So... if that's their reason, they should have said it. Seriously.

    40. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather they just ask him "hey, is any of this dangerous?" and leave when he says "no"?

      yes.

      (funny thing, my CAPTCHA was "comply"... I wonder if someone stole my internet)

    41. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is against the law in Massachusetts. Do you realize how many laws we have? It's out of hand.

    42. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big deal is that they're not allowed to go on a fishing expedition -- I'm sure if the cops invaded your home and searched long enough they'd find some evidence of a crime. The point is that the search of your home should be the last step in an investigation, not the first.

    43. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They STILL need a warrant though -- something which they didn't have.

    44. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >IT then got removed

      And there was much rejoicing - everyone hates IT.

    45. Re:What's the big deal? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      I'd rather they didn't even bother him about it. If he blows up his house, well, he should have been more careful. Now, it's possible that he might set his house on fire, sure. However, that might actually not be so bad. For one thing, the average rate of house fires has dropped so low that many firefighters have been reduced to low-grade emt duty (like ferrying people to the hospital in an ambulance because they don't want to take a cab/walk/whatever). There simply aren't that many fires to fight. We're in danger of safing ourselves right out of having firefighters.

      However that's really secondary to the main point, which is that neither firefighters nor police actually have the right to tell him what to do in his own home. Whether they do it without the right is another story...but a man's home is his castle and as long as he is not directly interfering with someone's life, liberty, or property, he's fine. What *might* happen doesn't count. Only what actually DOES happen. Which, up to this point, in this man's home, was nothing bad.

      Every year, some people abuse pets (as you alluded to above). This means that all pet owners are abusive, by government logic. Therefore, we should make the owning of pets illegal, because a small subsection of pet owners intentionally abuse their pets. Also, some people abuse children. Therefore...yes, it's absurd, isn't it? You shouldn't treat people as criminals until they actually do something wrong.

    46. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the authorities don't need a fucking warrant?

    47. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes until they have a warrant which implies that they convinced a judge of probable cause, all they can do is ask.

    48. Re:What's the big deal? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Now if it turns out no laws were broken and they still destroy his property, that's screwed up.

      Well, maybe this...

      None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    49. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you had a fire in your upstairs AC unit, doesn't mean that the fourth Amendment went up in smoke with it.

    50. Re:What's the big deal? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Actually, codes typically require rooms used for storage of office supplies (paper, etc) to be fire-retardant and/or have fire suppression systems. I doubt that you have 2-hour fire walls in the closet you're keeping your printer paper, so I'd say you're probably violating the law too, if we decide to enforce it strictly.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    51. Re:What's the big deal? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, the stuff was in the basement, and they checked after the fire was out because they were supposedly making sure the house was ventilated. Never mind that the fire was on the second floor and smoke generally goes up.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    52. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not know a lot of containers in a person's basement could be analogized to a dead body in the back of a car. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    53. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not a retired chemist. The fire dept was in the house and a firefighter went to the basement to turn off the breaker, saw vast quantities of unlabeled chemicals and triggered a haz-mat alert.

      http://members.aol.com/vmdeeb/index.html

      Poor judgement if you ask me.

  14. I miss freedom by Attackinghobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't you?

    1. Re:I miss freedom by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

      I miss freedom, Don't you?

      That's why we now have freedom fries. So don't worry, you'll still be able to get your USDA recommended amount of freedom.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:I miss freedom by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      I know this was meant as a statement with a sense of humor, but it brings up an honest quote:

      "Freedom does not exist as an external truth. It exists inside men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst

      I believe that we have never been free, or we have always been free, depending on how we look at it. We are always limited, and always restricted. Even with total social freedom, we are bound by the laws of physics. Freedom is not about being able to do whatever we want, freedom is about choosing weather we want to make your own decisions, or weather we'll submit to the will of others. If you live in fear of the law, in fear of the terrorists, in fear loosing everything you have, fearing for the children, then you were never really free (no matter what liberties or rights your country might offer you.)

      The freest man in the world is the man who's pissed off, and has nothing left to loose. That man could ignite a revolution.

    3. Re:I miss freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the memo? They're called "war of aggression fries" now.

    4. Re:I miss freedom by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you don't like the freedom fries, might I suggest the freedom toast? It's delicious - I had some for breakfast this morning.

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    5. Re:I miss freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't.

    6. Re:I miss freedom by TaleSpinner · · Score: 1

      The Capitol lunchroom has given up on freedom fries. Now they only have the french. Now there's a sentence that sums up the woes of the world...

    7. Re:I miss freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget, it's trans fat free delivered in an eco-friendly-recycled-from-toilet-paper container! Which means they're good for the environment and okay for you.

    8. Re:I miss freedom by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for us, the USDA recommended amount of freedom fries is severely limited. Damned trans-fats!

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    9. Re:I miss freedom by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Today, Miniplenty announced a doubling of the freedom fries ration! We love BB!

  15. just another thing going wrong ... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is just another representation of the government attempting to control the lives of citizens under the guise of protecting the masses.

    Although he could be using his home chemistry lab to do illegal things, the government should not be allowed to enter and seize on the ability to do wrong, only on the reasonable suspicion.

    If the ability to cause problems was a legitimate reason to stop someone from practicing their hobby, then what about gun enthusiasts? What about drunks? And what about people with cars?

    I don't care if you have a home chemistry set, just don't blow up my house.

    Once you infringe on my rights, you're in the wrong - and that applies equally to the government!

    1. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      If the ability to cause problems was a legitimate reason to stop someone from practicing their hobby, then what about gun enthusiasts? What about drunks? And what about people with cars?

      Hey, I have an accordion, and I know how to use it.

      Maybe I should be worried ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just another representation of the government attempting to control the lives of citizens under the guise of protecting the masses.

      Um, as far as I can tell from the articles, that's not what's going on.

      • The house caught fire.
      • The firefighters put it out & discovered thousands of vials of chemicals stored in an unsafe manner.
      • Zoning & Health were called in - as is appropriate
      • Zoning & Health said, "Go stay in a hotel while we clean this up."
      • Mr. Deebs said "OK"

      Had he argued, then the zoning board & the health board would have gone to court and blah, blah, blah. You don't need due process when the person consents. Given how both the articles I read indicated his lab was a disaster area, I doubt that his house would have passed the safety inspection following the fire without the cleanup.

      Had he had a properly organized lab in the garage, he probably would have been OK, they're a lot stricter about what you can store in the house itself.

    3. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Zoning & Health were called in - as is appropriate

      Nope. Zoning and Health should need to go to the court for a warrant at that point; the emergency is past. Zoning and health should not be permitted to not only search but seize the chemicals and dispose of them without so much as a hearing.

    4. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Had he had a properly organized lab in the garage, he probably would have been OK, they're a lot stricter about what you can store in the house itself.

      The garage is for storing cars. The basement is exactly where a lab is supposed to be!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. Zoning and Health should need to go to the court for a warrant at that point; the emergency is past

      No, if your house has a fire & the fire dept comes, it is usually required to be recertified as habitable. So, calling in the the zoning & health inspector is a perfectly normal part of dealing with a fire.

      Zoning and health should not be permitted to not only search but seize the chemicals and dispose of them without so much as a hearing.

      Read the article, Mr. Deep didn't object - no objection, no need for a hearing. If a cop says "I want to look in your trunk" and you say OK & open it, he doesn't need a warrant. Perhaps closer to the point, if he tells you to give him the joint tucked behind your ear so neither of you have to deal with the paperwork of a minor possession charge, he doesn't need a warrant if you comply.

      In this case, health & zoning said "we want to clean this up, go live in a hotel while we do". If Mr Deep had said no, they were within their rights to decert the house for habitation and force it's cleanup by Mr Deep prior to recertification, & he would have been within his rights to fight the decert in court.

    6. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the government should not be allowed to enter and seize on the ability to do wrong, but if they can do it here, then let us apply it evenly. No one should be allowed to possess bleach, lime remover, oven cleaner, gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, ropes (or a tie for that matter--you might hang someone), knives (and certainly not a banjo slicer) or pull top cans.
      We can't buy oven cleaner in a jar with a brush anymore (no fumes, but we might hurt ourselves), nor can we replace the asbestos sheet for our fireplace (even though it doesn't emit fibers), and we can't even throw out nearly empty paint cans without paying a fee (so we store the dregs for years until that too becomes an offence) and the list goes on. Claiming it is the Land of the Free is just whistling in the dark.

    7. Re:just another thing going wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reasonable suspicion is a legal term and represents a lower standard than that of probable cause as required by the 4th. Careful use of language is important. Cops suck.

  16. He didn't conform! by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.

    So his ''crime'' was to do something slightly different from the rest of the population.

    Then I got to thinking: What is normal, what does Mr average do in his spare time ? Does this mean that anyone who does anything except: watch TV, visit shopping malls or go to the pub is weird and so under suspicion ?

    I think that I'll put my walking boots on and think about it on a long stroll .... drat - that'll put me under the microscope :-)

    1. Re:He didn't conform! by TrnsltLife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AKA, Ray Bradbury's /The Pedestrian/ http://englischlehrer.de/texts/pedestrian.php

    2. Re:He didn't conform! by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      His crime was being different by working with (not so small amounts) of known carciogenic substances in a residental area.
      If you are using like that in a chemlab, everything has tight regulations and the equipment is regularily checked.
      Not so if you are messing around in your basement.

      And the fact that he is a chemist doesnt reduce the problems in the slightest. I have known chmists that really stopped caring about safety.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:He didn't conform! by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Yes. This is the reason every thinking person needs to be opposed to things like FISA, the War On Drugs, etc.

    4. Re:He didn't conform! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.

      So his ''crime'' was to do something slightly different from the rest of the population.

      Indeed. According to the Code Enforcement Officer of Crazytown, it's against city codes to have a job she can't understand.

      My town does have an ordinance about what occupations can be performed in a residence, and I suppose that Crazytown does too. The appropriate action for a code enforcer concerned about potential uncustomariness would be to contact the resident and ask about his vocation. If that still doesn't clear things up, then perhaps a trip to a library of the interwebs, or maybe a chat with someone smarter might be in order. But we live in times where intelligence and curiosity are looked on with suspicion, ignorance and uninformed "decisiveness" are lauded.

      I might add, in case Ms. Wilderman is reading this, that "lauded" means "felt good about by 'alot' o' folks".

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:He didn't conform! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that anyone who does anything except: watch TV, visit shopping malls or go to the pub is weird and so under suspicion?

      Of course it does. Are you new here or something?

      And "here" basically means the planet Earth. All human societies behave that way. The point of things like the US Bill of Rights is to protect people exhibiting "weird" behavior from the authorities.

      Actually, not just human societies. It's common in most social species to avoid individuals who are acting "weird", whatever that means for your species. Someone exhibiting unusual behavior is likely sick, and they might be contagious. Avoiding them is an adaptive behavior.

      The odd aspect of this, as hinted by the "Home Science" in the title, is that the authorities in question are probably quite well aware that the Massachusetts economy depends strongly on its high-tech sector, yet they are attacking someone for doing the sort of thing that has produced that high-tech economic sector. Rational behavior in such an area would be to encourage the small-time developers that are the foundation of much of the area's economy. But this is probably too high-level a view for the police that carried out this action. They likely do think that "chem lab" and "drug lab" are synonyms.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    6. Re:He didn't conform! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's not what happened at all and those who modded you up are retards. have a nice day.

    7. Re:He didn't conform! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that anyone who does anything except: watch TV, visit shopping malls or go to the pub is weird and so under suspicion ?

      Yes, we nerds are of course under suspicion. Always.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:He didn't conform! by HannethCom · · Score: 1

      Pubs are where terrorists go to plan their next attacks, so Pubs are out also.

      --
      Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    9. Re:He didn't conform! by deadmantyping · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a person who actually works around dangerous chemicals, extremely flammable gases, and carcinogens I know that there are a great deal of regulations concerning the proper handling of those substances. I would assume that he would have had to obtain permits and undergone inspections to ensure the safety, environmental and health related, of the room he was performing his experiments in. This is for both his safety and for the safety of those around him, and frankly if he didn't follow the proper procedures and obtain the correct paperwork then they had every right to confiscate those chemicals. If they had not and some tragedy occurred due to those chemicals then they could be held liable because they knew about them. If he does in fact have any permits required and is not breaking any zoning laws or putting lives in danger then they were wrong in the confiscation. In my opinion he has every right to experiment, but not without regard to safety.

    10. Re:He didn't conform! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Gasoline is a known carcinogenic substance. If you've ever filled up your lawnmower in your backyard, you've worked with not so small amounts of a known carcinogenic substance in a residential area.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:He didn't conform! by russotto · · Score: 1

      His crime was being different by working with (not so small amounts) of known carciogenic substances in a residental area.

      You mean like my can of Brakleen? (contains xylene among other fun chemicals)?

      How about my heptane and 1,2,2 trichloro 1,1,2-trifluoroethane (a.k.a TTE)? No, not gasoline -- film cleaner. Not that the gasoline is any safer.

      My 6% sodium hypochlorite solution (too easy, laundry bleach -- do I need to say what happens if it gets mixed with my 20% hydrochloric acid solution (toilet bowl cleaner) and/or household ammonia)?

      Those sound dangerous, and in fact they are, but there's something even more dangerous that even the MA people wouldn't bat an eye over, because it doesn't have a scary name. Linseed oil. Unlike all those other things, some of which are flammable, linseed oil can spontaneously combust. Particularly when it is absorbed into a rag or paper towel... which it often is, in the ordinary course of working with it or cleaning it up. So is oil painting at home be banned by Massachusetts authorites? Working on one's car? Cleaning one's negatives? Doing the laundry and cleaning the house? If not, what's the problem with doing chemistry?

    12. Re:He didn't conform! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I would agree that he probably shouldn't be doing this in his basement, but it hardly warrants a raid - much better to give him 30 days to relocate somewhere where the cost of mistakes is lower, like a rented space in an industrial park or somewhere in the sticks.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:He didn't conform! by rosvall · · Score: 1

      And as another person who actually works around dangerous chemicals, extremely flammable gases, and carcinogens - on an industrial scale - I too know that there are a great deal of regulations concerning the proper handling of those substances.
      I also know, that a lot of those regulations are immensely more relevant, when you're dealing with large quantities and when that is part of your occupation. Fiddling about with 50ml of HF solution (or whatever) as part of some weird hobby project is something entirely different than working with tonnes of it on, with a boss breathing down your neck.

      No, i would not like living next door to some idiot mixing explosives. But then again, i WOULD like being able to have a hobby other than vegging out in front of the TV.

    14. Re:He didn't conform! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since you are a known slashdot reader.

  17. protest by buying his book by PenguinX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are always people with authority and the stupidity to use it. So he's been shut down, yes it's terrible - and illegal - and unconstitutional. Perhaps the best way to show your outrage: buy his book: at $29 bucks, why not? That way, just in case justice is not done, he will be able to be well financed to return to his work.

    1. Re:protest by buying his book by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except the book is not from the man in the article, it's from the blog author that's stirring up the mess by acting as if this was a big deal while plugging his book.

    2. Re:protest by buying his book by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      There are always people with stupidity and the authority to use it.

      There, fixed it for you. Exercising authority is not always stupid. For example firing the morons responsible for this raid would be an excellent use of authority.

    3. Re:protest by buying his book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't seem very logical to me - the guy's chemistry lab gets disrupted so we pay him? I'm not without compassion, but I'm also not going to buy something I would never otherwise buy just so someone I don't know can practice a hobby. If you really want to help the guy, send him a check - that way he'll get all the money instead of his publishers etc.

    4. Re:protest by buying his book by PenguinX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      aah, well then good point

      well then to heck with it, sick whatever political activist group you want on them...

    5. Re:protest by buying his book by PenguinX · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree that authority is a good thing. My choice of words was really just a writing device and isn't intended to be a truth statement or elevate some sort of philosophy (i.e. Anarchism) in any way.

      That being said, I would disagree with this rearrangement it indicates that there are some people who are not only, innately stupid, but they are also authorized to be stupid in some function. In this particular case the local authority, in my opinion, usurped the fourth amendment, which is certainly outside of the chain of command. Federal rights are supposed to be universal.

      Maybe I'm not a lawyer or a judge - but so what? The USA is founded on the principle of a government by the people - not merely the educated legal aristocrats.

      (jumps down off soapbox)

      Thank you
      -b

    6. Re:protest by buying his book by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      If this is even a borderline scam perpetrated by the makezine blogger, I pity those who followed OP's suggestion. There will be those who shout, "So what? They're two members of our hobbyist community and we should defend them against the eeeeevil government busybodies trying to run our lives!" and as a result, few will ever notice that they were used for a sales boost.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  18. The EAA had the same fight. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The EAA had the same fight about home builders.
    For those that don't know the EAA represnts people that build their own airplanes or restore old ones. At least one town made it illegal. The EAA usually fights such things and often wins.
    Too bad there isn't an EAA for Chemistry.
    BTW I am a member of the EAA :)

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, actually. You have a link?

      What did the town idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians fear? People taking off and landing in the streets? ;-)

    2. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      http://www.eaa.org/

      I'm also a member =)

    3. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Here's an article about the ban.

      To be fair, what I've read about it in comparatively nonbiased sites, it sounds like he had an airplane junkyard in his front and back yards: several planes in various states of disrepair/disassembly, that he was using as donors for another project that was shaping up in the driveway.

      I have no problem with people making airplanes at home -- hey, I'm going to do the same thing. But I'm pretty irritated at my neighbors for having multiple dead cars on bricks in the front yard. How is dead airplanes any better? At least put up a fence and don't rivet at 2 AM. (He was also accused of late-night noise, and bucking rivets *is* mindblowingly loud.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Okay so fine him for making a mess or making loud noise at night.
      Don't ban building and working on airplanes at home.
      You know sort of like not banning P2P just because some people us it to pirate movies.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I agree -- but under what grounds do you 'fine' someone?
      You can't fine someone unless the person is breaking a law: that's called either taxation or theft.
      What I'd like to see is a reasonable, blanket law about keeping your house in acceptable condition, as regards eyesores, noise pollution, and stink. Those laws already exist, though. In this case, it looks to me like they were trying to pass a law to specifically target this guy and his airplanes, while letting people who rebuild cars, just as messily, continue to do what they were doing, and that's why it sucks. Not because of the general idea, but because of the specific implementation.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    6. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      There are already laws that cover noise. There are also laws that cover junk in your yard.
      So yea just use those.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by jridley · · Score: 1

      ...and light pollution. I wish there were some standard way to get idiots with security lights that spill onto my property to shield them or shut them off.

    8. Re:The EAA had the same fight. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Standard way... aside from a high-power BB gun?

      It's a PITA but if you talk to people and volunteer to install the shielding yourself, a lot of people will be happy to let you. They just can't be bothered to do it themselves.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  19. Massachusetts... by EEBaum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably thought he was developing a new kind of hoax device.

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  20. Welcome to the club. by bryanp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There have been similar problems for those who handload ammunition. "Oh my god, this man had 12 pounds of gunpowder in his garage! And look at all this ammunition! It's an arsenal of destruction!"

    And no, that's not hyperbole. It's happened. Generally only in places like California or Massachusetts, with their high proportion of Gun Fearing Weenies(tm), but not exclusively.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    1. Re:Welcome to the club. by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strange matters of viewpoint.
      When you said "thats not hyperbole", i though:"Omg. There are really nutcases around that are allowed to store gunpower poundwise in their garage?!".

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Welcome to the club. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell ya what. I'll let you ban gunpowder from garages if you let me ban gasoline from garages.

    3. Re:Welcome to the club. by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      Full disclosure, you and I come from completely different ends of the gun debate spectrum. I think guns cause more harm than good.

      However...

      If it becomes the fad amongst gun owners to use their weapons to shoot out the cctv spy cams that are staring to pop up in more and more places, I promise I'll shut up and never say another word about guns.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    4. Re:Welcome to the club. by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guns causing more harm than good doesn't actually imply that gun control causes more good than harm.

      You should be in favor of gun control only if you have a positive belief in gun control, not simply because you have negative beliefs about guns (I realize that this is likely your position, but why not reach for clarity).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Welcome to the club. by cavehamster · · Score: 1

      Because we all know anyone who would have that much gun powder always ends up on a killing spree...

    6. Re:Welcome to the club. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence gun-gearing weenie.

    7. Re:Welcome to the club. by rossz · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few years ago there was an article in the newspaper here (San Francisco Bay area) talking about a big bust and the ARSENAL of weapons they found. Two pistols, a shotgun, and 200 rounds of ammo.

      Hell, I buy ammo in 500 round boxes. Typically I buy two boxes at a time. This is just so I have enough ammo to fire off at the local range.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    8. Re:Welcome to the club. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Yes - oddly enough the law allows you 50lbs without any particular storage or licensing requirements provided that you intend to use it for a gun of some kind.

    9. Re:Welcome to the club. by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      Generally only in places like California or Massachusetts, with their high proportion of Gun Fearing Weenies(tm)...

      And lowest gun crime in the nation. But do go on.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    10. Re:Welcome to the club. by bryanp · · Score: 1

      Yep. People in those states are willing to give up their constitutional rights in exchange for a bit of extra security. Good luck with that.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    11. Re:Welcome to the club. by jridley · · Score: 1

      What, you think you can go and buy gunpowder by the ounce? If you're hand loading a few hundred shotgun shells for a Saturday at the skeet range, you're going to need a few pounds of gunpowder. Handloaders typically buy quite a few pounds at once. I know several people who do, and I don't know of any of them ever having a fire or explosion as a result.
      I used to shoot black powder rifles, and bought powder in pound cans, usually 4 or 5 of them at a time.
      It sounds like you might be very surprised to find out how many people in an average town probably have many pounds of gunpowder on their property at once.

  21. Warrants? We don't need no steenking warrants! by sm62704 · · Score: 0

    It seems that authorities in Massachusetts have raided a home chemistry lab, apparently without a warrant

    I know how he feels (NSFW)

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  22. All that will get accomplished... by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    ...is to get yourself labeled as a crackpot.

    1. Re:All that will get accomplished... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      ...is to get yourself labeled as a crackpot.

      Tell me about it . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  23. Proper Property by delire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.

    Since when has there existed a reference standard for how people should live in their own homes? Who's home is it, his or the State's?

    How many posts would it take for someone to use the word 'totalitarian', I wonder, were this story to have originated from a Communist country?

    1. Re:Proper Property by xenn · · Score: 1

      This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.

      whats interesting about this quote is it's quite revealing.

      It's actually the POLICE that have OCCUPIED HIS HOME in what is considered an uncustomary way.

    2. Re:Proper Property by tepples · · Score: 1

      Since when has there existed a reference standard for how people should live in their own homes?

      Zoning has been around since 1916, if you believe this Wikipedia article.

  24. Sue, sue, sue! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Sue the ignorant bitch (Pamela Wilderman) her employers, the state, any judge issuing a warrant without cause etc.

    This seems like a golden opportunity for some group of unemployed/underemployed shysters to raise some hell!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  25. Dang! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine how they would have reacted if they found the basement lab I had when I was a teenager. I did some of the synthesizing explosives and making my own fireworks, along with some other experiments I am sure the local police would now find very alarming.

    Crikey, it is now definitely a "everything not compulsory is forbidden" country.

    1. Re:Dang! by mitgib · · Score: 1

      Crikey, it is now definitely a "everything not compulsory is forbidden" country.

      That is a dead giveaway you are from New Zeland, and isn't New Zeland very libertarian now?

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    2. Re:Dang! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I am not from New Zeland, whatever that is. I'm from Massachusetts. Not Marlboro though. Some members of my family certainly would have been surprised at how politics in that state have evolved.

      I did find this article:

      http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/44/sturm.php

      Which does seem to tackle the idea of whether New Zealand is libertarian. The conclusion seems to be not so much.

  26. Zoning gone wild. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the officer says, "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation," he's implying a zoning violation. It can be answered with, "This is not what we consider to be a customary neighborhood nuisance." Zoning laws should protect people from things like junk yards, car dealerships and noisy manufacturing. Going after this man is a stretch of those intentions.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      Or, a better answer still would be "You're a cop, your job is not to make laws about what people can and cannot do in a zone"

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    2. Re:Zoning gone wild. by tha_mink · · Score: 5, Informative

      When the officer says, "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation," he's implying a zoning violation. It can be answered with, "This is not what we consider to be a customary neighborhood nuisance." Zoning laws should protect people from things like junk yards, car dealerships and noisy manufacturing. Going after this man is a stretch of those intentions.

      It's like anti FUD with you people. He broke a zoning law. If you read the article, particularly the part where it says...

      Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws. "It is a residential home in a residential neighborhood," she said. "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby. He's still got bunches of ideas. I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation. ⦠There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

      ...you'd see that he had *WAY* too much stuff in his home AND was breaking the zoning laws by conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood. I hate the government too, but what I hate more is idiots that spread half-truths. This is one of the latter cases. Print the whole story and it seems like a no brainer, but print half a story, and it feeds the no-brainers.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    3. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it does look like a zoning problem. But the typical first response to a zoning issue is the issuance of an injunction, not the seizure of large amounts of property. A reasonable response would be a court order to move it out of his house within 30 days.

    4. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not all zoning is dumb. In this case, with as large as chemical fuel load he had in the home, if his house went up it would likely take out the other houses nearby. Zoning helps ensure that when you work on work that is potentially flammable/explosive you minimize the risk to nearby objects.
      I AM a fire safety researcher, and I know just how flammable most chemicals can be, especially since it looks like he was doing organic chemistry, which is what I have my doctorate in. I assure you his house (and no one's is) is rated to address the fire risk that would have eventually happened. The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.
      Since I'm a chemist I'm not happy with how he got treated, but still, he should have known better. While I greatly admire the older chemists for their ability to just tinker, research and work non-stop in the lab, there's a reason why the death rate among chemists has dropped, and its because we don't work like this guy does.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    5. Re:Zoning gone wild. by vimm · · Score: 0

      bump

    6. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Yeah... good idea.
      Maybe after that you can poke him in the chest and say "what are you going to do about it?"

      Best to not say anything to the cop that can be misconstrued
      as 'uncooperative', and then fight any government wrongs in court.

    7. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What qualifies at scientific research? My brother-in-law tested the absorbency of several brands of diapers for a school project. I just want to know if the police can come after him for doing this at home.

    8. Re:Zoning gone wild. by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Zoning laws also keep neighbors from toxic gases, explosions, and contaminated ground water.

      I've got mixed feelings about this. From the news article it would appear that everything Deeb did was on the up and up. If you are responsible and safe you don't pose a threat to your neighbors.

      That said, it wasn't as if the authorities entered Deeb's house on a routine basement chemistry lab inspection. They found his lab while responding to a (unrelated) fire. Even if all the chemicals in the basement were ordinarily benign who knows what the environmental consequences would have been had a fire ravaged his basement.

      There's a reason industrial sites have contact with the fire department and State EPA. Deed almost certainly didn't.

    9. Re:Zoning gone wild. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 0

      I'd like to tag you suddenoutbreakofcommentsense

    10. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for an interesting comment. Sadly, I have no mod points.

    11. Re:Zoning gone wild. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you've got this situation well characterized. The question is, how much? You can do a little light manufacturing in your house, after all, without getting a zoning variance.

      Likewise a little chemistry is not a problem, but at some point you should have the proper permits to discharge your waste into the sewers (which will probably require inspections), and you really should hire a private trash hauler to deal with your refuse.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      God I hope you're old, because it's a sad day for this country if our youth are afraid of being "uncooperative".

    13. Re:Zoning gone wild. by initdeep · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is only true when the zoning infraction does not potentially constitute an immediate danger to your surrounding areas.

      if you wanted to store a large amount of dynamite in your home, and had a lisc to have dynamite legally, you'd still be in violation of the zoning laws by doing so in your home.

      This they could, and should, confiscate it from your home as it is a potentially dangerous amount to not only you, but your neighbors as well.

      dynamite is an extreme example, however simple chemicals can cause as much or worse consequences when improperly mixed.

    14. Re:Zoning gone wild. by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is a long-standing American tradition to run home-based businesses, invent things in home workshops, etc.

      In other words, fuck off and die, you fascist!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:Zoning gone wild. by bws111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there is a difference between 'your fence is 2 inches too high' and 'you have explosives in your basement'.

    16. Re:Zoning gone wild. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      it's not about cops, it's about firemen and
      Pamela A. Wilderman, Code Enforcement Officer, 508-460-3765; and if you've never dealt with a code enforcement officer your lucky. Code Enforcement Officer as a group tend to be the most petty, stupid and anal of all petty, stupid and anal bureaucrats; Mr. Deeb needs to lawyer up and bitch slap them hard.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He broke a zoning law.

      Yes, lawd lawd lawd. Lawd forbid you pursue a hobby in the (presently imaginary) sanctity of your own home.

      "Zoning" is anti-liberty crapola law; always has been. You want to control what goes on at the property next door, or down the block? Fine, then buy it. Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.

      Now, that's not saying you don't have *power*, because the deep pathology of our legal system is you can always steal unauthorized power on the basis of all manner of your own thought crimes; but you sure don't have any such right, no matter what you do.

      This country needs a deep cleaning of its nanny infection. Then we need the equivalent of mouse traps or prophylactic rings of poison around the legal system so they can't come back and re-infect us.

      ...you'd see that he had *WAY* too much stuff in his home

      Ooooo.. TOO MUCH STUFF!!! Now there's a crime you can sink your teeth into!

      ...was breaking the zoning laws by conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood.

      Oh, yes. Yes! Yes indeed! Science doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood. Only churches. Science is a frightening, anti-social activity that must be guarded against most zealously in order that results, those evil, destabilizing fact-based destroyers of the status quo may be properly controlled by the government agency assigned to the task. Save the churches! Down with Science!

      Man, are you Stalin's reincarnated evil soul, or what?

      I hate the government too, but what I hate more is idiots that spread half-truths.

      What I hate are idiots that think suppression, repression, and outright theft of personal and property-related liberties is normal and nothing to get upset over. You know anyone like that? I think you do. I think you can figure this out. Really.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    18. Re:Zoning gone wild. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Yet there is no definition of what is "hobby" and what is "scientific research and development" in anything posted. If it is not defined, he has a good case.

    19. Re:Zoning gone wild. by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I conduct scientific research every time I design a new algorithm and run a test program to figure out how good it is. Someone please come lock me up.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    20. Re:Zoning gone wild. by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it does look like a zoning problem. But the typical first response to a zoning issue is the issuance of an injunction, not the seizure of large amounts of property. A reasonable response would be a court order to move it out of his house within 30 days.

      Seizure and destruction of large amounts of property.

    21. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like anti FUD with you people. He broke a zoning law. If you read the article, particularly the part where it says...

      Zoning laws were meant to prevent people from running certain levels of business out of their home to protect people and neighborhoods from adverse affects that higher traffic of commercial business or the higher pollution of industrial business might bring with it. Zoning laws are really being abused here, because even if he was filing patents, this could easily be argued as nothing more then a hobby.

      ...you'd see that he had *WAY* too much stuff in his home AND was breaking the zoning laws by conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood. I hate the government too, but what I hate more is idiots that spread half-truths. This is one of the latter cases. Print the whole story and it seems like a no brainer, but print half a story, and it feeds the no-brainers.

      Then the people who should be fussing are not some bureaucratic dim-wit who is responsible for "zoning" but the local environmental police, whoever those people are in that area; however, I would venture a guess if he were really "dangerous" in anyway the EPA would be involved and not a bunch of dim-witted local and state officials. Nope, I am pretty sure the government in this case is responsible for inciting fear and scaring the neighbors with a big, BOO! I hope he sues and wins big.

    22. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.

      What affects you or your property is not some guiding principle you can appeal to, but a term who's interpertation is up in the air. Your science experiments, if dangerous (say you are trying to find a more energy-dense fuel then gasoline), certainly can blow up my house. Why should I assume that risk? And they lower my property values certainly, because other people want to be compensated for that risk. It could raise my insurance premiums.

      Suppose you paint your house day-glow orange. Well, it doesn't seem dangerous, but on the other hand, again, it lowers my property values. I have to look at an ugly eyesore (assuming I have line of sight).

      What about loud music? Foul odors? Constantly having 30 people over and taking up all the street parking?

      It's all a matter of degree, and reasonable people can disagree. Anyone who claims to "know" the right solution is full of crap.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    23. Re:Zoning gone wild. by toby34a · · Score: 1

      So, as an atmospheric scientist, I'm running scientific research by monitoring the rain, barometric pressure, and wind speed at my residence, as well as considering buying a solar radiometer. Oh, and if I run an atmospheric model on my desktop at home, is that a zoning violation? It's conducting scientific research (as is gathering of meteorological observations).

    24. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Strider- · · Score: 1

      This country needs a deep cleaning of its nanny infection. Then we need the equivalent of mouse traps or prophylactic rings of poison around the legal system so they can't come back and re-infect us.

      Replace "nanny" with "lawyer" and that's about right. IMHO, all this dumbing down and what not is due to people's fear of liability. They don't want to be the one left holding the bag when some moron blows his fingers off. It's pure CYA rather than nannyism. Sadly, this lawsuit fettish is starting to invade Canada too... Though thankfully the courts are still somewhat sane.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    25. Re:Zoning gone wild. by skywire · · Score: 1

      The actions of Marlboro officials in this case is a good example of the ubiquitous abuse of "zoning" in the United States to tightly regulate behaviour that would otherwise be none of the State's business. Under the guise of protecting homeowners from the detrimental effect on the value of their real estate of smaller or denser housing, or commercial businesses, almost every municipality in the US not only categorizes each geographical region as being of a certain type of "zone" , but proceeds to enumerate a set of "uses" (behaviours as well as structures) that are allowed in each type of zone, and to forbid any "use" not listed. So, you want to stand on your head and whistle Dixie in the privacy of your own home? Let's check the list of approved "uses". Hmmm. Sorry, not listed. Let's say they don't like the otherwise perfectly legal sport of target shooting (or basketball). They can't get away with simply outlawing target shooting (or basketball) with a criminal law. So they just omit those "uses" from all of the zones in the city, and voila, target shooting (or basketball) is effectively outlawed, Constitution be damned, and the courts kowtow because it's just (awe and hushed tones) "zoning". In other words, we have a complete overthrow of the rule of law, operating under the guise of "zoning ordinances". The local strongmen decide for themselves what is disallowed, and the courts, which threw out the Constitution during the Progressive era, turn a blind eye. So if you find Ms. Wilderman's language ("Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research" and "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation") a little strange, you have never entered the twilight zone that is "zoning".

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    26. Re:Zoning gone wild. by lbgator · · Score: 1

      Best to not say anything to the cop.

      Fixed that for you.

      Source 1: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_should.html
      Source 2: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

    27. Re:Zoning gone wild. by TheHappyMailAdmin · · Score: 1

      First, we don't know from the article whether he actually broke a zoning law or not. The investigator claims he broke a zoning law, but goes on to say she doesn't know that he actually did.

      Second, unless any of the items or their quantities were specifically prohibited there was absolutely nothing wrong with his having "1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement." Again, the story never establishes that he broke a single ordinance, and even opens with the information that everything tested that came out of the basement was safe.

      Third, "what I hate more is idiots that spread half-truths" - careful there, you might not like where that lands

    28. Re:Zoning gone wild. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Which is fine and dandy. I agree that anyone who inadequately stores large quantities of stuff in their house that can present a significant danger to neighbours ought to be fined, reprimanded, told to shape up. Not necessarily in that order.

      What bothers me about this story though is the comment from the code enforcement officer: "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation."

      I don't give a rats ass what she thinks is a customary home occupation. If I can build a nuclear reactor in my basement that is properly shielded and up to code for nuclear reactors, I don't see what business it is for her or anyone else. If I decide to store every chemical known to man in my basement, and said basement is properly reinforced and secured, I still don't see the problem. I can see that someone might want to take a look and check that everything is on the up and up. But that comment has no place in something that should be strictly about fire hazards and improper storage of flammable chemicals.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    29. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.

      You call yourself a scientist? Yet you insist on presenting an untested theory as fact? Within the articles you will find it reported that the fire in the AC was "unrelated", leaving a presumption that though unstated this was their fire department's inspectors report and they are trained in accelerant detection. The articles are a bit scanty in their descriptions of the cellar, so for all we know it may have been set up like a vault and had seperate air circulation as well as some vapor disposal precautions. These are of course potentially incorrect assumptions, but at least they are not stated as fact in the way you did. The fire is a fact, but the rest of your statement is at best an educated guess which goes against the articles' reports that the fire was an "unrelated" event.

    30. Re:Zoning gone wild. by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Maybe after that you can poke him in the chest and say "what are you going to do about it?"

      You forgot, "my taxes pay your sallary!"

      They really like that one.

    31. Re:Zoning gone wild. by dedazo · · Score: 1

      "Zoning" is anti-liberty crapola law; always has been.

      When your neighbour decides to turn his home into a fish & chips bar, you'll understand why zoning laws exist.

      And if you don't like it, you can just buy his house. You can afford it, right?

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    32. Re:Zoning gone wild. by archont · · Score: 1

      I assure you his house (and no one's is)

      20-30cm think outer hand-cut stone in concrete

      20cm reinforced concrete /w internal pillars

      15cm fiberglass insulation

      25cm calcium silicate bricks

      Tell me buddy, what kind of fire would eat that through?

    33. Re:Zoning gone wild. by WillRobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So those 200 gallon fuel tanks everybody has in the north, what about those! Hope the electric companies in MA decide that that is way to dangerous to have in a residential area!!! Hope the electric bill makes you more comfortable

       

    34. Re:Zoning gone wild. by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      someone's a bit tetchy today. i don't see anywhere where the gp mentioned churches, the perils of science, etc. so you're pulling a lot of personal baggage into your response that is rather unwarranted....

      that said, i'm not a big fan of actions like this either...to the extent that a person is only jeopardizing themselves. there are and should be lines though.... the next-door neighbor likes to cook up nitroglycerin? not cool, for example. and yes, please remove the materials from next to my house. he wants to do it in some shed or barn not in my backyard? by all means. have a blast.

      imo, having determined that the materials weren't imminently dangerous, they should have been returned. it's the disregard for property rights that i see most at issue here, not necessarily the concern for hazardous activities in a residential area. now...perhaps the law draws the line a little too far on the "keep people safe" side of things, but the line should be there.

    35. Re:Zoning gone wild. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      TFA did not mention that the hobby enjoyed by Mr. Deeb in the privacy of his own private home basement was in any way a public nuisance or somehow disturbing the peace of the neighborhood. If he is not causing undue disturbance to the neighborhood or the peace AND he is not using his laboratory to mix up illegal drugs or create explosives or other substances which pose an extreme hazard to the neighborhood (neither of which was the case, at least according to TFA) then it is really nobody's damn business (except Mr. Deeb's) which hobbies Mr. Deeb chooses to enjoy in the privacy of his own home. The zoning laws very often get used in this country to harass people who are unpopular or sanction people who are perhaps a bit unusual, but are not doing anything spectacularly dangerous or illegal. We should be careful about using the force of law to limit what hobbies a man can enjoy on his own private property or else how are we different than any other two bit authoritarian country where private property, privacy, and eventually basic rights and freedoms are neither protected nor respected? I swear, we are turning into a nation of ignorant busybodies and it is damned disturbing to follow that course through to its ultimate and logical conclusion.

    36. Re:Zoning gone wild. by thesupraman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So tell me, just how big a propane grill or petrol fuel tank would you consider illegal in a residential zone?

      there is no sense is scaremongering about 'how flammable' as I am sure you know, petrol is a critically dangerous item in that respect, and yet I can keep large quantities in my garage without any form of concern.

      Any you really have never seen an AC fire in a non-chemical filled house? wow, must be some high quality houses you are used to where compressors never burn out..

    37. Re:Zoning gone wild. by skywire · · Score: 1

      In the absence of zoning laws, you would almost certainly have bought a house in a neighbourhood with restrictive covenants preventing the fish & chips bar, voluntarily entered into. And guess what? Those can actually be relied upon over time, unlike the zoning, which can be pulled out from under you as soon as the local developers and their cronies in city government find it in their interest. Or, without such covenants, you would have bought the property already discounted for the possibility of the fish & chips bar, with eyes wide open and consenting to allow a fish & chips bar.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    38. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      When your neighbour decides to turn his home into a fish & chips bar, you'll understand why zoning laws exist.

      My neighbor on the east is an Albertson's grocery store. This is extremely convenient for me, frankly. My neighbor to the south, across the street, is a Dairy queen. My neighbor to the west is a motel (across an empty lot that in fact, I do own. And plan to turn into something. Someday.)

      I have no problem with any of these uses of private property, nor can I think of any reason why I should -- they're not using my property, after all.

      Now, I presume that a "fish and chips bar" is where they train sharks to chip away at national security assets, is that right? And it's a bar, so these are (potentially) drunk sharks?

      [thinks hard] Nope, as long as they keep their drunk sharks off my land, I think I'd be ok with a "fish and chips bar." Sharks need to relax too, you know. Did you know they have to swim 24/7 just to breathe? Poor things. No wonder they drink.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    39. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      Zoning laws are morally repugnant, and I applaud everyone who violates them.

      All she said was "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere". That cunt couldn't cite any actual regulation.

      I hope her personal life gets fucked up beyond belief for this. I wonder if she's married and/or has kids. If so, it would be fun to turn her husband against her, get him to divorce her, and make her lose custody of the kids.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    40. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      <aol>me too</aol>

      Honestly, what crack do you have to smoke to want to outlaw perfectly respectable hobbies? Maybe next time it'll be some Slashdotter with 20 computers, and the nanny crying that "no one needs that many! It's against zoning!" Into math and reading a bunch of textbooks? "He's weird! It's against zoning!" A friend of mine builds trucks and restores classic cars. "No one needs more than one vehicle! It's against zoning!"

      I can understand a certain minimum set of standards, like having to mow your lawn and not painting the house plaid, but there's no rational justification against doing whatever you want to do within the privacy of your own home.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    41. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.

      Funny how your studies taint your opinions. I took a bunch of electrical engineering classes in college, and the fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that his AC got too hot.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    42. Re:Zoning gone wild. by dedazo · · Score: 1

      Given where you live (obviously not in a residential suburb), your comments about zoning being evil are irrelevant. What, are you angry because your city prevented you from opening a plutonium processing facility in your empty lot?

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    43. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Did it ever occur to you that one might be able to rent lab space in a properly zoned facility, and as a by-product, not end up endangering your neighbours?

    44. Re:Zoning gone wild. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you got lucky. I'd love to live next to a grocery store, personally.

      It's really a matter of perspective: what if your neighbor decided to start a junkyard (excuse me, auto salvage business) instead? Is that affecting you yet (I'd say yes, but YMMV)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    45. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your science experiments, if dangerous (say you are trying to find a more energy-dense fuel then gasoline), certainly can blow up my house.

      My hands can tear off your head. Do you now want to say I can't have hands? My feet can drive your nuts right into your abdomen, rupturing them along the way, destroying your ability to have kids. You want to outlaw my feet? My tree has branches which a high wind can toss through your windows, or I can pick up from the ground and use to whip your face into a bloody mess. You want to outlaw trees? My toilet often contains matter that would qualify as a biological weapon; I could use that against you in any number of unsavory ways. You want to outlaw toilets except in "designated toilet zones"?

      What you're doing here is (a) imagining how terrible it would be if someone did "something" you don't like with something else, and (b) outlawing the something else because you have terrified yourself that the something could happen. No crime has been committed, you're outlawing things based on your imagination. It's sick behavior.

      Why should I assume that risk?

      If you want to reduce your risk, you should go ahead and do so to the degree you have resources that allow you to get it accomplished. Buy more land; put some space between you and those people you're so terrified of. Build a bunker. Pull the sheets over your head. But if you want to control what *I* do so as to reduce *your* risk, you can go take a long walk off a short pier. If you don't have the resources to reduce your risk, then you don't get to do so.

      And they lower my property values certainly, because other people want to be compensated for that risk.

      Property values are always a gamble. For me, and for you. Now, why is it that you think I am supposed to serve as an uncompensated guarantor of your property values at the cost of my liberties? Get back to me on that, would you?

      It could raise my insurance premiums.

      Insurance is, by definition, gambling. You bet amounts of money that something is going to happen; the insurance company takes the bet and pays off if it does. Unless it can get out of it, of course. The rates are based on the odds you have bought into by choosing how and where you live, as well as innumerable other factors like your credit rating, your criminal history, the flood plain, your neighbors, etc. All of these things are a matter of your choice and control at one point or another, and aside from that, it is your choice to gamble in the first place. Now, why *exactly* am I responsible for your gambling habits? Get back to me on that one too. Oh, and don't even go to the "I have a mortgage and am required to have insurance"; that's not my fault or responsibility in any way. You entered into that contract by your own free will. Not my problem. Talk to your bank. And good luck with that.

      Suppose you paint your house day-glow orange. Well, it doesn't seem dangerous, but on the other hand, again, it lowers my property values. I have to look at an ugly eyesore (assuming I have line of sight).

      Oh, brother. Is there some guarantee that the world must look beautiful in your sight? If you want such a guarantee, buy enough of the world that all you can see is yours, and then see to it that it looks like you want it to. Don't tell me what MY part of the world must look like. If you can't afford to buy enough of the world to guarantee what you see is what you want to see, then you get to suffer along with the rest of us, actually seeing what other people do with their little chunks of land. It's terrible, I know, this blatant conjunction of the ideas of actual ownership and freedom. Just sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it?

      What about loud music?

      What abo

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    46. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch...
      I think you may have crossed a line somewhere.

    47. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you got lucky. I'd love to live next to a grocery store, personally.

      Yeah, we (my sweetheart and I) laughingly refer to it as "the larder." It's about 60 feet from one of my doors to their door; and they even gave us our own cart we can wheel home. Nice neighbors. Not at all like those drunk, infrastructure destroying sharks the other post talked about...

      what if your neighbor decided to start a junkyard (excuse me, auto salvage business) instead? Is that affecting you yet (I'd say yes, but YMMV)

      To the degree that I want to control what the adjacent land is used for, I need to buy it. Otherwise, it'll be used for whatever the owner deems appropriate. That's right and proper, and junkyard, sewage treatment plant, or slaughterhouse (which, as a vegetarian, I would definitely find appalling, since you're looking for something that would annoy me), it's not my place to say one way or the other, unless I own the land. If I want to control that land, I need to undertake the purchase of it. I don't obtain legitimate rights over the neighbors because my sense of (whatever) is offended, or if I live in fear of some issue. Nor do they obtain legitimate rights over me.

      To put it another way, nothing affects me that doesn't actually affect me. Neighbors set up a crack house? Not my land, not my business. They have guns? Not my business. They shoot a bullet through my property? Now I care, and there are laws that deal with that, and there should be, because such an action is a direct assault on me, so I can take appropriate action. I don't need a law that says "you can't sell crack", I just need a law that says "you can't shoot guns across another person's property." And of course, if there were no law saying they couldn't sell crack, then crack would be a mega-cheap commodity and no dealer or buyer would need to use their guns in the normal course of business, so there's another facet of how crushing people's liberties doesn't solve problems, it causes them.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    48. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Given where you live (obviously not in a residential suburb), your comments about zoning being evil are irrelevant.

      I'm sorry, you think only residential suburbs have zoning? Are you high?

      What, are you angry because your city prevented you from opening a plutonium processing facility in your empty lot?

      No, I'm angry because the gentleman in TFA/TFS was stopped from conducting scientific research in his own home, in the absence of any activity that was harming anyone else. Read the thread. This unusual (and seemingly uncommon) procedure may, presuming a modicum of intelligence that you have not, I must admit, demonstrated, yield an understanding of the conversation thus far, and in so doing, answer your question for you. Reading comprehension - highly underrated. Trust me on this.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    49. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      [narrows eyes] careful, boy, we don't stand for no one talkin sense 'round here...

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    50. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      i don't see anywhere where the gp mentioned [...] science

      From the GP (now G....GP): "conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood"

      ...the next-door neighbor likes to cook up nitroglycerin? not cool, for example. and yes, please remove the materials from next to my house. he wants to do it in some shed or barn not in my backyard? by all means. have a blast.

      Yes, exactly, he shouldn't be doing it in a shed or barn in your backyard. He should be doing it in his backyard, basement, etc. Cooking it up isn't, and shouldn't, be a problem. Blowing it up such that it blows you up, breaks your windows, and/or showers you with shrapnel... now that is a problem. And there are laws against blowing up your neighbor, so we don't need laws against cooking up nitroglycerin; also, if you are concerned that your neighbor's domicile or outbuildings may explode, then you should buy enough land so that if such an event happens, you'll be safe. Me, I just gamble that the neighbor won't explode, burn down, or conduct a study of communicable diseases in their upstairs bedroom. If I decide I don't like the odds at some point, I'll adjust them in place on my property as best I can, or I'll try to buy out the neighbor, or I'll move.

      I even have a smallish example along these lines; the motel to the east is a bit decrepit, and so doesn't qualify as "lovely scenery", etc. So I put in stained glass windows. Now my view is gorgeous. Never had to say a word to the neighbor. Probably increased the value of his property. :)

      The problem with regulating behaviors so that risk is abolished is that there is literally no end to such regulation, or to such risks.

      Houses burn, so we should clearly outlaw matches. And gas, coal, oil, and wood furnaces! And magnifying glasses! And sticks - you can rub sticks together, definite fire hazard there. And fireplaces. And lighters, and lighter fluid, and grills, and stoves, and incandescent lightbulbs, and electricity... and weather, because lightning can cause fires... to do that, we'll have to strip the atmosphere from the planet, which will of course reduce the risk of fire even further... THAT'S IT! Lets outlaw the atmosphere!

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    51. Re:Zoning gone wild. by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      "Zoning" is anti-liberty crapola law; always has been. You want to control what goes on at the property next door, or down the block? Fine, then buy it. Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.

      Zoning has been happening since the 12th century - in at least one case a person purchased a small plot of land next to a large estate for the sole purpose if putting in a tannery to drive out the estate owners so he could purchase the estate for pennies.

      Part of zoning is to regulate what types of businesses can be placed in places where people live for both their comfort & safety. According to at least one person, Mr Deeb had dioxins in his basement. Those are rather potent carcinogens which become airborne in a fire rather easily. That poses an unacceptable risk in a residential community.

      I've worked in a chem lab, getting one certified to play with things like that is no picnic - and from both reports I read, he would have been shut down in an industrial setting also; the difference being he would be hit with EPA & OSHA fines as well.

    52. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      I can understand a certain minimum set of standards, like having to mow your lawn and not painting the house plaid

      Covenants ensure that what you want (prevent plaid homes, unmowed lawns, junk cars) is accomplished by mutual agreement, prior to the purchase of your property. You enter into a contract with clearly set out terms that shares something that you and your neighbor(s) agree is of sufficient value in the overall picture of ownership as to certify your performance in regard to it. If that's not the case, you don't buy the property.

      Zoning, on the other hand, coerces people into doing what they don't want, or not doing what they do want, often well after the purchase of their property. Usually because a bunch of people were trying to come up with crimes that people MIGHT do in their fevered little imaginations.

      This is why zoning is fascist evil by its very nature.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    53. Re:Zoning gone wild. by dedazo · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you think only residential suburbs have zoning? Are you high?

      No, zoning where you live is evidently very different from the zoning situation where this happened. According to Google maps, it's a residential area.

      presuming a modicum of intelligence that you have not,

      If you weren't trying so very hard to be clever and failing at it, you would have made the distinction of living downtown (or wherever it is that you live at) with zoning laws designed for that kind of area, and zoning laws for residential neighbourhoods. The former usually results in a flat i a building above a chinese takeout place, the latter does not.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    54. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not arguing. It's ripe for abuse by the kinds of petty little bureaucrats discussed here, especially since zoning laws can change at any time. At least you know what you're getting into with a homeowner's association (not that I'd be part of one regardless).

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    55. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Zoning has been happening since the 12th century

      Precedent is not a worthy argument, it assumes previous decisions were correct, and the record doesn't show that to be an accurate presumption.

      in at least one case a person purchased a small plot of land next to a large estate for the sole purpose if putting in a tannery to drive out the estate owners so he could purchase the estate for pennies.

      I guess the estate wasn't large enough, then, was it? And also, the estate owners didn't buy the plot of land next door before the tannery people, did they? And whose responsibility would that have been? So who is at fault here? The estate owners, clearly.

      Part of zoning is to regulate what types of businesses can be placed in places where people live for both their comfort & safety.

      One word: Covenants. Otherwise, I don't authorize you to decide what liberties you may crush in order to make me "safer." I deem liberty of considerably greater value than safety. Your attempt to redefine that is anathema to me. So do it for yourself; don't do it for -- or to -- me.

      According to at least one person, Mr Deeb had dioxins in his basement.

      Oh, fiddlesticks. The supermarket that is my neighbor has row after row of containers of insecticide, chemicals like ammonia and bleach (Chlorine) and numerous other quite deadly things on the shelves. They even carry Twinkies, for goodness sake. Those things will kill you! If that store burns down, the vapors will no doubt be hugely hazardous. I *really* don't give a flying dog turd. Stop trying to protect me from everything. Really. Just STOP it. I'm gonna die anyway, eventually, from some damned thing. I'd like to get there without being bundled in swaddling cloth, breathing through a mandated filter, and being forbidden to walk because it puts wear on my hip joints. And I like buying my bleach next door. I really do.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    56. Re:Zoning gone wild. by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      What about loud music? Foul odors? Constantly having 30 people over and taking up all the street parking?

      Howdy, neighbor! Did you know I'm also stealing your wireless and shagging your daughter?

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    57. Re:Zoning gone wild. by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about? It IS a sad day, and our youth ARE afraid of being uncooperative. It might affect their future job prospects, after all.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    58. Re:Zoning gone wild. by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Actually, zoning laws don't necessarily come into play in the storage of explosives. Depending on the class of explosive you're licensed to carry, you're required by that license to have a bunker that meets guidelines to store those explosives, specifically to prevent chain reactions to other bunkers and surrounding areas, including people, but the BATF can't say much if it's your own property.

      Here's the BATF laws and regulations regarding explosives: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/exlawreg/fullvers.pdf

    59. Re:Zoning gone wild. by syousef · · Score: 1


      It is a long-standing American tradition to run home-based businesses, invent things in home workshops, etc.

      In other words, fuck off and die, you fascist!

      People need to know when to stop typing. The first line is succinct and makes the point. The second line wasn't necessary and makes you look like a crackpot abusive troll (when I'd lay bets you're not). You did yourself a huge disservice with that second line, even if it was modded up.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    60. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 1

      It's not the bricks or all the concrete, it's the shingles, wooden window frames, and other stuff that burns through.
      Make everything in your house completely of concrete and then you have no fire risk, otherwise all carbon can burn with enough fuel around (i.e. - organic chemicals). Plus, a large hydrocarbon fire will actually cause the water in concrete to explode, leading to structural failure of the wall and allowing fire to come in.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    61. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 1

      It's one of those things about risk. Some risks you can live with, others not. Fuel tanks, if they're maintained, at least have flame arrestors on them, but yes - you make a good point. As much chemicals as were described in the article, that's a fuel load larger than a 200 gallon fuel tank.

      Still - as a chemist I'm not happy how he was treated, but there are better ways to practice the profession without conforming. This is why you buy a house in the country so you can do whatever you want when you completely own the land. In a residential area - not a good idea.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    62. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 1

      Define large quantities of petrol. 20L, 50L, 1000L? The size of the fuel load determines the risk. A propane tank or a couple gallon tanks in a home isn't that big a fire risk. The levels of chemicals in this guy's house - much higher.

      Compressor fires are a funny thing. In the US where we still have a bunch of chlorofluorocarbons grandfathered in, when the compressor fails and the gas escapes, the gas will usually put out the fire since its a flame retardant. In the EU though, to comply with Kyoto protocol, they switched to an even better refrigerant, butane/pentane mixes, which are highly flammable, so when they fail the gas that escapes can get ignited by the fan motor. I've personally never had a AC compressor go out, and I've got a 25 year old AC unit. I've seen the arson reports thought that point to organic vapors condensing in the AC system and the fire getting started there though, hence my reason for suggesting that's how the fire started.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    63. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but he didn't have all his chemicals properly stored - which was obvious when he invited the fire fighters in to solve the AC fire. Had he put all the chemicals in proper storage cabinets, fume hoods, etc., I doubt his house would have been raided after the Firemen saw what was in the house. But you're right that the code enforcement officer was abrasive on what someone can and can't do in their home.
      If you really want a home lab though - do it out in the country where you can be left alone according to code.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    64. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 1

      Depends on what caught fire. If it was the wiring that shorted, then yes, I agree with you. If it was a fire in the AC vent, then I'm probably right. Note I say probably. I'm basing my conclusion on arson analysis reports I've seen. The levels of heat required to ignite metals are above and beyond what a failed AC unit can generate, so that's why I think it came from the chemicals.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    65. Re:Zoning gone wild. by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      You added paprika to your dinner?

      That is culinary research and design. You lose all your cooking ware!!! Bahhh!!!

      Sorry, what did you say? You built a model aircraft, but removed some of the wings to increase roll speed? Wow, you're doing aeronautical research and design.

      How exactly does one define something so absurdly broad, except perhaps, to ask whether or not it was commercial.

      If he was selling goods out of his basement, sure zoning laws are obviously being broken.

      But just having a hobby... almost ANY hobby, involves some "research" and some "design".

      Because she doesn't understand how chemistry works, it's "industrial" to her. Because my strapping a camera to the bottom of a model airplane is a bit more simple, that's just a hobby, however.

      Or should I lose my airplane for zoning violations?

      meh?

      Ignorance... or absurd law... one or the other.

      Either way, it's worth bitching about.

    66. Re:Zoning gone wild. by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      That's some charged material, right there. Calm down son, present some rational arguments and carry your viewpoint forward. "THE RULES ARE INFECTING OUR SOUUUULS" isn't going to win too many minds.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    67. Re:Zoning gone wild. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        A couple points:

        The man is a professional chemist, not some home amateur. He obviously knew how to keep his lab safe, as there had been no problems with it ever before. Not even minor complaints, apparently.

        Lab space is bloody expensive, and not all chemists are rich enough to afford their own private lab space (if such was even available in his area)

        I will agree if he gets charged with a zoning violation; the law already was there and he should have been aware of it. But the authorities went very much overboard - at the very, very least, he should be compensated for the investment in his equipment; I bet I could make a good argument for compensation for loss of any ongoing work he had, too, if I were a lawyer ;)

        If I were him I would definitely bring a civil suit against the local authorities. The locals could simply have held him until a team of experts investigated the home and determined whether or not it was unsafe. Instead they confiscated and are going to destroy about half his livelihood (a guess, I have a home workshop that counts for about that much) for something that really only is worth a hefty fine and perhaps a demand that he move it elsewhere.

        Ignorance of science by people in positions of power is an extremely bad thing...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    68. Re:Zoning gone wild. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Given that the AC unit was on the second floor and relatively atmospherically isolated from the basement* I think it's much more likely it was a faulty AC or bad wiring/outlet; or slightly less likely they just hadn't cleaned their AC for years and the dust bunnies caught fire.
        The first possibility - electrical fires - is by far the most common cause I've seen in more than ten years exp doing apartment building maintenance.

      * A second floor window unit means probably a bedroom, one can assume about 2-3 doors between there and the basement that were generally closed; plus if the chemical content of the house air was strong enough to accumulate like that it would have been noticed by someone before, I'd think.

        I definitely agree with the points about zoning, however.

        Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    69. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there are laws against blowing up your neighbor, so we don't need laws against cooking up nitroglycerin[...] Houses burn, so we should clearly outlaw matches. And gas, coal, oil, and wood furnaces! And magnifying glasses! And sticks...

      Your ideological purity is fun to watch, and obviously fun for you to defend, but I'd hate to live with the results. I don't want a pig farm or a junk yard or an iron smelter next door to me, thank you. And neither do most people, hence zoning laws. The point is that these kinds of developments would affect me, even if they're not on my land - they would affect my land, its value and my ability to enjoy it. I bought my land because the neighborhood is residential and I can expect it to stay that way thanks to zoning laws. Why not let people cooperate through reasonable zoning laws enacted by democratically elected governments? Houses here, pig farms there. Room for everybody and no surprises.

      Yes I know not all zoning laws are "reasonable." We can negotiate and come to agreements on what's "reasonable" through the democratic process, which works at least sometimes.

      Covenants ensure that what you want (prevent plaid homes, unmowed lawns, junk cars) is accomplished by mutual agreement, prior to the purchase of your property. You enter into a contract with clearly set out terms that shares something that you and your neighbor(s) agree is of sufficient value in the overall picture of ownership as to certify your performance in regard to it. If that's not the case, you don't buy the property.

      But that's what zoning laws effectively do, only more democratically. But I know you will be too cynical to accept the idea of cooperation through government. You see government only as an agent of oppression.

      I used to live in a neighborhood with covenants and my neighbor got me in trouble for parking my car in my driveway. I got him back by ratting him out for not mowing his back yard. God I'm glad I don't live there anymore.

      The problem with regulating behaviors so that risk is abolished is that there is literally no end to such regulation, or to such risks.

      It apparently takes a mind more subtle than yours to appreciate that there are positions between the extremes.

    70. Re:Zoning gone wild. by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

      That is until the zone you or build a subdivision, while you have been doing it for years.

      Looking at the other comments, they obviously didn't RTFA, he is a retired chemist, that means he has a degree in it, besides years of practice.

      I agree with you that it would be nice if he had a nice house in the country to do his experimenting in, but remember he's retired, and may have a limited budget to work with, and is probably spending more on his work than the rest of his normal living expenses.

      Now the idea of having a bunch of unlabeled (as in complete MSDS sheets on each one) per the "investigators" report, does not mean he did not know what was in every jar. I did not see any list of what he had, so I cant comment on proper containment of what he had. And it really is unfair to just judge on the limited info I read.

    71. Re:Zoning gone wild. by mbius · · Score: 1

      A-goddamned-men, brother.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    72. Re:Zoning gone wild. by mbius · · Score: 1

      Not all zoning is dumb.

      Fair.

      In this case, with as large as chemical fuel load he had in the home if his house went up it would likely take out the other houses nearby

      Do you have an inventory sheet we don't? You argue from authority:

      I AM a fire safety researcher, and I know just how flammable most chemicals can be, especially since it looks like he was doing organic chemistry, which is what I have my doctorate in

      ...in contradiction of TFA: Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb's basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products, whose author's credentials are no less impressive. My point is:

      the fire risk that would have eventually happened.

      You aren't psychic. Also:

      The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.

      Keywords: "basement, second floor, unrelated fire." I don't see how fumes find their way to a window unit, or why they'd condense in August where it's hot enough for the AC to kick on.

      he should have known better

      You've assumed a lot.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    73. Re:Zoning gone wild. by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 1

      How they hell can you ban scientific research? Even just figuring out basic home mysteries, like "why is my toilet running?" or "where is this water coming from?" could be considered scientific research. Where do you draw the line?

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    74. Re:Zoning gone wild. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The article says 1500 chemicals and the implication is small containers. If we assume 4 ounce bottles, that's 47 gallons. That's NOT "a fuel load larger than a 200 gallon fuel tank".

      Many chemicals aren't particularly flammable. I have close to 100 bottles of photographic chemicals, which are about evenly split between inorganic and organic. AFAIK none of them is a fire hazard, and many are no more flammable than table salt.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    75. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      According to at least one person, Mr Deeb had dioxins in his basement. Those are rather potent carcinogens which become airborne in a fire rather easily. That poses an unacceptable risk in a residential community.

      Printed circuit boards produce tremendous quantities of dioxins when burned. A small bottle of dioxin is likely to be no worse than burning my server rack. SHould my server rack be banned too?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    76. Re:Zoning gone wild. by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      When the officer says, "This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation," he's implying a zoning violation. It can be answered with, "This is not what we consider to be a customary neighborhood nuisance." Zoning laws should protect people from things like junk yards, car dealerships and noisy manufacturing. Going after this man is a stretch of those intentions.

      Not to mention that zoning laws are intended to section off areas of the community for business, manufacturing, and residence. They usually don't apply to hobbies.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    77. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Von+Rex · · Score: 1

      I did something you didn't. I read the fucking article.

      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

      Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement.

      There was a fire, and he had a shitload of chemicals improperly stored in a residential neighbourhood. Can you connect the dots, Mr. Libertarian Crusader?

      I'm sure if this was your neighbour and his next "accident" managed to burn your house down, you'd be the first one filing a lawsuit against the man plus any authorities that knew about this situation but did nothing to rectify it. Something tells me your high-flying rhetoric would be immediately forgotten, assuming your were lucky enough to survive the experience. Self-styled "Libertarians" are always people who want to evade responsibility for following any reasonable rule themselves, but immediately scream "there oughta be a law!" when they suffer the consequences of an encounter with someone was self-centred and childish as they are.

    78. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Not all zoning is dumb. In this case, with as large as chemical fuel load he had in the home, if his house went up it would likely take out the other houses nearby.

      Speculation

      I AM a fire safety researcher, and I know just how flammable most chemicals can be, especially since it looks like he was doing organic chemistry

      Speculation

      which is what I have my doctorate in. I assure you his house (and no one's is) [isn't] rated to address the fire risk that would have eventually happened.

      Speculation

      The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.

      INSANE speculation!

      Tell me, what "fumes" evaporate from a cool basement, rise to the second floor, then condense in a hot AC motor casing?

      Does your fire safety research involve making up long chains of unfounded assumptions like that?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    79. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      It's not the bricks or all the concrete, it's the shingles, wooden window frames, and other stuff that burns through. Make everything in your house completely of concrete and then you have no fire risk, otherwise all carbon can burn with enough fuel around (i.e. - organic chemicals). Plus, a large hydrocarbon fire will actually cause the water in concrete to explode, leading to structural failure of the wall and allowing fire to come in.

      Due to a scarcity of wood, nearly all of Mexico City is made of concrete. Despite a population approximately double that of Los Angeles, it has less than 1/10th the amount of fire fighting equipment. When most of your building is not flammable, a burning window frame generally stops at the window. Your analysis is weak.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    80. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      My hands can tear off... "designated toilet zones"?

      No to all your questions (although for the reasons you outlined, toilets are commonly confined to bathrooms.) That's a ludicrus strawman of my position. And, for the record, your hands cannot tear off my head.

      What you're doing here is... No crime has been committed, you're outlawing things based on your imagination.

      No, I'm using past experiences of myself and other people to prepare a probable vision of the future. See "Scientific Method". I'm not saying things have to be 100% safe, just that they cannot be 100% the other way. And there is a line.

      A crime is committed when a law is violated, so, yes I suppose a law would be violated (a zoning law).

      Insurance is, by definition, gambling.

      Insurance is the antithesis of gambling. Gambling is increasing risk and reward. Insurance is decreasing it. It's merely a way to remove risks inherit in the universe.

      What about it? If there's a band playing in your house, kick 'em out. If they're on your lawn, kick 'em off. If they're elsewhere, and you can still hear them, then go buy some insulation or a pair of earplugs. Maybe you should have bought more land so you could put some distance between you and them. Oh, wait. You want ME to buy the land, and then manage that land for YOUR convenience. For no compensation. In fact, strictly due to coercion. Let me think about that. Ok, I have: No. Next question?

      Okay, now replace band with reactor. I don't particularly want to insulate it; I have lead shielding. You should get some too. And a suit to go outside with. I just sit inside and watch TV, so I'm fine.

      No, wait, you bought a tiny little urban patch of grass and concrete and now you think you somehow *also* bought the right to tell the neighbor what they may do.

      Yup, I jave a tiny patch of land in a subdivision. And yup, when it was all one big plot, limitations were placed on what you could do, what color you could paint your house, etc. And then my neighbors bought their house. They should live with those conditions that were on the property when they bought it, or go elsewhere, right?

      You know where I'm going with this, right?

      My guess is to self-contradiction without being able to explain why.

      Is it really "reasonable people" who are disagreeing?... tell you what you can do on your own property.

      Yes, it's really only you who are disagreeing. And via volume but not argumentation. Your last statement brings up the question of what makes it "your" property. I never agreed to any private ownership of land on your part. Why should I be bound by it? Why should I be bound in what I claim as my property by what you or the government says I can or cannot do on it because "you own it"?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    81. Re:Zoning gone wild. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      there's a reason why the death rate among chemists has dropped, and its because we don't work like this guy does.

      And the ones who do can't die a second time.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    82. Re:Zoning gone wild. by loraksus · · Score: 1

      then fight any government wrongs in court.

      Assuming you're not murdered while in custody.

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/custody.death/

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    83. Re:Zoning gone wild. by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Wait, you actually need permission in the US to do things that are not "customary" in your home?

      Is there a list of what is and what isn't customary? Is the list the same for the entire country, or does it differ from town to town?

      Hahaha, "land of the free"!

    84. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Magada · · Score: 1

      I always get mod points when I don't need them. No fair!

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    85. Re:Zoning gone wild. by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, many chemicals aren't that flammable, and then there are many which are. Most photographic chemicals are water based so no issue there. It's all the organic chemistry solvents and chemicals it sounds like this chemist was using if he was trying to come up with replacements to bisphenols.
      So we don't know what he really had there since we're not the investigator. But - there are still better ways of practicing science in the home that wouldn't have got him in trouble.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    86. Re:Zoning gone wild. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the response :)

      I definitely understand what you're saying, and usually I would be all over the "not my land, not my business" idea, except that in a neighborhood what your neighbor is doing definitely can affect you in terms of your property value going down or otherwise becoming undesirable.

      This is certainly largely a matter of perspective; an eyesore for one man could be a convenience to another, so it's certainly valid to discount it entirely, I just wanted to point out more clearly part of the angle I was going for.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    87. Re:Zoning gone wild. by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.

      So the fumes were making their way from the basement up 2 floors to a certain AC unit in a certain window ?
      I think he might have noticed that the entire house was filled with fumes, which is the only way your comment would make sense.

    88. Re:Zoning gone wild. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      The real question is what Mr. Libertarian does after the chemist who destroys his property value in the long term - lets say chemical soil contamination - does after the chemist declares bankruptcy.

      Libertarian theory rests on the assumption that everyone can be held responsible for their actions. Here in the real world we know that's not the case.

    89. Re:Zoning gone wild. by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Ignorance of science by people in positions of power is an extremely bad thing...

      The same as ignorance of law by people in positions of science is an extremely bad thing too...

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    90. Re:Zoning gone wild. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I assure you his house (and no one's is) is rated to address the fire risk that would have eventually happened.

      I thought you were a fire safety researcher, not a fortune-teller.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    91. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real question is what Mr. Libertarian does after the chemist who destroys his property value in the long term - lets say chemical soil contamination - does after the chemist declares bankruptcy.

      Yes, (a) this should be actionable [it is actual interference with property], and (b) it is possible that the losses may not be recoverable. Just as a rape cannot be followed by virginity, a mugging cannot be followed by innocence, etc. Some things happen and you are changed, or your resources change, and that's the end of it. You can whine like a little bitch, or you can pull up your big-boy pants and go on with life.

      Life is full of risks. If there's nothing to be done, then that's the way it is. Such risks are worth taking to preserve liberty. That's where you (and the rest of the nanny-staters) differ, really. You think that the reduction of risk is worth giving up freedom. I don't think so. I find the entire idea to be cowardly.

      This fixation on property "value" is a side effect of property as investment; or in other words, gambling. What you're trying to accomplish by telling the neighbors what to do is have them guarantee a risk you decided to take by purchasing the property. I simply don't see where the neighbors become responsible for risks you decided to take (unless you enter into a signed covenant with them) such that you think you have the right to coerce them into behaving the way you want them to on their own property.

      Libertarian theory rests on the assumption that everyone can be held responsible for their actions.

      No, your version of libertarian theory rests on that presumption.

      My theory rests on the idea that I don't have any right to tell you what to do until you are causing me damage. If you stay off of my property, do not harm or trespass upon my property, and leave my physical self and those of my dependents alone, I don't have a beef with you.

      Is there is a risk this approach could lead to a loss on my part? Sure. Is it likely to? Not very. Are there benefits to taking this position? Yes, there are many. I judge the risk to be more than acceptable in light of the benefits received.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    92. Re:Zoning gone wild. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      So if I light a fuse on a stick of dynamite on my property next to your house you do you have any right to stop me before the dynamite explodes and rips a hole in your house?

      What if I'm just storing a crate of dynamite next to your house (on my property) sure it's old, not properly contained and starting to sweat, but odds are it's not going to blow. Well not today at least.

      What if I'm storing PCBs in my basement? Sure they're likely to just sit in the 55 gallon drum until I get around to disposing of them (properly?) but maybe there'll be a fire that starts in the air conditioner upstairs and when the fire department puts out my house fire the water washes them into your vegetable garden.

    93. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      No to all your questions (although for the reasons you outlined, toilets are commonly confined to bathrooms.) That's a ludicrus(sic) strawman of my position.

      Confining toilets to bathrooms doesn't stop me from using materials brewed therein against you. The Chemist confined his work to his house, wasn't hurting anyone either; so the comparison is quite apt. The man wasn't doing anything that harmed anyone else, so he should have been left alone.

      And, for the record, your hands cannot tear off my head.

      For the record, unless you're in the habit of wearing chain mail or have a neck like an elephant, they almost certainly can. However, if that's impossible for you to admit, let's just say that my fingers can poke your eyes out, and then follow up with, do you want to outlaw fingers?

      Insurance is the antithesis of gambling.

      Nonsense. Insurance is precisely the definition of gambling. Gambling is defined by taking a position of risk against an unknown outcome in order to benefit if you predict correctly. In the specific case of insurance, if you pay premiums all your life against fire, for instance, and your home never burns, then you predicted incorrectly and lost your bet, and the "house", that is, the insurance company, wins. They take all your bet money and return absolutely nothing of value to you. If, on the other hand, you've paid three premiums, and your house does burn, then the house (insurance company) pays off and you win. As is the case with all formalized gambling operations, the house knows the odds very well and has arranged things so that the bets -- the premium rates -- will cover them even though there are sure to be a few winners.

      Okay, now replace band with reactor. I don't particularly want to insulate it; I have lead shielding. You should get some too. And a suit to go outside with. I just sit inside and watch TV, so I'm fine.

      Radiation will do harm; the correct analogy would be to bullets flying across your property, not to music. Fail.

      Yup, I jave(sic) a tiny patch of land in a subdivision. And yup, when it was all one big plot, limitations were placed on what you could do, what color you could paint your house, etc. And then my neighbors bought their house. They should live with those conditions that were on the property when they bought it, or go elsewhere, right?

      If there is a signed covenant between the neighbors that must be executed in order to buy, then yes, certainly. The sellers can ensure this is the case. That's a consensual agreement between informed, competent adults.

      If the means of control is coercive, however, then we have a different situation. So if your neighbor moved in and then a zoning law is passed that says (for instance) that they cannot display a flag or raise a horse in the back yard, this is not reasonable. If you, on the other hand, go to your neighbor on the east and hand them a document that says "All homeowners signatory to this document agree not to permit or cause the display of flags on their property, and to require the signature of this document if the property is sold, and that displaying a flag will incur the following penalty to the homeowner", and they sign it, and you sign it, then you're on solid ground. If your neighbor to the west doesn't choose to sign, though, that's where your flag-free zone ends.

      Your last statement brings up the question of what makes it "your" property. I never agreed to any private ownership of land on your part. Why should I be bound by it? Why should I be bound in what I claim as my property by what you or the government says I can or cannot do on it because "you own it"?

      It is my opinion -

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    94. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      There was a fire, and he had a shitload of chemicals improperly stored in a residential neighbourhood. Can you connect the dots, Mr. Libertarian Crusader?

      Sure I can. He had chemicals stored in his house in whatever way he chose to store them. Perfectly fine with me. But the government got involved as a side effect of serving a legitimate function -- tax supported fire suppression (of something that had nothing to do with his chemical activities, you'll note) -- and now that they have seen that there are chemicals, they're going to impose all manner of coercive, liberty crushing rules, likewise they are going to apply penalties for liberty-crushing rules previously not followed. Inside this man's home. So we go from paid service to coercive liberty crushing. This is pretty typical government behavior, and doesn't surprise me, though I certainly don't agree with it. So what is your point? Did you actually have a point?

      I'm sure if this was your neighbour(sic) and his next "accident" managed to burn your house down, you'd be the first one filing a lawsuit against the man plus any authorities that knew about this situation but did nothing to rectify it.

      Your certainty is entirely misplaced. It is in no way based upon any factual knowledge of my behavior, my situation, or the prophylactic actions I have taken as a consequence of my view that it is my responsibility to see to it that my home does not burn. Whatever your certainty develops from, it has nothing to do with me. I suspect some introspection is called for here.

      Something tells me your high-flying rhetoric would be immediately forgotten, assuming your were lucky enough to survive the experience.

      That would be your imagination failing to take into account that not everyone views the world the way you do, not everyone thinks the world is a place where they should depend on the government acting like "mommy", and not everyone thinks actions at law are the correct remedy for every problem that comes up. The fact is, you could walk up to my home and apply a blowtorch to it for an hour, and it wouldn't burn or even smoke. So I don't worry about the neighbor's buildings burning, or not. In other words, I took the responsibility for seeing to it that my home wouldn't burn, and consequently, I don't have to worry about my neighbor in that regard. See how easy that is?

      Self-styled "Libertarians" are always people who want to evade responsibility for following any reasonable rule themselves, but immediately scream "there oughta be a law!" when they suffer the consequences of an encounter with someone was self-centred(sic) and childish as they are.

      Is that so? And your evidence of me doing this is... what, exactly? Further, what is your evidence of libertarians in general screaming "there oughta be a law"? Feel free to get back to me when you have actual data to replace your rhetoric.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    95. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      So if I light a fuse on a stick of dynamite on my property next to your house you do you have any right to stop me before the dynamite explodes and rips a hole in your house?

      No, I shouldn't have have any such right. I do have the right to build a wall; and/or buy enough land in the first place that I have buffer space against actions and events I think I might be at risk from; and to harden my domicile against whatever I think it might need hardening against.

      I don't consider explosives to be a likely risk, so I'm not intentionally hardened against explosions. However, once you've blown your stick of dynamite up, if you have done me harm I have obtained the right to respond. This factor is one that should generate some prudence on your part. This is true for any behavior that could, if mismanaged, put others at risk. There should be consequences - not just financial - for committing unprovoked violence upon others, their wards, and their property. This is an important basis for liberty; just as you should let me walk around with arms or martial arts skills, you make the rule that says I can't just arbitrarily use those arms or marital arts against people. You don't say "no arms" or "no martial arts"; you say "observe everyone's right to remain unmolested or we (society) will step on your head until it squishes." And, you allow the exception that when someone steps on my liberties, freedom to use my arms or my skills becomes immediately available to me; I, in turn, need to make my best efforts at making sure I can explain this after the fact.

      Real-world example: I consider fire from the neighbors to be a serious risk; consequently I harden against that possibility. I don't carry fire insurance, either, as investing in the house's fire-resistance is a better path, in my opinion, than engaging in gambling with the insurance company. Should I wish to sell the building, telling people it is essentially fireproof to outside forces is a valuable selling point; that makes my approach not only safer, but an investment as well. There are many ways to harden against external fire risk; metal roof (check), fire resistant exterior treatment (check), top-to-bottom roof based sprinklers (check), minimal vegetation near the building (check), generator and local water storage (check)... you get the idea. And in the end, it costs less than fire insurance does.

      What if I'm just storing a crate of dynamite next to your house (on my property) sure it's old, not properly contained and starting to sweat, but odds are it's not going to blow.

      Same answer. I can harden to some degree if I'm concerned (border walls seem to be the obvious answer); I have the right to recourse once damage is done, though recourse may be limited by practical issues (and that is one of the factors that makes hardening something to consider.) I can also offer to help you store the materials in a manner that minimizes my risk while offering some benefit to you.

      What if I'm storing PCBs in my basement? Sure they're likely to just sit in the 55 gallon drum until I get around to disposing of them (properly?) but maybe there'll be a fire that starts in the air conditioner upstairs and when the fire department puts out my house fire the water washes them into your vegetable garden.

      Same answer. I can harden to some degree if I'm concerned (peripheral drainage control, which I do have, but for different reasons, also buffer area comes into play); I have the right to recourse once damage is done, though recourse may be limited by practical issues (and that is one of the factors that makes hardening something to consider.) In many cases, risks like this exist anyway; many houses have large containers of fuel oil on site; some store large amounts of paints and other chemicals.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    96. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      the Chemist confined his work to his house, wasn't hurting anyone either; so the comparison is quite apt.

      Except we aren't talking about him anymore. I don't defend what happened to him. I defend zoning laws in general.

      do you want to outlaw fingers?

      No, as I said before, it is a laugable strawman to claim my position is that.

      Insurance is precisely the definition of gambling. Gambling is defined by taking a position of risk against an unknown outcome in order to benefit if you predict correctly

      Insurance is a hedge on a bet that nature forces you to take. It cannot exceed the value of the property at risk (although I grant that valuation can be tricky in many cases). Is that a gamble, mayhaps. But unlike gambling, whose purpose is to increase risk and reward, hedging, such as insurance, is designed to reduce risk and reward both.

      Radiation will do harm;

      Now who is being terrified. Radiation is pouring into you right now. Some level will be harmful. At what stage of insufficent shielding of my reactor do you step in? What happens if my reactor puts out that level... unless I use my toaster and microwave at the same time? What if I swear that my reactor uses lead for shielding, but you see tons of empty play-doh containers in my trash the day I built it? What happens when I confide in you that the Flying Spagetti Monster confided in me that Play-doh is an acceptable substitute?

      If there is a signed covenant between the neighbors that must be executed in order to buy, then yes, certainly.

      Neat. So there was also a clause that let a group of X people impose additional clauses in the future without prior constent. And it was set up by the city/township before you bought your house. Or does your ownership precede the founding of he city?

      : Because on the most practical level, if you decide you aren't, you'll get your ass handed to you on the one hand, and on the other, if you don't show respect for other people's property, they're not likely to show respect for yours, and now it comes down to who has the bigger gun. And no sensible person wants that.

      And no sensible person wants the loudest music to determine what everyone on the block listens to. This argument seems to undermine your whole chain. I'll apply the same argument you make for your property rights to my property rights not to have you vibrate my air. Or do you see some difference?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    97. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      At what stage of insufficent(sic) shielding of my reactor do you step in?

      At the level known to do harm. The "radiation pouring into me" is far below that level. When the REMs impinging on the edge of my property exceed the REM levels known to be a problem, then there is a problem. This is not a tough thing to figure out.

      Neat. So there was also a clause that let a group of X people impose additional clauses in the future without prior constent(sic).

      Not at all. There is a clause that REQUIRES prior consent, which is something else entirely.

      And it was set up by the city/township before you bought your house.

      I don't have as much of a problem with rules that exist before you buy in, as long as you can find out about them. What I said, and exactly what I meant, was you move in, THEN they add a rule. That's what I have a major problem with in terms of homeowner's rights. If the rules aren't to your liking prior to purchase, don't purchase, unless the sacrifice is balanced out some other way. When it gets sticky, though, is when everyone zones things in such a way as to preclude finding a home if you want to fly a flag, raise a horse, experiment with chemistry, build a house with no windows. This is one of the factors that makes zoning a problem. There are others, and I've outlined some of them already. The main one is that unless there is no one living in a zoned area yet, then the zoning will step on people's liberties, even if they're not mine because I came in later.

      When I moved here, there were zoning issues I didn't like. I sat with my lawyer for two days going over them. In the end, I bought, because the property had many advantages. I had, and have, nothing to bitch about in that regard; I knew what I was doing.

      After I moved here, they tried to pass something else, and I went to every council meeting and raised the roof. It didn't pass (nor should it have - it was stupid.) I'm a good speaker, and frankly, most people who want to pass restrictive zoning laws are dimwits, or worse. Unfortunately, most towns have no one who will stand up and speak for the rights of the individual; for liberty; for freedom. While they have a surfeit of those who want protection from imaginary threats.

      And no sensible person wants the loudest music to determine what everyone on the block listens to. This argument seems to undermine your whole chain. I'll apply the same argument you make for your property rights to my property rights not to have you vibrate my air. Or do you see some difference?

      Yes, I think there's a difference. Music -- at SPLs less than jet engines or thereabouts, let's stipulate -- isn't going to hurt you and is something you can block out of your domicile; also, the air isn't yours, per se. It's a shared resource. Barring poisoning it, degrading its ability to support life, or outright withholding it, I'm not really convinced that you should have any leverage to otherwise control it. Which of the founding fathers was it who said "it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg"... Thomas Jefferson? Further, we've seen what happens when government gets control over speech; censorship. "Free speech zones." Curfews. Jail time. Fines. I don't like the smell of totalitarianism in the morning. I'd rather own some earplugs. But again, I value liberty far more than comfort. You, apparently, do not feel the same way.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    98. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      When the REMs impinging on the edge of my property exceed the REM levels known to be a problem, then there is a problem. This is not a tough thing to figure out.

      I'd imagine it's quite hard to determine. What's the level, when 20 years leads to a 10% chance of cancer, assuming average outdoor times of 1 hr/day, peak outdoor times of 4 hr/day? And what happens when it is one Rad below that level, and you think that I'm going increase usage (you see me bringing a huge TV in) so it will be dangerous. Must you wait until you are actively hurt to stop me?

      When it gets sticky, though, is when everyone zones things in such a way as to preclude finding a home if you want to fly a flag, raise a horse, experiment with chemistry, build a house with no windows. This is one of the factors that makes zoning a problem

      It's not just zoning, but a lot of capitalist enterprises that end up where you cannot find desirable combinations. I agree that that's an issue, which is why I think that democratic as opposed to plutocratic control will lead to less bad results (although hardly perfect or desirable).

      I don't have as much of a problem with rules that exist before you buy in, as long as you can find out about them. What I said, and exactly what I meant, was you move in, THEN they add a rule.

      But the overarching rule is that a majority can change any rule (except for the majority rule). And, as you eloquently pointed out, property values are a risk. The addition of a new rule may you want to move, or lower proprty values, but so would the day-glow house or next-door reactor.

      The main one is that unless there is no one living in a zoned area yet, then the zoning will step on people's liberties, even if they're not mine because I came in later.

      Zoning may step on people's liberties, if they disagree with the zoning. Aren't you the one that arguing about potential negative consequences is no reason to restrict liberty? Like the liberty of a group of people to enact zoning laws?

      Besides, the damage was likely done many owners ago, if it existed at all.

      the air isn't yours, per se. It's a shared resource.

      I agree with this. But a shared resource requires government control. At least to keep people from poisoning it. But why should air be treated differently from land? Why is land not a shared resource?

      we've seen what happens when government gets control over speech

      Better government than corporations. We've had better luck reigning in government.

      I value liberty far more than comfort. You, apparently, do not feel the same way.

      On the contrary, I value liberty greatly. Where we difer is on the conception of personal property. You view it as a right; I view it as an invention of society. I cannot get over the question of the original aquisition. The first person to get the land did not buy it, he claimed it. Other people cannot claim the same land, because he "saw it first". All your argumentation about owning the proceeds of your own labor are moot because I don't own the land, not because of the lack of matching the labor already put in that claim, but because I happen to be born centuries later than some guy. That hardly seems fair to me. That poisons all future transactions with that land. Hence, there can be no original "right" to the land, just a societal convience. And that's where I don't believe we have to protect too much. So, restrictions on loud music, paint colors, reactors, etc. are all added to maximize society's convience; the reason the property is privately owned.

      I agree with you, that within a home, you should have lots of privacy. However, running a commercial lab has huge externalities (pollution, risk of explosion, possibly parking, etc). Hence, th

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    99. Re:Zoning gone wild. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      This libertarian ideal that you espouse might be acceptable in wide open ranches, but it is simply not practical in areas with moderate population densities. People shouldn't have to buy estates to create buffers between their neighbors because they are unable to protect even against clear, imminent threats. As you said, sometimes retribution doesn't rectify the situation.

      Your "right to respond" to my stick of dynamite is not even clear since vigilante justice simply leads to escalation. Perhaps my lit stick of dynamite was supposed to make it easier to remove the debris caused by you cutting down the portion my tree which had grown into your swimming pool, but which I planted to block my view of the junkyard you started in your back yard. At which point can an outside force (the government) be called to intervene?

      Zoning laws are the only practical way to arbitrate disputes between landowners. If society does not have the power to enforce zoning laws the belligerent homeowner can simply stack risky behavior upon risky behavior until the neighbor fears for his life and is forced to vacate (like setting up a rifle range facing your bedroom). They also have the happy side effect of preventing disputes by clearly articulating unacceptable and unneighborly activities. Improperly storing substantial quantities of uncommon chemicals does pose a substantial and unusual risk, and should properly be regulated.

      That said, you have the recognized right preventing government from invading your home to ensure that you are following the law. (As opposed to the imagined and never recognized right to do whatever you see fit on your property.) If there is probable cause - that sweaty box of dynamite visible from the street - they do and should have the power to intervene before your unsafe activities cause damage.

      Similarly, you don't have the right to booby trap your house because of the potential damage that would result if emergency responders entered your home.

    100. Re:Zoning gone wild. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine it's quite hard to determine.

      Nope. Table here. What you do is check a cumulative exposure meter or "dosimeter", like this one. To check an area, you reset it, then leave it there for 24 hours, then read the exposure. If it exceeds any of the guidelines, you have cause. Simple.

      Must you wait until you are actively hurt to stop me?

      No. If you impinge upon the *edge* of my property with dangerous levels, I have justification for action; that doesn't mean I'm hanging out at the edge of my property; and the kind of radiation danger you're talking about decreases rapidly with distance. It really isn't a problem, as long as I know to monitor the levels. But law or no law, there's no difference there. I do own a Geiger counter and two resettable dosimeters, so your example is fine. Might not be for someone else, but then again, they aren't my problem, either.

      But the overarching rule is that a majority can change any rule (except for the majority rule).

      Actually, not here. We're a republic, not a democracy. So small numbers of people make the rules. This is an attempt to avoid tyranny of the majority; IMHO, it doesn't work, but nonetheless, that's our system.

      Zoning may step on people's liberties, if they disagree with the zoning. Aren't you the one that arguing about potential negative consequences is no reason to restrict liberty? Like the liberty of a group of people to enact zoning laws?

      No. I argue for personal liberty. Group liberty is something else entirely and is usually antithetical to individual liberty. The latter is more important than the former.

      I agree with this. But a shared resource requires government control. At least to keep people from poisoning it. But why should air be treated differently from land? Why is land not a shared resource?

      Because land is generally stable and can be controlled, fortified, quantified, guarded, mined, farmed, populated with domiciles and storage and manufacturing facilities and canals and roads and otherwise significantly improved without losing control or location; investments such as these need the assurance of stability in order to encourage the investment. If I point to a chunk of land and tell you, we all share this land, you can build here, and you do, and after you build your home, someone else comes along and says 'we all share this land, I'm going to live in your house with you', you're likely to be a little bit miffed. Without ownership, you lose control, and without control, there's little reason to invest. No investment means no improvement, no improvement means less commerce, taxes, etc., and so government has every reason to make ownership an important priority. Governments that don't do this - the ex-USSR comes to mind - tend to see very little enthusiasm for working the land. Farms under produce, buildings are not kept up, etc. Without a direct connection to the value of the land, again, investment is stifled.

      I cannot get over the question of the original aquisition. The first person to get the land did not buy it, he claimed it. Other people cannot claim the same land, because he "saw it first".

      This is true. The original "ownership" is a consequence of exploration and exertion of power, either directly (taking from previous residents, such as American Indians) or indirectly (claims made in the name of the monarch who funds the expedition or claims the region.) However, in this case, it's "he who has the power makes the rules" and it always has been. Doesn't make it right; but it makes it a fact.

      That poisons all future transactio

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    101. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a crock! You don't even know what the chemicals were. The large quanitites could have been drums of sodium bicarb, or DI water. The fact is, especially in Mass-hysteria-chutsetts, the government seizes first and bills later, period. This is pure theft, seizing property without due process. Like another post said, zoning issues don't *start* with the seizure of (likely) very expensive property, and then charging the owner vast sums to destroy it.

    102. Re:Zoning gone wild. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you would be thrilled to find your neighbours have started a sawmill in their former bedroom!

  27. Bet you the code dude by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    looks like that little piss ant from Ghost Busters that through the switch.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  28. The Creature lives Igor by gilbertopb · · Score: 1

    Dr Frankenstein, why are that village people in front of our door again?

    --
    Information technology means all information.
    1. Re:The Creature lives Igor by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 3, Funny

      Recruiting for the navy, perhaps? Maybe advertising for the YMCA?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
  29. America used to be #1 by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There used to be american kids studying home chemistry. We used to have kits to build rockets.

    Now, a bunch of silly fools that never took chemistry even in college are doing their best to outlaw what every intelligent child in the 60s and 70s did for fun.

    As a result, the US has not been doing groundbreaking chemistry in over a decade.

    Granted, computers are a big lure, but chemistry is the basis of our industry. We need to ENCOURAGE kids and adults to do chemistry, not prevent it with idiotic, foolish laws.

    If it is not more dangerous than fertilizer and diesel fuel, or styrofoam and gasoline, than it should be legal for a 16 year old kid to buy in the mail, without a license.

    Anythinge else is rank hipocracy and stupidity.

    P.S. I am not recommending a 12 year old do explosive experiments unsupervised, but I hate to tell you, THEY DO IT ANYWAY. They just go and get an aerosole can and a lighter, instead of ordering a kit.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:America used to be #1 by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Computers also have stupid laws restricting them. What is a better way to teach kids about P2P? Either have them A) Learn about it or B) download from TPB and they will learn that way.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:America used to be #1 by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My dad took my chemistry set away when I almost blew the house up. But this 4th of july my old friend Mike's seventeen year old son showed me a brand new way of blowing stuff up; it's in one of my NSFW journals. Anyway, put a little "Works" toilet bowl cleaner in a plastic bottle, but a strip of aluminum foil in it, screw on the cap, shake it, toss it down and walk away and it waill react violently and noisily, louder than a shotgun blast.

      The kids are indeed doing chemistry.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:America used to be #1 by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks to the school system, I don't this this science stuff is going to be a problem in another 10 years or so.

    4. Re:America used to be #1 by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Crushed dry ice with some room-temperature water will do the same thing, without the harsh chemicals.

    5. Re:America used to be #1 by jason.sweet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's better if the kids learn it at home than on the streets. Right?

      So we give the kids free bomb-making kits, boot-leg movies and free hookers and they are set for life.

      Damn! I wish I was a teenager again!

    6. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We still have model rockets.
      Estes is still in business. Sure the kits are dumb downed but very few kids will take the time to build a complex model these days. I wonder how few kids these days even build balsa models.
      It is just to easy to buy FSX or an airhog.
      Not only that but do you know how hard it is to find a field these days?
      Oh well. But then when I was a kid I had to live with the three books on airplanes or rockets they my local library had.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:America used to be #1 by Chroniton · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to do this 15-20 years ago. Iron nails work even better than aluminum. You're really just releasing hydrogen gas... which builds up pressure until the bottle pops. Lots of youtube videos here...

    8. Re:America used to be #1 by infolib · · Score: 1

      Pussy! Liquid nitrogen all the way!!!1!!111! (Or maybe liquid helium, but I'm not sure you'll manage to throw it before it blows).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    9. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that the stupid people aren't dying anymore.

    10. Re:America used to be #1 by bmwm3nut · · Score: 1

      I was making "Works" over a decade ago when I was a teenager. In fact, just yesterday my wife came home with a bottle of the Works (for actual use in cleaning a toilet) and I took it and made my first bomb in years.

    11. Re:America used to be #1 by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I very nearly got expelled in the 7th grade for an experiment with hydrogen. These days a kid who showed that kind of curiosity would be behind bars.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    12. Re:America used to be #1 by nsayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't this this science stuff is going to be a problem

      Apparently that grammar stuff isn't a problem anymore right now.

    13. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would caution you against admitting to felony explosives charges, especially in this day and age. When the feds come a knockin', don't say I didn't warn you.

    14. Re:America used to be #1 by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:America used to be #1 by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Key to playing with hydrogen is to never play with it in a balloon outdoors. And never, ever try to make a delayed fuse with masking tape. Winds might change, meaning you blow out the windows in a house, and cause a car to wreck, because they got startled at the "gunshots". This can lead to your father coming within an inch or two of going to jail. (come to think of it, this day and age, he would go to jail as a terrorist, that was 20 years ago)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    16. Re:America used to be #1 by SupplyMission · · Score: 1

      You can also do that with Drano.

      The gas released is hydrogen. If you make a weak mix in a lab quality glass flask, you can harvest the hydrogen by putting a balloon over the mouth of the flask while the reaction is occurring.

      Potential uses for flammable, lighter-than-air balloons are practically unlimited.

      WARNING: Doing any of this is extremely STUPID and UNSAFE, without proper training and safety equipment. DO NOT TRY IT EVER.

    17. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, I used to fire little home made rockets and crackers from a radio controlled airplane, a couple decades before the Predator. Most of the rockets fizzled (and one cracker blew a wing off), but some rockets took off like a bat out of hell. What great fun and guess what - today I work at a military supplier, so I'm still playing with the same things, they are now just much bigger.

    18. Re:America used to be #1 by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      There was a related case here in MA a few months ago about a kid who had his house raided by the police and others (with a warrent) because of what he had purchased. However, all the reports stated that the chemicals he had were legal to own, and he had one of the neatest and safest storage areas they had seen.

      Seems to be a trend to keep potentially dangerous things out of the hands of kids in case they might grow up to be terrorists...

    19. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      peeing in a chlorox bottle works nicely too. just collect the pee before hand, so you aren't standing over it when the Chlorine starts coming out.

    20. Re:America used to be #1 by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but where does one obtain dry ice? You could easily walk down to the store and buy aluminium foil and toilet bowl cleaner.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crushed up chlorine tabs and rubbing alcohol works well too

    22. Re:America used to be #1 by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... You aren't from the RIAA are you?

      First off not everything on TPB is illegal, and I never even said "Let them download movies and music off TPB". Secondly, bomb-making isn't a skill needed by most people, computer literacy is, and like it or not, knowing P2P helps you with computers. And lastly, even if they were downloading something off of TPB that isn't 100% legal, does it ever kill anyone like a bomb is made to do? Nope.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    23. Re:America used to be #1 by karbyn-aceous · · Score: 0

      > my wife

      You're new here aren't you?

    24. Re:America used to be #1 by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can get it in the grocery store here in Virginia, USA.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    25. Re:America used to be #1 by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've actually seen dry ice at some supermarkets here. At least it says dry ice on the bin in the front, I've never actually tried to buy it though.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    26. Re:America used to be #1 by bmajik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was doing this as a teenager (the early 1990s) and ended up getting into a small bit of trouble over it.

      Basically, as a prank, we set off about 20 of these things outside of a kids window late at night. Using 2 liter bottles they really do sound like shotgun blasts. THe smaller 16oz bottles aren't as loud but we had plenty of them mixed in as well.

      Well, the kids parents didn't think this was very funny at all, and we all knew each other (these were "BBS acquantances") and we got hauled into the police station. Everyone's parents were also there.

      The cops were asking how we learned to do this. I fibbed a bit and said that we learned it in chemistry class... basically HCL and metal causes an acid-metal reaction, and releases a ton of gas. The principles of acid-metal reactions are certainly well-explained in HS chemistry, and that's what I said.

      One of the moms was like "WHY ARE THEY TEACHING THIS KIND OF THING IN SCHOOL?" and got all emotional about it. I continued lecturing: "actually, this is simply basic chemistry, and it is important that kids are taught this kind of thing. we chose to use this knowledge to be mischevious" blah blah blah.

      A few years later we heard of kids doing the same stuff and they got in _way_ more trouble over it. Times and attitudes have changed and this kind of stuff isn't funny anymore (well, it is, but not many people who matter think so).

      The happy ending of this story is that I made one more of these things for a practical project / application talk in a later HS chemistry class. The class got to go outside and watch me set one of the things off. As long as I was able to explain the chemistry sufficiently and keep the class interested in chemistry, the teacher was all for it.

      My father in law's mom was a science teacher; he'd give her a list of stuff to order periodically and she'd get it for him without asking questions. He blew up the kitchen table once. Another time he set a forest on fire with a frenell lens and some magnesium. He ended up getting a Chemical Engineering degree later in life and these days is one of the foremost industry experts at what he does. Nobody ever got hurt and society is certainly better for his contributions as an adult.

      It's important to let kids be kids. Curiosity is the most important thing in a child, and one reason that I'll be homeschooling my son. He's too important to let "them" ruin his future.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    27. Re:America used to be #1 by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Do you propose I play with it in a balloon indoors? If I get arrested for doing something stupid, I'd feel a little better knowing my family won't get soaked in the next rainstorm because I blew the roof off the house.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    28. Re:America used to be #1 by r_newman · · Score: 1

      As a teenager in Ireland, with ingredients available to me from school (ermm... unofficially) and information from reference books in the city library, I made thermite, and almost made mercury fulminate - thought better of that one at the last minute. We had access to mercury, mercuric oxide, nitric acid and many other wonderful chemicals. The school found out and I got a hiding from my Dad when they notified him. If it happened now, it would be considered more serious and the police would probably be called in. If it happened in the US however, it seems likely that a teenager with an interest in chemistry, acting in a non-malicious spirit of enquiry would be branded a terrorist, possibly be jailed, his parents fined, his home ransacked, his future educational prospects and with it possibly his entire life, ruined. Does anyone think this wouldn't happen in the "land of the free"?

      --
      Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
    29. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brother got expelled from middle school for a year for doing that in a school stairwell.

    30. Re:America used to be #1 by Thaelon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because building the kits can be boring, tedious and require more tools or materials than your parents will buy you.

      Not to mention the igniters failed half the time, and we never had 6 freaking AA batteries to make the stupid launcher work anyway.

      I got to the point where I would only use the kits with premade rockets. And then I would ignite them by sticking some cannon fuse down the engine and wedging it in with a stick. It was about 600% more reliable. And didn't require $6 worth of batteries. And at 2-3 seconds per inch of fuse, you could spend $6 and get enough to launch about 36 rockets with 5 second delays. More if you were cool with sprinting away from the rocket instead of walking. And what kid isn't?

      Hell, I even lit a few motors without rockets out of boredom. Jam a broom in the ground, stick the engine in upside down, light the cannon fuse, back away, and watch the neighbor's dogs start barking at the noise. Those things are loud when they stay on the ground. Then, if you were less cautious you could try and catch the hot potato when the engine's ejection charge fires and launches it several feet into the air. I didn't try. Go go gadget newtons of thrust.

      --

      Question everything

    31. Re:America used to be #1 by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 1

      Grocery store, in the frozen goods section.

      --
      No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
      Vote them out every term.
    32. Re:America used to be #1 by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Crushed dry ice with some room-temperature water will do the same thing, without the harsh chemicals.

      Yep, youtube is loaded with videos of kids doing just that.
      Ran across them when I was looking for videos of people mixing mentos and soda in their bellies (most of those videos are anticlimatic).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    33. Re:America used to be #1 by vvaduva · · Score: 1

      The government treats homeschooling parents the same way as well - homeschoolers who take steps to do serious at-home experiments in science and other fields have experienced this same treatment. This is nothing new..just a power-hungry government official.

    34. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In california most super markets that I have been in have a dry ice chest, often right around the front door.

    35. Re:America used to be #1 by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Fascinating!

      I had a look what might happen and found the following ingredients:

      "THE WORKS" TOILET BOWL CLEANER *32 oz. *Eliminates stains *Active ingredients: Hydrocloric Acid 20% Rodine 50.1%,Perfumes .1%

      Ok, so you make hydrogen and don't even ignite it.

      Interestingly the Rodine should block the corrosion of the metal but it doesn't do so sufficiently to prevent your experiment.

      Here is an example by Henkel:

      "Rodine® 213â is an organic, liquid, cationic corrosion inhibitor especially designed to inhibit the attack of hydrochloric acid on iron and steel during industrial cleaning operations. It also inhibits acid attack on copper and brass. It does not contain arsenic, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or lead compounds. The addition of Rodine 213 inhibitor to hydrochloric acid solution provides maximum protection for equipment during: a. The removal of lime deposits or water scale from power plant boilers and piping systems and from evaporating equipment. b. The removal of scale and deposits from equipment in refineries, utility companies, paper mills, chemical plants and other industries. Rodine 213 meets the requirements of Military Specification Nos. MIL-I-17433 and MIL-C-17434."

      --
      Je me souviens.
    36. Re:America used to be #1 by hob42 · · Score: 1

      By walking down to the store and buying it? Our local supermarket had it, in the town I grew up in. (Can't say I've looked for it in the city I live in now.)

    37. Re:America used to be #1 by RaguMS · · Score: 1

      Anyway, put a little "Works" toilet bowl cleaner in a plastic bottle, but a strip of aluminum foil in it, screw on the cap, shake it, toss it down and walk away and it waill react violently and noisily, louder than a shotgun blast.

      Works is 20% hydrochloric acid. This is reacting with aluminum to make hydrogen and heat. Be sure to keep this reaction away from flame! (Or add flame if you want to make it as dangerous as a shotgun blast...)

    38. Re:America used to be #1 by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Any of ya'll realize just how big of a fireball a quart of gasoline, poured over a wasp nest, will make?

      Luckily, I was able to put out the fire (tree and the house) and we had some touch up paint in the garage. Only thing dad said, a few days later, was to wonder why the leaves on that tree were wilting.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    39. Re:America used to be #1 by svnt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure the kits are dumb downed

      I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take that to mean "crashed into a sea of dumb".

    40. Re:America used to be #1 by nsayer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That may be true, but a typographical error can still result in incorrect grammar, which when the original comment is about the school system, is tremendously ironic.

      Damn. Why do I need to explain this stuff to a stupid AC?

    41. Re:America used to be #1 by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I just glued on some balsa fins to some C-6 engines and sent them up. They weren't very stable and would tend to flip over about 50' up. Fun thing was having a circle of folks around the launch site and try not to hit anyone.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    42. Re:America used to be #1 by greywire · · Score: 1

      It really saddens me that my kids cant enjoy the hobbies I did as a child. I built model planes (freeflight! oh no, no controler!). This involved knowledge of structural design, use of assorted adhesives (yay Hot Stuff!) and even composite structures using carbon fibers for strength.

      I also did rockets. When I couldn't afford the estes engines, I created my own experiments using match heads... I had an old book from the 60's that showed how to make rockets using metal tubes and sulfer-zinc powder. Never made one of those though because even in the late 70's it wasn't easy to find.

      I ended up being a computer programmer after a short stint in engineering. The critical skills gained from these "hobbies" as a child I think greatly effect my abilities today, no matter what kind of work I am doing.

      My kids will probably grow up learning to program computers, but, how long before the things I do on a computer today will be things that will get my kids into trouble if they do it?

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    43. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do Aerosoles come in cans? Beyond that, who the hell considers burning shoes entertaining?

    44. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinko / Brainfart != Typo ;)

    45. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There used to be american kids studying home chemistry. We used to have kits to build rockets.

      Now, a bunch of silly fools that never took chemistry even in college are doing their best to outlaw what every intelligent child in the 60s and 70s did for fun.

      As a result, the US has not been doing groundbreaking chemistry in over a decade.

      Granted, computers are a big lure, but chemistry is the basis of our industry. We need to ENCOURAGE kids and adults to do chemistry, not prevent it with idiotic, foolish laws.

      If it is not more dangerous than fertilizer and diesel fuel, or styrofoam and gasoline, than it should be legal for a 16 year old kid to buy in the mail, without a license.

      Anythinge else is rank hipocracy and stupidity.

      P.S. I am not recommending a 12 year old do explosive experiments unsupervised, but I hate to tell you, THEY DO IT ANYWAY. They just go and get an aerosole can and a lighter, instead of ordering a kit.

      There used to be american kids studying home chemistry. We used to have kits to build rockets.

      Now, a bunch of silly fools that never took chemistry even in college are doing their best to outlaw what every intelligent child in the 60s and 70s did for fun.

      As a result, the US has not been doing groundbreaking chemistry in over a decade.

      Granted, computers are a big lure, but chemistry is the basis of our industry. We need to ENCOURAGE kids and adults to do chemistry, not prevent it with idiotic, foolish laws.

      If it is not more dangerous than fertilizer and diesel fuel, or styrofoam and gasoline, than it should be legal for a 16 year old kid to buy in the mail, without a license.

      Anythinge else is rank hipocracy and stupidity.

      P.S. I am not recommending a 12 year old do explosive experiments unsupervised, but I hate to tell you, THEY DO IT ANYWAY. They just go and get an aerosole can and a lighter, instead of ordering a kit.

      When I was a kid in the 60's early 70's my brother and I had a chemistry set and we did all the experiments that came with kit. Outside of that kit there where many ways available to create incendiary devices. We once took all the gun powder out of a brick of fire crackers and a few of dads bullets. We poured all of that into a metal pipe and use and Estes rock engine and battery to set it off. WOO. Any kid can do that think of what an ingenious deviant could do?

    46. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right now -> either

    47. Re:America used to be #1 by Surt · · Score: 1

      You can obtain dry ice from most places that offer aluminum foil and toilet bowl cleaner. Most places that sell ice sell dry ice as well.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    48. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Why can't they?
      You can still buy balsa models and hotstuff.
      You can even buy balsa wood and find plans or create your own.
      The only thing stopping your kids is them. Oh and maybe the lack of open space which is the real issue.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    49. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the process causing the explosion? What are the by-products? Are they in any way useful, or purely waste material? How much energy is required to salvage any reusable material?

      It may be loads of fun for the kids to "blow stuff up!", but without a basic understanding of what is actually going on it is no more than decadent alchemy, not scientific experimentation.

    50. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to reverse that that.
      http://www.dars.org/jimz/rp00.htm
      Knock yourself out :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    51. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's better if the kids learn it at home than on the streets. Right?

      Right.

      So we give the kids free bomb-making kits, boot-leg movies and free hookers and they are set for life.

      "Son, these are condoms. I don't know when you're going to want one. I don't know if you're going to want to tell me you're using them. But I want to be damn sure that when you need one, you have one, and you will know how to use it, you will know why to use it, and I will know that you will use it."

      Likewise, "Son, these are chemicals. These are safety googles. We don't have a fume hood, but this is what one looks like. And this is a chemistry textbook. It's going to tell you why you should wear the goggles, and when you should do your experiments outside, and when - even if you're outside and wearing the goggles - you shouldn't do an experiment at all."

    52. Re:America used to be #1 by greywire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Open space is the main issue. All the places we used to fly are now golf fields and such. It is frowned upon almost anywhere unless you go out to the desert where there's nobody to care.

      But it used to be you could go into any kmart and find models and tools and supplies.

      I am not that old, and I remember even in the early 80's where it started to become hard to get things. Sometimes, I was not allowed to buy simple things like glue and paint without a parent (guess they thought I was going to sniff it or something).

      Rockets are even harder. I am actually suprised you can still get some estes items at certain rare stores. No idea where you'd launch the suckers though. I bet I'd get a nice crowd going at the local park if I set up to launch some rockets (that is, not just one little one, but really did it like we used to with multiple large rockets, etc). until the cops showed up.

      Anything truly homemade would probably get me on a list somewhere of potentially dangerous people..

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    53. Re:America used to be #1 by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      At the "sister" school to my highschool, back in the 1980s when I was taking chemistry, a student stole about 4 kg of sodium from the lab.

      Now, this was important because of what he did with it. Afraid of being caught, but also wanting to see the reaction, he dumped it into a toilet at the high school.

      Then he flushed it.

      Now, I never saw the results, but my highschool chemistry prof went to the other school to see the results.

      We got to do an entire class on this reaction.

      I remember my chem prof describing how the sodium must have gone through 40-60 feet of pipe while being flushed, and generating hydrogen gas the whole way. The pipe filled up with hydrogen, and the sodium was incredibly hot from the reaction.

      At some point it met more air in the pipe system, and reacted. Apparently the blowback blew the toilet up into little bits of ceramic each about the size of the deck of cards. *

      I remember it was a great chem lesson.

      * Being older now, and remembering how my prof recounted this story, I do have my doubts about the sodium going that far down the pipe and then blowing up only a single toilet. I do remember the story well enough that everyone in the school was talking about it, and people I knew who went to the other school were too of course.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    54. Re:America used to be #1 by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I was in seventh grade in 1965, I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations have run out.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    55. Re:America used to be #1 by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Hey, things aren't always so bad. When I was in 6th grade (not terribly long ago, actually) I built an electrolysis apparatus that used two big pieces of copper pipe, a car battery, and some pool water. Not only did the teacher let me explode the hydrogen IN CLASS, but shortly after that incident they moved me up to the 7th grade science class.

      I doubt, however, that such shenanigans would be allowed any more.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    56. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually model rockets are totally legal in most states. Heck our Walmart carries them. Nothing too cool mind you but they have them. Mail order is easy also for Estes class "1/4A-D". Yes you may have to scale back to mini-brutes or use an A instead of a C6-5 but it is still possible. Of course I am a little ticked that I lost my field because they tore down a nice empty field used for soccer and of all things Cricket here and put up a High School.
      So maybe you will have to make a day of it with your kids. Find a field and go. Do a Google or find a local hobby store that carries rockets and ask where they fly.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    57. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I'd known about this as a kid. I always had to use electrolysis to get my hydrogen, and it took FOREVER at sensible voltages.

    58. Re:America used to be #1 by gnick · · Score: 1

      In NM you can certainly get in the supermarkets provided that you're 18. Back in my youth I popped a few 2/3-liters and had some fun. Nowadays, I only use it for shipping frozen green chiles to friends/family around the country or to take home, drop in some warm water, and entertain the kids.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    59. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like lies than truth, according to your blog

    60. Re:America used to be #1 by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Back in my youth I popped a few 2/3-liters and had some fun

      20-ouncers work the best, I find. It's not about volume, it's about PSI. 2-liters pop too early. Also, watch out for 20-ounce water bottles; they aren't designed to hold pressurized liquids, so they go FAST, and often their caps just pop off.

      20-ounce, plain-jane pop bottles give you the biggest BOOM. Avoid oddly-shaped bottles like Coke bottles, as they also don't take as much pressure.

      Also, if you ever get the chance, take one of those vending machine plastic container things (the little bubbles with the lid), put a little dry ice and water in it, pop the lid on, and set it on the ground lid-down. Cheap home DIY rocketry (sort of)!

    61. Re:America used to be #1 by gnick · · Score: 1

      If you for some reason want to do the same thing, but more efficiently, you can go to a hardware store or janitorial supply store and purchase muriatic acid. No idea why they call it that - It's just OTC hydrochloric.

      The rules may have changed, but I purchased the tub in my garage when I was 16 (early 90's). No ID, no name given, paid cash. Probably speed up the time it takes for your Works bombs too.

      It had never occurred to me to harvest the hydrogen coming off of my experiments. I can't believe that, as a teenage explosives nut, I for some reason always considered the hydrogen a waste product.

      Well, now I know how I'm filling balloons for my boy's next birthday party. =)

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    62. Re:America used to be #1 by gnick · · Score: 1

      I never tried a 20-ouncer. Once I discovered how much fun it was to pop used CO2 cartridges, plastic bottles just lost their appeal.

      Of course, popping an empty CO2 cartridge with dry ice would be a bit of a challenge.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    63. Re:America used to be #1 by z00_miak · · Score: 1

      I don't this this science stuff is going to be a problem

      Apparently that grammar stuff isn't a problem anymore right now.

      You missed two commas. Also, using anymore along with right now is redundant. =D

      Apparently, that grammar stuff isn't a problem anymore, right now.

    64. Re:America used to be #1 by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read The Anarchist's Cookbook? It needs a second title of "Or How to Blow Yourself Up by Exactly Following These Instructions".

      Do you really think Johnny, the littlest chemist, in this day and age is going to risk indulging in his hobby in an overt manner? No, he's going to have a stash of randomly collected files that'll have a far better chance of turning him into a martyr without a cause than a chemical engineer. He can't talk to mommy and daddy because they'd just turn him in because he *might* be making $drug_of_the_month. They'd much rather find a porn stash then a collection of chemistry journals.

      People keep thinking that ignorance will protect their little Billy and Susy. Then little Billy tries to make nitroglycerin in an unsafe manner and blows a leg off and Susy gives herself permanent brain damage because she didn't know the fumes were toxic. They don't/can't teach this stuff in school anymore (hazmat teams for a broken thermometer, wtf?). They've got to learn it somewhere.

    65. Re:America used to be #1 by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      In Arizona I've bought 10+ pounds of dry ice and they didn't even ask for ID as they knew I was of age.

      You can get Liquid Nitrogen poured in an approved vacuum container at welding shops around town as well.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    66. Re:America used to be #1 by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      Your kids can certainly take up those hobbies, so what is stopping their enjoyment?

      I bought a model rocket to fly with my son when he was 5 (and was then given a bunch of rocket kits). He's not ready to build models yet, so I saved the simplest kit for later and built the others to fly together with him. He loves launching them and has great respect for safety protocols. Also, though he is not ready to fly RC airplanes, he loves crashing them in a simulator. I hope I am providing a base to help him pursue creative hobbies as he grows up.

      Regarding model airplanes, the options have only expanded. If you dont think free flight kits are readily available, you could start by looking here (those are rubber band power models, you can also find electric, CO2, jet, and glow fuel power, plus gliders).

      I can understand that not all kids will choose this sort of hobby, but the opportunity is certainly there.

    67. Re:America used to be #1 by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      WARNING: Doing any of this is extremely STUPID and UNSAFE, without proper training and safety equipment. DO NOT TRY IT EVER.

      I hope that was just a generic disclaimer.

      How was it done back in the day, again? What did the chemists of the Industrial Revolution have to work with? How did they determine hydrogen was released? By trying it?

      The degree of safety involved is a direct correlation to the amount of respect and forethought given to the project, and that's true of any experiment. If someone wants to be protected at all times, then they shouldn't get out of bed in the morning, and even that isn't a 100% guarantee of safety.

    68. Re:America used to be #1 by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Maybe this "amateur" rocket launch by the guys at Top Gear will prove an inspiration... though you have to wonder how many permits they had to get to even try this.

    69. Re:America used to be #1 by pha7boy · · Score: 1

      Iron Nails? oh, nothing can go wrong there :)

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    70. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your existence proves that.

    71. Re:America used to be #1 by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      Same place you go to get carbonation tanks filled. Ask any bar owner (or anyone with a kegerator).

    72. Re:America used to be #1 by nasor · · Score: 1

      As a result, the US has not been doing groundbreaking chemistry in over a decade.

      As someone who is currently writing my PhD dissertation in chemistry, I disagree that the US has not done any groundbreaking chemistry in over a decade. But a lot of it is being done by foreign students who come from Asia (particularly China and India).

    73. Re:America used to be #1 by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      Did this to my sister's Barbie. Electrical tape, drinking straw, launch pad, and Barbie.

      Taped the motor to Barbie's back, cut the straw to a half an inch, taped the straw between Barbie's back and the motor and set her on the launch pad. The straw was for the launch rod.

      She made it up about 25' and started spinning, head over heals.

      Great fun! My sister wasn't happy.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    74. Re:America used to be #1 by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      We would take the MRE "microwaves" apart, and mix the metal reactant (I think it was magnesium, or maybe some kind of sodium mixture) in a 2-liter coke bottle. It would go boom real loud! Also, I recently heard that mixing Clorox and brake fluid makes a lot of smoke. I don't know if that's true but I'm gonna try it when I get home!

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    75. Re:America used to be #1 by greywire · · Score: 1

      yeah I am well aware that you can get the stuff if you look for it online (in fact my father sold his homemade [and as far as I know is the only thing remotely like it] silver [and 12 other colors] jap tissue [its only slightly heavier than white] by mail order).

      But its not like it used to be. Maybe because I live "in the city" (orange county, ca) there's nowhere to go fly anymore, it may be different in other parts of the usa. Around here there's nowhere that I know of to fly (unless you want to risk hitting someone). I am guessing there's places to go fly RC planes, thats much more popular, though I dont know where.

      I plan on doing a little model airplane activity at my daughter's school to try and get the kids interested in the hobby...

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    76. Re:America used to be #1 by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      Who needs those expensive kits and instructions?

      Two words: POTATO LAUNCHER!!!

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    77. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had this problem about 10-15 year ago as a kid. We had a 7th grade science project involving building those rockets and shooting them off in the field at school. Turned out in order to do it outselves we'd need a permit gotten either two weeks or a month in advance, only at local parks with more than 100-200 feet of clear space (no trees!) and could only get the really small sized rocket motors (which wouldn't have been a problem except they tended to have a high failure rate and a number of the class ones didn't get up past 15-30 feet before sputtering and falling down, or worse yet not firing the retro charge and deploying the parachute for the trip back down.)

      I've actually still got mine floating around the house somewhere. Needs the fins glued back on, but otherwise it's just like when we shot them back in school...

    78. Re:America used to be #1 by subxero37 · · Score: 1

      Chlorine and rubbing alcohol is probably the cheapest way to do it, although the dust and gas produced should be avoided. Actually, no matter what chemicals you're using, you should wear masks and take precautions not to do anything stupid.

    79. Re:America used to be #1 by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree with you more. My post was a joke making light of the premise that legal actions against TBP hinder a persons ability to "learn" about computers. Considering it was modded insightful, it was not a very good joke, and I am sorry about that.

      To set the record straight -
      Parents should provide a nurturing environment that allows children to explore their academic interests - computers, chemistry, etc.
      Parents also have an obligation to make sure their children are safe while exploring these interests. That is, educate their children about malware and online predators, provide safety equipment and education about harmful chemicals, etc.
      Parents also have an obligation educate their children about safe-sex practices, but I have to draw the line there.

    80. Re:America used to be #1 by SpeedyG5 · · Score: 1

      Here in St. Louis, we have a "Rocket and RC Park" where rocket and airplane enthusiasts can go and fire off their tests, fly planes, helicopters etc. http://www.stlouisrocketry.org/

    81. Re:America used to be #1 by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I was in seventh grade in 1965, I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations have run out.

      The statute of limitations (SoL, ha!) won't keep you off a no-fly list or prevent you from becoming anything from a Person of Interest to an Unlawful Enemy Combatant.

      Admitted past experimental drug use (LSD) beyond the reach of the SoL (let alone being outside US jurisdiction) have caused some scientists to be permanently barred from entering the US.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    82. Re:America used to be #1 by bonekeeper · · Score: 1

      Nice story! lol Yes, schools are generally stupid. That's why I never bothered to watch the classes, would bring my own books and read them while in class, and hey, I'm doing just fine today. Probably finer than 99% of my former classmates (and definitely better than the teachers LOL)

    83. Re:America used to be #1 by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      I have built model rockets in an educational setting and we didn't use kits we designed and built them from scratch. Mine was a multi stage with I think D engines, I was doing the stage separation with selotape and interlocking bits of balsa so it always went off at a bit of an angel when the second stage ignited. It was all very fun stuff. I almost destroyed a porchse 4x4 (burning rocket after failed stage separation) and crash landed in a basket ball game.

    84. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aerosol can + lighter + pvc pipe + blunt object = fun ;-)

    85. Re:America used to be #1 by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Puhleeeze. A potato?

      Frozen GRAPEFRUIT Launcher. Guaranteed to get rid of those pesky cinderblock walls around your neighborhood. Need a nice hole through the side of a house? Nothing beats a frozen grapefruit.

      My stepfather was a LUNATIC. If he could go a week without taking a 4 foot length of steel pipe, welding one end shut with a small hole, jamming something in the front and then using it as a cannon... it was a miracle.

      My favorite was the tennis ball hyper-speed accelerator. He had a friend of mine stand at least 1/3 of a mile down the street with a catchers mitt. He filled it was gas from his welding tanks, and my sister lit it while it was on his shoulder. It bounced ONCE down the street, hit my friend, took him OFF HIS FEET and backwards about 2 feet. He caught it though. Tough SOB. We didn't try that again. The best part was when got down there he was still on the ground... and he pissed his pants :)

      Ohhh, the memories :)

      P.S - If you think that is insane, my stepfather's buddy told me a story that happened in Mexico in the late 60's as a teenager. They "found" several crates of dynamite and ended up putting them around an old tree out in the desert on a hill. They put a long fuse on it, lit and drove away. Drove away FAST. They misjudged how long the fuse was and were not watching it when it exploded. Most of the hill was MISSING. Just gone. The tree? No idea.

    86. Re:America used to be #1 by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      we should take all the warning labels off :)

    87. Re:America used to be #1 by camperdave · · Score: 1
      you can go to a hardware store or janitorial supply store and purchase muriatic acid. No idea why they call it that - It's just OTC hydrochloric.

      Muriatic acid is an old name from a time before they knew about the acid's chemical structure. From Wikipedia:

      In the Middle Ages, hydrochloric acid was known to European alchemists as spirits of salt or acidum salis. It is still known as "Spirits of Salt" when sold for domestic cleaning purposes in the United Kingdom today. Gaseous HCl was called marine acid air. The old (pre-systematic) name muriatic acid has the same origin (muriatic means "pertaining to brine or salt"), and this name is still sometimes used.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    88. Re:America used to be #1 by Garath · · Score: 1

      Heh, reading your hydrogen story reminds me of the talk my dad gave me when I went off for college about the difference between good and bad college pranks, using his own ones as examples. The good one involved filling balloons with hydrogen, putting a firecracker underneath, then lighting said firecracker and floating it up to outside the balcony of some annoying neighbors at night, leaving them puzzled about the noisy fireballs that resulted.
      The example of a bad prank was masterminding the tear-gassing of some particularly disliked people in the dorm. To quote my dad "And it would have all turned out just fine if they'd opened their sliding glass door before running through it."

    89. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I participated in a discussion panel at Defcon last weekend called "meet the Feds". There were representative of all the major military and law enforcement agencies (and we're talking deputy director level, etc) including the FBI, NCIC, RCMP, NSA, Navy, NASA, etc.

      They made it abundantly clear that they "support computer security" in a very tongue-in-cheek way, but have no patience for "hobbyists" who don't sheepishly submit to government regulations.

      I particularly enjoyed it when, while being grilled by one participant about focuses on security and privacy of citizens, someone interrupted the FBI's politically correct mumbling by shouting "HOW MANY OF US HAVE FILES WITH THE FBI?"

      Hearty laughs all around.

      It's not just chemistry, my friend.

    90. Re:America used to be #1 by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      The culture of "absolute safety, absolute certainty" permeates Western culture and will be our downfall.

      I saw an article earlier today that said "child development experts all agree that allowing a child to learn from his mistakes is the most effective teaching method."

      So uhm... where do we hear them actually put this into practice? It's one thing to write it in a book. It's another to speak before Congress, arguing that fact.

    91. Re:America used to be #1 by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Every bit of open space around here has permanent "no burn" restrictions to artificially prevent forest fires.

      At the same time, the botanists are saying that our forests must burn sometimes, or they will become choked with over-dense vegetation and stagnant growth cycles.

      But I'm sure it ultimately comes down to some 12 year old knob in Arkansas who lit one on his kitchen table and killed his little sister.

      After all, If it saves just one little child.........

      *snort*

    92. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for insulting myself and my peers. I'd venture to guess that you don't know much about the status of US chemistry research.

    93. Re:America used to be #1 by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      "Son, these are condoms. I don't know when you're going to want one. I don't know if you're going to want to tell me you're using them. But I want to be damn sure that when you need one, you have one, and you will know how to use it, you will know why to use it, and I will know that you will use it."

      Around where I live, that kind of talk is frowned upon. Probably has a lot to do with my city's abnormally high teen pregnancy and std rates.
      But try to tell that to the bible thumpers.

    94. Re:America used to be #1 by rthille · · Score: 1

      My high chemistry teacher got into trouble for blowing up a hydrogen balloon in the classroom. It blew out the window it was next to, and the Principal was nearby and came running. All before my time. By the time I got there, he wasn't throwing phosphorus into the biology teacher's fish pond either.

      He did still take a CO2 extinguisher to my backpack and froze it pretty much solid though...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    95. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dumb downed" hahahahahahahahaha

    96. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dictionary is not more dangerous than any of those things, I recommend you buy one. "hipocracy"?? Dude, WTF??

    97. Re:America used to be #1 by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      How much is liquid nitrogen? Do they charge by the mL?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    98. Re:America used to be #1 by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      There's a family who regularly sets off model rockets in a local park. They're not huge, multi-stage rockets, but simple models that reach a height of a few hundred feet.

      Oddly enough, this is the same park where model aircraft are encouraged, as long as you're not stupid enough to hover a glow-powered helicopter above the backyards of the neighbors. Assuming you're over the park itself, both eletric and glow powered models are welcome. The management allegedly asked some modelers if we'd like a runway put in.

      On the other hand, maybe something weird and unnatural is occurring in the park, causing most people to be unreasonably happy and generally agreeable. This is in New York, where such attitudes are extremely rare. Maybe we ought to be examining the undergrowth for hidden marijuana plants ;o).

    99. Re:America used to be #1 by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Normally, I'd agree with you. But these are dirty stinky terrorists we're dealing with here.

      We can't let anything like the statute of limitations get in our way of stopping them, because they will stop at nothing to attack us.

      </sarcasm>

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    100. Re:America used to be #1 by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh dear god tell me it isn't true, that crap is pure unadulterated global warming! Next you'll be telling me that you can buy baseball bats without a license that can be used to club baby harp seals to death with!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    101. Re:America used to be #1 by wilec · · Score: 1

      Heck at age eleven or so (1967) I regularly purchased by the pound, potassium nitrate, flowers of sulfur, rosin and charcoal from the local pharmacy to build black powder rocket engines, try that as an adult today.

      wabi-sabi
      matthew

    102. Re:America used to be #1 by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      There is probably an Airgas retail shop within five miles of the grocery store (and from which you can also obtain industrial grade oxygen, liquid nitrogen (hey.. it's cheaper than milk!), acetylene, and a host of other interesting gases, liquids, and assorted equipment. Did you know that class 5 welding goggles are cheaper than drug store sunglasses?).

      You can also get it from party stores, convenience stores, and some grocery stores. If you order some Omaha Steaks, and they arrive quickly, you'll have a small amount of it to play with remaining in the shipping container.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    103. Re:America used to be #1 by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      Another time he set a forest on fire with a frenell lens and some magnesium ... Nobody ever got hurt and society is certainly better for his contributions as an adult.

      Oh, ok. So maybe we should all start setting forest fires then? The society will be better off then.

      Blowing ones arms off is one thing, but setting a forest on fire is not exactly "nobody got hurt".

    104. Re:America used to be #1 by Deltaspectre · · Score: 1

      Kids are indeed making loud noises and flashes.. Hardly what I call chemistry

      --
      My UID is prime... is yours?
    105. Re:America used to be #1 by MarginalWatcher · · Score: 1

      If it is not more dangerous than fertilizer and diesel fuel, [...]

      You mean like ANFO?

    106. Re:America used to be #1 by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? I would have loved to get into Chemistry.

      I just didn't hear about getting a good job afterwords. You can't make a living off of cleaning test tubes.

      One of the guys in my lab was getting into IT after spending a few years in a Chem lab.

      If the jobs are there, it will attract the smart and talented.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    107. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well for model rockets it isn't as bad as you might think.
      http://rcsource.hobbypeople.net/calendar.htm
      And if you decide to go the rocket route here is a payload that is right up your ally.
      http://www.gumstix.com/
      Maybe you could build a war rocket or RC plane and look for open waps :)
      Or build a really fast and high PBX :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    108. Re:America used to be #1 by greywire · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the point of launching a PBX into the air for a minute or two would be, other than to say I have written code that has been airborne (and saying that I launched it myself is even better than it just being on the entertainment system of an airplane which I can already claim..)

      You might have long enough to place one call. :)

      So is there a gumstix that could run Trixbox on it?

      For something like this, a kite or balloon would make more sense...

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    109. Re:America used to be #1 by bmajik · · Score: 1

      It was on his property, and he and his father were able to put it out. No big deal.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    110. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you could run Trixbox on a Gumstix since I am not sure that there is a version of Centos for the Xscale.
      Now could you? Well you would probably know a lot better than I would.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    111. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy thing? The stigma and lack of talk like that is responsible for the "abnormally high teen pregnancy and std rates."

      Digging themselves deeper.

    112. Re:America used to be #1 by sjames · · Score: 1

      I do have my doubts about the sodium going that far down the pipe and then blowing up only a single toilet. I do

      I can see how that could happen. The other branches of the pipe and the other toilet's traps wouldn't have contained hydrogen, so might have 'geysered' without being blown up. It is possible that the hydrogen bubbles traveled a lot further than the sodium itself did.

      But I'll bet the pipe was really clean with the blasting, bubbling, and NaOH :-)

    113. Re:America used to be #1 by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      It's a 10L pour for $40.

      $20 per day rental of a 10L vacuum flash if you don't have your own, $50 for the week.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    114. Re:America used to be #1 by SupplyMission · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was a "This cup contains hot coffee" warning. These days by even mentioning a potentially unsafe activity, you can be found guilty of encouraging and supporting said activity.

      Point taken :) but that's why I said it's stupid and unsafe without the proper training and safety equipment. Mental preparation, awareness, respect and forethought, as you said, are usually components of proper training.

      In the Industrial Revolution, lots of people got injured or died while messing around with chemicals and radioactive isotopes they didn't understand. The survivors got to name new elements and compounds. That's how they did it back in the day.

    115. Re:America used to be #1 by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      Me too! (Actualy, I am.) No, really, for a nerd screwing a hooker when it was time, say 14-15, is better than contemplating druging and raping, say a 12 y.o. girl,when they themselfs are at age 16, as I am now. That, or parents teaching their little girls to value intellect, so that us crazy /.ers won't have such a hard damn time getting a girlfrien, at least a superfitial one when in high-school. I find the second preferable but as unlikely as the first.

      PS kids already got the first two.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    116. Re:America used to be #1 by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1

      Did you ever figure out why the balloon didn't float? What was the diameter of the balloon?

      I did the same with the zinc from an old carbon D cell battery and battery acid. (My dad owned a hardware store that also filled tractor batteries.) But I only filled a small plastic bag. I didn't get an explosion or nothing. Boo.

      Enjoy,
      Randy

    117. Re:America used to be #1 by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I believe the hydrogen was impure. The baloon that didn't float was maybe six inches diameter or so, the one I ignited on the stove was about the size of a golf ball. It let out a lout WHOOMP and a fireball a yard wide.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    118. Re:America used to be #1 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have stuck with kits? Sounds like your rocket wasn't stable.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    119. Re:America used to be #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth do you tear down a field?

  30. There's worse things than terrorists by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Looks like it's just about time to start spelling it "Amerika". Nice experiment...too bad it failed when too many people decided they'd rather live on their knees than die on their feet.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:There's worse things than terrorists by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      "They that would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- (more or less) Benjamin Franklin

  31. Wow. by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    I'm impressed. People stepped up when someone was carting chemistry equipment into their home. Hopefully an understanding will be reached, and he'll be allowed to continue his research.

    Home experimentalist types should live in a more rural area though. Especially if you're bringing in barrels of chemicals, blowing shit up or operating high power RF equipment.

    1. Re:Wow. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      If you're operating high-powered RF equipment, you're legally required to do it a certain distance from other people. There are a ton of rules about this.

      For that matter, there are probably also laws against stockpiling hazardous chemicals in residential areas.

    2. Re:Wow. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      hopefully, he'll double box his equipment next time.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Wow. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Are you going to raid my house if I have too much Boron? How about a no knock raid because you think I have 50 lbs of gunpowder? Seems like that would end badly.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Wow. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to raid anyone's house, but those are much, much safer compounds than the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

    5. Re:Wow. by nsayer · · Score: 1

      If you're operating high-powered RF equipment, you're legally required to do it a certain distance from other people.

      You're also legally required to obtain FCC license to do it. That's the difference between that and the instant case of the home chemist. In the case of an amateur radio license, you need to pass a written examination in order to demonstrate that you know what you're doing so as to not cause interference (or harm to yourself or others, if the power is high enough).

    6. Re:Wow. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's quite true. I'm not sure what your limitations are when working with the free-for-all segments (900 MHz and 2.4 GHz?). Certainly you can build some types of trivial radio-communication devices without a license (e.g., an RC car).

      There are restrictions on home chemists, too. While you can legally obtain lots of chemicals and play around with them, I doubt most areas allow you to store a tank of hydrazine in your basement when you're in a residential area.

      On the other hand, I don't actually know what kind of stuff he had (or they suspected or had evidence of him having) in his home lab.

    7. Re:Wow. by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Part 15 devices, which covers most of the so-called "intentional radiator" unlicensed devices, operate at such low power levels as to have absolutely no conceivable health impact. When you start getting into possible impacts on safety depends on which band you're talking about. Amateurs need to start actually doing checks when they exceed 500 watts on frequencies lower than 8 MHz, with a gradual reduction down to 50 watts at 28 MHz, then staying at 50 watts for the entirety of VHF and gradually rising from there up to 250 watts by the top of UHF. If you exceed those power levels, you are responsible for doing the calculations to insure that your antenna is far enough away from people to be safe (that is, power below those levels is presumed to be safe).

      Amateurs generally are allowed up to 1.5 kW (though some bands, modes and situations allow less). By way of comparison, CB radios use 4 watts, unlicensed FRS radios transmit half a watt.

      The gist of my comment was, and remains, that radiating enough RF to have any potential impact on biology (note that I said "radiate," not "generate." Microwave ovens generate lots of power, but they don't radiate it outside of the confines of the box) requires an FCC license (in areas governed by the FCC, at least).

    8. Re:Wow. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      bringing in barrels of chemicals, blowing shit up or operating high power RF equipment.

      Um, I didn't get that impression at all. According to TFA, none of the chemicals were radiological, microbiological, or "poison" (although given that even cleaning supplies are typically somewhat poisonous I'm sure that's just saying they weren't "very poisonous"). While some of them were explosive they still weren't more so than many household cleaning supplies, which are perfectly legal.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:Wow. by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that he was doing any of that shit. I'm just saying that if you're going to do some larger home brew experiments, living in a rural area is probably best.

  32. Contact Info for that part of the city government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The following link is to the "inspections" division of the city where the zealot works. Phone numbers and emails are listed. Just an FYI http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/MarlboroughMA_Inspection/index

  33. E X P E R I M E N T S ? ! ? ! ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare he ! burn the witch !!

  34. Patiently awaiting the follow up story... by Manfre · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least he will be able to get a better home lab after he brings this to court.

  35. BS editorializing by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative
    The summary text

    "Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."

    appears nowhere in the linked article, yet kdawson has chosen to sensationalize by adding his own words and making it look as if they were part of the article.

    In fact the article actually states:

    "Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties. "

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:BS editorializing by skyshard · · Score: 4, Informative

      actually, that quote is from the MAKE article/guest post thing by Robert Bruce Thompson: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/08/home_science_under_attack.html

      [...]Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for Marlboro, stated, "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation."
      Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: "Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."
      In effect, the Massachusetts authorities have invaded Deeb's lab, apparently without a warrant, and stolen his property[...]

    2. Re:BS editorializing by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Actually, the sensationalizing was done on the blog, (the second link of three in the summary). Can't blame kdawson (directly) for this one.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    3. Re:BS editorializing by synth7 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I take it you missed the part that said Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English:

    4. Re:BS editorializing by rufey · · Score: 3, Informative

      That statement did appear in the makezine.com link however. The Slashdot summary was quoting from there, not the actual news story on the Telegram's site.

      After reading the makezine.com story and then reading the actual news story on the Telegram's site, its apparent that the makezine.com's intention was to sensationalize a story that otherwise most no one would have a second thought about.

      I wouldn't want this kind of chemistry lab next to my house. There was a fire in a second floor air conditioning unit which the fire department responded to, and it was then that the chemistry lab was found. What if the fire had gotten out of control? Who knows what kind of mess that would have caused not only for the house it was in, but for the entire neighborhood.

    5. Re:BS editorializing by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      damn I actually have to appologise to kdawson. Sorry for saying you added words to the article. But your editing is still crap. When I read "Here's the local article from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette." I expect that the quoted text actually came from that article.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:BS editorializing by scipiodog · · Score: 1

      Really? Gosh, I could have sworn I read it here, which, (amazing coincidence!) is linked to in the summary (and sadly, now appears slashdotted.

      Obre los ojos man.

      --
      http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
    7. Re:BS editorializing by shma · · Score: 1

      The summary text

      "Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."

      appears nowhere in the linked article, yet kdawson has chosen to sensationalize by adding his own words and making it look as if they were part of the article.

      It wasn't kdawson, but the blogger from MAKE who wrote that. kdawson's error is in making it look like he was quoting the article, when in fact, he was quoting the blog....and for assuming any of this is newsworthy.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    8. Re:BS editorializing by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Good job, moderators. On http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/08/home_science_under_attack.html it says:

      The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that Victor Deeb, a retired chemist who lives in Marlboro, has finally been allowed to return to his Fremont Street home, after Massachusetts authorities spent three days ransacking his basement lab and making off with its contents.

      Deeb is not accused of making methamphetamine or other illegal drugs. He's not accused of aiding terrorists, synthesizing explosives, nor even of making illegal fireworks. Deeb fell afoul of the Massachusetts authorities for ... doing experiments.

      Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb's basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products. Despite that, authorities confiscated âoeall potentially hazardous chemicalsâ (which is to say the chemicals in Deeb's lab) from his home, and called in a hazardous waste cleanup company to test the chemicals and clean up the lab.

      Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for Marlboro, stated, âoeI think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.â

      Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: "Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    9. Re:BS editorializing by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      The summary text

      "Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down."

      appears nowhere in the linked article, yet kdawson has chosen to sensationalize by adding his own words and making it look as if they were part of the article.

      In fact the article actually states:

      "Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties. "

      Maybe you should read the summary again. The part where he says "Allow me to translate" is enough to let any reader with common sense know that he was adding his own words, and that those words summed up his own sensationalist viewpoint. Any rational person would know that this sentence was NOT a part of the article. Furthermore, you respond with a correct quote from the original article, but ignore the fact that the sensational editorializing was in response to another correct quote from the same article; the one that is actually in the summary and begins with "I think Mr. Deeb. has crossed a line somewhere . ." There may be plenty of problems with this summary but yours do not hold up.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    10. Re:BS editorializing by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      In fact the article actually states:

      "Mr. Deeb s home lab likely violated the regulations of nany state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties. "

      Fixed it for you

      Duncan

    11. Re:BS editorializing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this text does appear in the original article. Check 4th paragraph.

    12. Re:BS editorializing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's rare for people to read one linked article, but when more than one article is linked to, and there is a quote, might it be sensible to read both before posting about inserted words?

    13. Re:BS editorializing by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties.

      Yeah, because "He probably did something wrong, but what exactly we haven't put our finger on yet" means he's guilty as sin. Of course.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:BS editorializing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does
      There are 2 articles linked to
      The above quote is in this one
      http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/08/home_science_under_attack.html

    15. Re:BS editorializing by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Um... You really ought to check the sources a bit closer than that, eh?

      The editorial you complain about appeared in this article. KDawson took from that source, not from the original Worcester Telegram article.

      In fact the article actually states:

      "Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties. "

      I would like to point out that this was a view expressed by the reporter, not a quote from Ms Wilderman or Mr Ferson (both quoted elsewhere). A more relevant quote would be...

      Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

      ... a finding I feel would be hard to enforce, with respect to the materials. His actions may have been against zoning laws, but unless the materials THEMSELVES are prohibited by regulation/law, I feel that confiscating them would require a more firm foundation.

    16. Re:BS editorializing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, no?

      It most certainly *is* in the linked article:

      http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/08/home_science_under_attack.html

    17. Re:BS editorializing by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      fire dept was called? Yes.
      Air con unit is in no way related to actual chemicals found in the home? In no way.

      I fail to see the indication of danger.

  36. poor excerpt-laws were broken by Quirkz · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article: "Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws."

    After reading the article, I'm pretty unimpressed with the selective quoting in the blurb. Not only were laws broken, but from the description of the house, it sounds like there was at least a little reason to want to investigate, if perhaps not launch a cleanup. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

    1. Re:poor excerpt-laws were broken by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, but lets see, any time I take a peek of a program's source code to see how it works am I not doing the same thing? I am obviously doing development and also researching various modifications of the source. No no one in the right mind would say that it should be illegal (well MS might...) but this is the exact same thing only rather than using chemicals and a lab, I'm using a computer and a 'net connection.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:poor excerpt-laws were broken by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing that the zoning law is necessarily good or bad or makes any sense whatsoever, just that it exists. Also, in a practical sense, there's quite a bit of difference between something like software that's essentially an intellectual endeavor, and this case, where 1500 jars of chemicals are sitting around--some of them mildly dangerous and/or explosive. Using your example, if the fire department comes to your house to put out the fire, they have no reason to be concerned by your computer. If they come to your house and find a thousand canisters of gasoline strewn about the house, they have every right to tell you to evacuate while they analyze the situation.

    3. Re:poor excerpt-laws were broken by TheHappyMailAdmin · · Score: 1

      The article never shows that he actually broke any laws or ordinances, it just passes along the assertion of the investigator with the caveat "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere." Are you so sure that a law was actually broken?

    4. Re:poor excerpt-laws were broken by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Nope. I haven't been to the house, and I'm not a law enforcer or lawyer intimate with the details of the case. But the quote in my initial post was direct from the article--it does say that he violated zoning laws. Another, vaguer quote from the same article doesn't negate the one I first quoted.

      Now that we've established I'm just quoting the article and can't be sure on my own that a law was broken, here's one back for you: are you so sure that a law wasn't broken? If so, how?

    5. Re:poor excerpt-laws were broken by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      (Flamebait warning-- not like the "excellent" karma was much use, even here)

      Of course, this is Slashdot, where few in the community reads the articles, even fewer fact-check a posting (and those who are supposed to actually fact-check are appallingly bad at it), and no article is ever withdrawn for gross inaccuracy or yellow journalism.

      Combine a cleverly spun blog post about authorities looking around a hobbyist chemist and an exceedingly loud libertarian readership, and you have the tired cliché, the "perfect storm".

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go camp out in my mascot costume. It's a lovely night for a roasted juice box.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  37. double-check your translation by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

    Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down.'"

    According to TFA, "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties."

    Also according to TFA, Mr. Deeb invited the fire department into his home, to deal with an an unrelated fire.

    So, it seems that a violation was committed (though the question of the reasonability of the regulations in question remains open), and that this wasn't some sort of "no knock" raid.

    Also, the fact that the chemicals in question were no more dangerous than typical household chemicals is not relevant - a lot of household chemical are very dangerous and are only permitted because they are typically kept in small quantities. It's one thing to have a can of bug spray, another to store a ton of pesticides.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  38. Should move to Rural Missouri by BigGar' · · Score: 1

    They seem to support home chemistry in them thar parts.

    Oh wait, he's not making meth.
    Nevermind!!!

    --


    Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
  39. $10 for his legal defense by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    I've got $10 for his legal defense. I didn't RTFA in detail, but does anyone know if one has been started and, if so, where to send my $10.

    And I'm serious here, so no jokes about "Just send your bank account number to this e-mail address is Zimbabwe and we'll take care of the rest".

  40. Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.

    I find it troubling that hobbyists are less trusted than corporations (assuming that these same experiments, performed by a corporation, would pose no problem - which I think the above quote pretty clearly implies). First, it is a really stupid idea from the American economy standpoint - we've made a lot of hay in this country's history on garage hackers (think: personal computer, for example). Second, what exactly makes corporations (which are made up of individuals) more trustworthy than non-corporate individuals? Timothy McVeigh? USAMRIID Anthrax. This is utterly stupid, and clearly the result of a panic'd mind more concerned with a pretense of safety than with the success of this great nation.

    1. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly, those corporations have to comply with various zoning, storage and disposal laws regarding the chemicals they use. Did this man get the appropriate zoning exemptions to work with chemicals in his house? As has been stated many times before they didn't just break in to his home to 'pry the chemicals from [his] cold, dead hands' the police were responding to a report from the Fire Department following a fire in the home.

    2. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, hobbyists are more trusted than corporations, which is why they are expected to keep their activities on a hobbyist scale.

      Corporations need things like discharge permits, which also involve both regular site inspections and sewer water testing. Hobbyists are subject to neither.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's about time the Government put an end to this sort of thing. In fact, it should have happened sooner. Consider for a moment how things could have been - if only people like Edison, Tesla, Marconi, Hewlett & Packard, even Woz & Jobs had been prevented from tinkering in home work shops!

    4. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel that if he had all the proper permits, qualifications, and was handling all materials properly, things that a lot of corporations jump through a lot of hoops to get, then no one would have a problem. On the other hand... a lot of those things are cost prohibitive to the individual.

    5. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are required to have mounds of paperwork (MSD sheets, spill recovery plans, etc.). So are home users, if they have hazardous amounts. Read a little, will you?

    6. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that vein, it is morbidly amusing to observe the relative changes in, say, restrictions on airline carry-on items vs. restrictions on chemical plant safety in populated areas as a function of concern over terrorism.

      I suspect, generally speaking, that a good list of terrorist targets could be drawn up simply by taking the list of hazardous industries, the list of industries in well populated areas, and the list of industries with good lobbyists, and picking whoever is first to appear on all three.

    7. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by westlake · · Score: 1
      I find it troubling that hobbyists are less trusted than corporations (assuming that these same experiments, performed by a corporation, would pose no problem
      .

      Well, of course, it is not a problem.

      The commercial lab is zoned industrial. There are standards for storage and handling of materials. Financial responsibility.

      Ideally, the corporation will have a close working relationship with first responders.

      Is a suburban basement really an appropriate working environment for an industrial chemist?

      I am not that far removed in time or space from the Love Canal district in Niagara Falls, where chemical wastes penetrated the cellars of a residential neighborhood.

      I would think long and hard before buying a house that had been used as a lab.

    8. Re:Hobbyists Less Trusted than Corporations? by sponga · · Score: 1

      Thank god common sense prevails than what you said though.

      Don't endanger my kids with your oversized hobbyist lab and take your hobbyist industrial size complex out of my 'residental zone'. He isn't allowed to do that work in that zone, end of story.

      Don't be so naive when saying they are choosing safety over the success of this great nation, there are plenty of places to do your chemistry work and cheap industrial zones.

      Also I think this article is more 'Fear Mongering' than anything, it is working everyone up around here that we are in a police state at the moment and showing schizophrenia comments around here.

  41. Blame the firefighters by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1

    They were probably in the basement checking the breaker box and the electrical connections to the air conditioner, looking for potential electrical fires in the wall, when they found Mr. Wizard's stash.

    I suspect they're the ones who turned this into a fiasco. They probably complained that if they were ever to respond to a serious fire at this house, the unknown effects of all those chemicals burning could be deadly. I know TFA said only a few were flammable, but some stuff when it burns releases deadly gases, toxins, etc.

    Firefighters want to know that when they enter into a burning house, they are not going to be exposed to the equivalent of a burning college chemistry lab. They get paid to take risks, but some end up with health problems later in life because of all the toxic stuff they've inhaled over the years.

    They are probably making an example of this guy as a warning to others with stashes of chemicals.

    That said, I don't think the authorities had the right to take over the house and rummage through it. They should get an omelette on their collective faces for that.

  42. City comment link by PottedMeat · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't they know for sure that something is amiss before they make raids like this?

    I think they are way over the line and will be making a comment here: http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/comments

    Yeah it's comments for the website but hey it's somewhere.

    PM

  43. Fall of the Galactic Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont know if anyone else feels the parallels to Asimovs description of events of fall of the galactic empire and rise of the foundations.

  44. Are prosecutors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are prosecutors up for election in Massachusetts? Because donating to this guys opponent looks kind of attractive.

  45. Long live the King by Rubikon · · Score: 1

    King George III (and by George I /don't/ mean Bush) is alive and well, residing very close to where the American Revolution began. The Fifth Columnists / useful idiots are well positioned and ready to re-implement the King's policies and tactics.

  46. The real criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police here are the real criminals. In any other uniform, they would be called 'armed robbers' and hauled off to jail. In my humble opinion, this crime forfeits their status as 'police' or 'law enforcement' and their legal protection as such. They should be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced for armed robbery, grand theft, breaking and entering, and impersonation of a police officer, along with any other crimes the state prosecutor can come up with.

  47. Atlas needs to shrug already by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    OK! Galt's Gulch! For real! Who's with me?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    (crickets)

    Huh.

    1. Re:Atlas needs to shrug already by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you bring your inexhaustible labor force of robots.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Atlas needs to shrug already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure you bring your inexhaustible labor force of robots [angryflower.com].

      As a BTAF fan, I LOL'd when that cartoon came out, despite the fact that it shows that the author never actually read the book. Life in the Gulch is described as relatively hard, and the creature comforts were primitive compared to most of "civilization", at least until the lights went out in NYC. Plenty of former industrialists in the Gulch were willing to cook, clean, and do the work that Bob expected to be performed by the robot army :)

      (Rand, writing in 1957, had plenty of time to figure out that nuclear energy was effectively an "unlimited supply of free energy" - whether used for power generation or as a weapon - as compared to its conventional alternatives, but cybernetics was still too young a concept to have reached her, which is the other reason why there were no robots in the book.)

      ...and even knowing that, I still LOL every time I read that cartoon.

  48. This Code Enforcement Officer... by dcollins · · Score: 1

    I want her sued for everything she's worth. I want her deported to China. I don't want her in my fucking country anymore. I want my America and my Bill of Rights back.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:This Code Enforcement Officer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES. YES YES YES.
      I want the America that came with the Bill of Rights.

      Now apparently your rights are a side dish you'll have to pay extra for.

    2. Re:This Code Enforcement Officer... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      You want your rights?

      Then stop acting like a sheeple and knee jerking to everything you read.

      Start actually using your brain and educating yourself on matters before you open your mouth.

      That way the next time some snake oil salesman tells you the 'bad man is going to hurt you' you don't end up giving everything you own to the shyster trying to prevent something that would have never happened anyway.

      Or in short, RTFA. What the submitter wrote and what actually was said in the article are 180 degrees apart. Not only that, but if you actually read the article you'd realize that nothing nefarious was occuring on either side. Retired chemist still doing research in his basement. Fire fighters notice the chemicals while responding to a fire in his house. The events that followed from that are 100% predictable.

      This 'black and white', my side vs your side BS is exactly how we got to the point we are.

    3. Re:This Code Enforcement Officer... by xednieht · · Score: 1

      If you want your Bill of Rights you'll have to go to China I hear they bought it at the American Foreclosure Sale.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
  49. In the name of being "safe" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ironic that certain politicians (mostly Republicans, who are all about individual rights and small government) are so hot on this pursuit of putting down terrsts wherever they may be when their methods are, in fact, in line with certain nanny-states around the world. We've gotten to the point where we value just staying alive more than actually living.

    1. Re:In the name of being "safe" by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Don't blame just republicans, blame democrats too. Both violate the constitution on a daily basis. Republican: Sure, have as much rights as you like (so long as you don't even think about being un-American...) Democrats: Sure! Protest all you want (so long as you don't even think of criticizing any minorities). Republicans: Sure have all the guns you want (but don't think of being non-christian) Democrats: Sure be whatever religion you want (but don't exercise your rights of the second amendment).

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  50. Ah, I love the smell of flamebait in the afternoon by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

    Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement.

    Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

    "It is a residential home in a residential neighborhood," she said. "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby. He's still got bunches of ideas. I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation. ... There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

    Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties.

    "He's been very cooperative," Ms. Wilderman said. "I won't be citing him for anything right at this moment."
     

    Really, the above is a bit far from the inflamitory accusations of ironshod goosestepping that the blog author insinuates.

    There is a difference between having a hobby bench and doing 'science' and running a chem lab. One is harmless, the other is only harmless when you take the proper safety percautions.

  51. be normal, very normal by markhahn · · Score: 2, Funny

    all your base are belong to us, and your acids too.

    the real question is whether the US's current direction will change after the election. I have a feeling that even if Obama wins, it won't be easy to turn around the train...

    1. Re:be normal, very normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because Elbereth knows, Massachusetts is such a bastion of Bush-lovers.

      Seriously, get your head out of your ass. All politicians are the same, no matter what little letter they put after their name. Why would anyone think that anything will change if Obama gets elected? Does your memory just stop pre-January 2001? (Alternately, are you 8 years old?)

  52. About to start some shit! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny
    Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some shit, Zed.

    Men in Black

    1. Re:About to start some shit! by still+cynical · · Score: 1

      Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some shit, Zed.

      Men in Black

      You owe her an apology.

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
  53. lets get serious here... by Danathar · · Score: 1

    There is nothing wrong with science at home IF HE followed all the regs about how you store and dispose of chemicals and hazardous materials. If on the other hand he had stuff there he was not supposed to have, or stored in dangerous ways that are against the law then it's quite acceptable to have the law come in and make things right.

    I've seen houses go up in flames because of what people have stored in their garage and basement.

  54. Land of the free... by nattl · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...welcome to America

  55. What happened != what submitter says happened by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As usual on Slashdot, what the submitter says happened and what the article says happened aren't the same.

    According to the article:
    A fire broke out on the 2nd floor of the subject's home. In the process of responding to this, firefighters found a LOT of chemicals, about 1500 different ones to be exact. The home was not zoned to be a chemical lab, so doing so much chemical work there violated zoning laws.

    So while it's quite fun to blame "evil" governments, had a fire not broken out nothing would have happened. And nobody who's railing about the government seems to have any smart ideas on how a home user is going to properly dispose of chemical waste in a legal and environmentally sound way. For all we know he was just dumping stuff down the toilet, which probably isn't legal.

    1. Re:What happened != what submitter says happened by speedtux · · Score: 1

      firefighters found a LOT of chemicals, about 1500 different ones to be exact.

      You have hundreds of thousands of chemicals in your body. Are you a zoning violation?

      so doing so much chemical work there violated zoning laws

      Oh, my, he did "teh chemical work"! Run for the hills!

      He may have violated zoning laws, but that depends on what chemicals he was working with, not how many he had.

      Chances are that the insecticides, weed killers, leaf blowers, and motor oil in a typical suburban neighborhood are a far greater health risk than anything this guy cooked up.

    2. Re:What happened != what submitter says happened by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      He was experimenting with neutralisation of carciogenic substances, like concentrated dioxin and other "makes your neighbour get 3-eyed children" stuff.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:What happened != what submitter says happened by hey! · · Score: 1

      Another point that seems to be lost on people: the government did not bash in the Deebs' door. The Deebs have voluntarily cooperated with the authorities, so Fourth Amendment issues are moot.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:What happened != what submitter says happened by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      For all we know he was just dumping stuff down the toilet, which probably isn't legal.

      For all we know, you pour your used motor oil down the storm sewer and burn tires in your backyard. Somebody should investigate.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:What happened != what submitter says happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing legitimate about zoning laws, which are out-and-out violations of private property rights. For the government to tell you what you can and cannot do on your property, with the exception of actions which put innocent, non-consenting parties in real (substantiated) and imminent danger, means that the government is the real owner of the property, and the ostensible private owner becomes nothing more than a feudal serf. This is inimical to a free society.

      Of course, the same is true when the government forces you to pay tax on your property, lest they seize it. Why bother to take on a mortgage when you're stuck renting anyway?

  56. Incompetence rather than malice by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually it sounds far more like they got wind of the guys lab somehow decided that the only possible reason someone would have a checmistry lab is to make drugs or be a terrorist, raided his house and are now desperately trying to find something he has done wrong so they don't look like incompetent morons.

    Of course by not owning up, apologising and making amends they are now coming across as vindictive, malicious incompetent morons. Somebody needs to remind them that when you find yourself in a hole it really is time to stop digging!

  57. Yeah, that stuff is dangerous! by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, that stuff is dangerous! We need to stop it RIGHT NOW!

    Think of the children! They might get EXPOSED to these vile chemicals.

    Call your congressman!

    1. Re:Yeah, that stuff is dangerous! by HappySmileMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't make jokes about DHMO, I know a guy who died after inhaling it at the beach. It may not be nice to hear about it, but DHMO really does kill

  58. Ms. Wilderman's Contact info by scubamage · · Score: 0, Troll

    Pam Wilderman's phone number according to the city's website is 1-(508)-460-3765. Give her some hell. She's a public servant. Call and let her know your opinion on the matter.

    1. Re:Ms. Wilderman's Contact info by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      Or call her and express sympathy for all the phone calls she's getting from well-meaning but under-informed Slashdotters.

    2. Re:Ms. Wilderman's Contact info by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm not underinformed. I read TFA. Having an incident in one half of a home does nothing to give officials warrant to search the rest of the home. Further without warrant personal property cannot be siezed unless there is a clear and present danger of a crime being committed. Hooray for civil liberties law. If nothing illegal or dangerous is found (as they state in the official story) then why is his equipment being disposed of? Why is he not being compensated?

    3. Re:Ms. Wilderman's Contact info by onecheapgeek · · Score: 1

      Yup. In an electrical fire, they aren't gonna traipse down to the basement looking for the breaker box or anything.

      That's a situation we'd all want to walk into. Fire upstairs, chemicals on the couch and all over the floor on the way to the breaker box....

      Let me put this a little more plainly for you. THERE WAS A FIRE. HE HAD FLAMMABLE CHEMICALS IN THE HOUSE. Should they have ignored the chemicals in that situation? Cuz if you think so, I hope you also think they should have let all his crap burn and not put the fire out, citing UNNECESSARY risk to the firefighters.

    4. Re:Ms. Wilderman's Contact info by scubamage · · Score: 1

      So did they remove all cans of spraypaint, RAID, aerosols, cheez-wiz, and other potentially flammable items? Did they remove all gauze bandages, clothing, and paper products? Did they disable the home heating oil valves, remove the lawnmower, and weedwacker? If applicable, did they turn off the natural gas main coming into the home? No. So, they saw things that scared them, and took them. Your assumption that they only took them because they're flammable is faulty my friend.

    5. Re:Ms. Wilderman's Contact info by onecheapgeek · · Score: 1

      As is your kneejerk reaction to believe the rantings of a man out to sell his conspiracy books.

      Agree to disagree on this one, then?

  59. Adventures in Childhood Chemistry by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    Lets see how much of my teenage years I can remember...

    1) Drilled out the barrel of a decorative brass cannon, emptied out about 200 firecrakers into it, mashed up a bunch of pellets from the pellet gun, stuck a fuse in it, lit it, ran. There was a large explosion. Never found the cannon.

    2) That was so cool, tried to make gunpowder. Could never make that work very well so...

    3) Made nitro glycerine. Really bad nitro glycerine, but we did manage to blow up the test tube it was in and miraculously not ourselves.

    4) Made a video in the chem lab at high school, pretending to be the Devil by turning on the two bunsen-burner gas outlets on either side of the teachers podium and lit them, cool flames shooting 5 feet into the air on either side with my friend standing between them trying to look devilish.

    Etc etc. I mean, come on. Everyone thinks flames and blowing stuff up is cool. I suppose if I was a kid today I'd get sent to a psychologist.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Adventures in Childhood Chemistry by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Agreed. America these days is a pussywhipped, nanny-stated, queer-plan-for-the-straight-man hollow shell of its former glory. :(

    2. Re:Adventures in Childhood Chemistry by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      Etc etc. I mean, come on. Everyone thinks flames and blowing stuff up is cool. I suppose if I was a kid today I'd get sent to a psychologist.

      That is one reason I love my part-time job as a wildland firefighter:
      I get paid to travel and then sometimes burn up the areas I travel to.
      The main downside is that someone has to clean up, and cleaning up a 90,000 fire, like I recently did in California can be a little boring.

      My normal job is a Ruby on Rails developer, so it really seems like Peter Gibbons is my role model, except that I am not ripping off banks.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:Adventures in Childhood Chemistry by clone53421 · · Score: 1
      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  60. I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not to long ago, I was having fun with my chemistry set. I think at age 12, I had more skull and cross bones in my room then a satanist. Luckily, I only experimented with non-toxic gases. :P Then I discovered electronics and made my mom believe I knew black magic.

  61. Found a Picture... by GogglesPisano · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pretty much what you'd expect. Looks to be your garden variety petty bureaucrat, overly impressed by her little bit of power.

    1. Re:Found a Picture... by GogglesPisano · · Score: 1

      The link seems to be requiring registration now. For those who don't want to bother, I posted this.

    2. Re:Found a Picture... by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Impressive. You can read a person by her appearance alone, and a photograph where she was encouraged to pose, no less.

      Tell me, can you elaborate on the vital plot points of War and Peace by looking at the cover alone?

      Why is it that we're judging this woman already, when she might simply be doing her job? People living in suburbs have demanded a certain level of safety, and a full-blown organic chem lab inside a guy's house carries several risks that have serious consequences, especially if the chemist isn't on top of everything. Once someone with a cooler head points out the lack of formal charges and the scale of his operation, he gets hammered by people who value property rights over their neighbors' rights. I have a feeling that this general inability to comprehend that maybe their neighbors don't want a potential time bomb in their midst is why the libertarian sentiment here is so vocal and adamant.

      Parent comment isn't informative, it's stirring the libertarian/anti-government pot. The submission itself is perfect libertarian bait, and they're eating it up like a feeding frenzy.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  62. This is where nanny state bureaucracy takes you by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

    to the same place that right wing police state bureaucracy takes you..

    Both know better than you and both are only acting for your own good...

    --
    "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
  63. Flamebait Article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA from the local story states something completely different than what the blog article states. The chemist in question had a fire in his house, and this could have really been seriously dangerous just from the fire. The investigation has been cooperative by the chemist himself, and should have been done for the help in cleanup. The only issues that will MAYBE arise is the citations of improper disposal/containment and having too much of types of chemicals at a time.

    This is FUD at it's finest. And I hate to say it, but the government was in the right, and the blogger blew everything out of proportion. This is backwards...

  64. Industrial chemical lab by Skapare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This guy appears (based on depictions in the article) to be running an industrial grade chemical lab in his home. That is the kind of lab you might see grad students and professors in at the Chemistry building in a nearby large college or at the research building of a company that makes or uses chemicals. This sure sounds like it is NOT a home chemistry set used for educational purposes (that have only small volumes of 20 to 40 chemicals). The kind of lab this guy apparently has is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. He should have rented some space in an industrial office park, or moved out into a rural area, or tried to make arrangements with a nearby college.

    This is probably news on Slashdot just because it is Massachusetts, which is associated with the city of Boston, which has a bunch of idiots running things there. So Slashdotters and other geeks are always looking for the next screwup in or near that city. But this isn't it. Move along, but keep looking as there is sure to be a genuine screwup somewhere in and around Boston.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  65. Interesting Cut by shma · · Score: 1

    I want to note here that the quotes in the summary are from the blog post and not the actual article. It seems the blogger, Robert Bruce Thompson, cut important information from the article in order to make the story more sensationalist. He also made up new 'information' to make the police action seem worse than it was. Nowhere in the article does it say that the authorities didn't have permission or a warrant to enter the house. I strongly suggest you read the full article before rushing to judgement.

    There are obvious safety reasons why you can't operate a chemistry lab in your basement in the middle of a residential area. But hey, Robert Thompson, don't let that stop you from writing "There's a word for what just happened in Massachusetts. Tyranny." I mean, this is one short step from Stalinist Russia, right?

    But look at it this way, you've already got one slashdot poster confusing you with the guy who operated the lab and demanding people buy your book. So you stand to make a bit of profit off of this free advertising.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  66. The actual law by WillRobinson · · Score: 4, Informative

    You had to make me look, as I was quite surprised about that law. But here it is: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcotics/narcprecursor.htm

    1. Re:The actual law by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and notice the intentionally vague items list. A "flask heater"? An "adapter tube"? A "transformer"?!?!

      The whole idea here is apparently to make EVERYONE in TX a criminal, so that they can be charged with *something* any time the pigs want to....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    2. Re:The actual law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land of the free... you have my sympathy.

    3. Re:The actual law by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, and notice the intentionally vague items list. A "flask heater"? An "adapter tube"? A "transformer"?!?!

      The whole idea here is apparently to make EVERYONE in TX a criminal, so that they can be charged with *something* any time the pigs want to....

      But as long as you carry at least one gun with you at all times, then you're OK, right? And the gun rack on the back of your pickup truck scores double, I've heard...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:The actual law by wcbsd · · Score: 5, Funny

      An Erlenmeyer Flask? Are they kidding? I used to have one as a flower vase! Thank goodness I live in MA. Oh. Wait.

    5. Re:The actual law by mweather · · Score: 4, Funny

      An armed man can mix whatever chemicals he damn well pleases.

    6. Re:The actual law by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      An armed man can mix whatever chemicals he damn well pleases.

      Until of course a group of several other (better armed) men tell you otherwise.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:The actual law by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Chemical laboratory apparatus" means any item of equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue, including:

      There you go. Owning these things is not a problem unless they were meant to be used in a drug lab. So if it says "for producing crystal meth" on the box, then you need a permit. Otherwise you're free to use the flask for whatever.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:The actual law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to buy a Nalgene water bottle in TX...

    9. Re:The actual law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas, you are a criminal if you require a daily dose of a non-prescription allergy medication. No joke. You are allowed 30-days per house hold. If you have a second person which requires this, they don't get it. If you figure out a way to get more than 30-days worth of pills, you're ready to go to jail. Specifically, they are trying to prevent people from obtaining, "ephedrine and pseudoephedrine".

      Seriously, this is not a joke - it's the law. Okay, well, maybe the law is a joke, but I am serious about this.

    10. Re:The actual law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and notice the intentionally vague items list. A "flask heater"? An "adapter tube"? A "transformer"?!?!

      The whole idea here is apparently to make EVERYONE in TX a criminal, so that they can be charged with *something* any time the pigs want to....

      Yup. As it was in the past, so it is today.

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

      "With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."

      - former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1940

    11. Re:The actual law by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's harder to qualify for a concealed carry permit in Texas than in any other state that allows ordinary citizens to carry (scary that the Bill of Rights is ignored so widely).

      You definitely get points for the gun rack, but there's a sundown law in Texas, so that gun rack had better be empty after dark.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:The actual law by djlosch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You left out the part of "any item of equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue." This sounds like your standard burglary tools clause, and these are probably not actually illegal in TX on their own. The typical burglary tool list makes it illegal to possess hammers, screwdrivers, crowbars, etc., but only with intent to unlawfully enter or remain in a conveyance. All that happens is that when they bust someone, they can charge them with more counts that will be much easier to stick (and force a plea). Besides "a filter" is on the list, and it would be laughable to think that everyone who goes to their local big box to buy an AC filter or some cheese cloth is now a criminal.

      And even then, you still have due process and the takings clause.

      -- Florida Criminal Defense Attorney. I'm not your attorney. Always consult an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

    13. Re:The actual law by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Funny

      An armed man can mix whatever chemicals he damn well pleases.

      Well of course--it's quite hard for someone to mix chemicals if he has no arms...

    14. Re:The actual law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not even a chemist and I own outright (or have incorporated into other products in my house) 6 of the 14 banned "chemical laboratory aparatus".

    15. Re:The actual law by WinPimp2K · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but I don't think you can hang that one on Texas. The pharmacies I go to for my Drixoral fix all have a cute little sign quoting the relevant section of the USA PATRIOT Act as their authority for demanding ID and stating the penalties for any economies with the truth you may want to take.

      I never realized how much money from home-grown meth labs went into the pockets of the terrorists. I am glad the DOJ has cleared that up for us.

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    16. Re:The actual law by soybean · · Score: 1

      What you say is both accurate and paranoid. You should seek professional help.

    17. Re:The actual law by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But as long as you carry at least one gun with you at all times, then you're OK, right? And the gun rack on the back of your pickup truck scores double, I've heard...

      Actually, Texas is one of only six states in the nation that bans openly carrying a firearm. In Texas, the ONLY way to legally carry a gun on your person is with a concealed carry permit. That means that in Texas, the constitutional right to bear arms is granted or not at the whim of the government.

      There is a growing movement in Texas to correct this situation. An on-line petition has collected nearly 23,000 signatures and several legislators have promised to introduce a bill to join the majority of the nation and allow open carry.

      It sounds like they need to go after the glassware restrictions next. Actually, what we really need to do as a nation is give up the ridiculous "war on drugs" which, to date, is the source of more civil liberties infringements than any other issue, including the "war on terror".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:The actual law by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Inmate 1: What are you in for?
      Inmate 2: 5 accounts of murder in the 1st, you?
      Inmate 1: Possession of an Optimus prime.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    19. Re:The actual law by Hercynium · · Score: 1

      An armed man can mix whatever chemicals he damn well pleases.

      And an un-armed man has to find an able-bodied assistant who can follow his instructions!

      --
      I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
    20. Re:The actual law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but I bet those stumps make for great pestles.

    21. Re:The actual law by Dahan · · Score: 1

      You left out the part of "any item of equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue." This sounds like your standard burglary tools clause, and these are probably not actually illegal in TX on their own.

      If intent to manufacture a controlled substance is what makes it illegal, why does TX require a permit to buy/sell/transfer laboratory glassware? And to obtain the permit, you have to allow them to come inspect your home (or wherever you're keeping the glassware) at "any reasonable time".

      There are glassware retailers that won't sell to Texans without a permit. For example, this place. Some eBay sellers have the same policy too.

      Besides "a filter" is on the list, and it would be laughable to think that everyone who goes to their local big box to buy an AC filter or some cheese cloth is now a criminal.

      It actually says "filter funnels", not just any old filter. However, "transformers" are on the restricted list--everyone with any sort of electronic equipment owns dozens of those.

    22. Re:The actual law by dickens · · Score: 1

      It's called legalism. The Chinese invented it a few millennia back.

       

    23. Re:The actual law by budgenator · · Score: 1

      (G) a filter, Buchner, or separatory funnel
      these are all types of funnels, a filter funnel is what most people think of as a chemistry filter inside a glass funnel, a Buchner funnel has a flat bottom and a filter place on the bottom and the filtrate is drawn through under partial vacuum and a separatory funnel has an stoppered opening at the top and a valved opening at the bottom and two immiscable liquids such as water and oil is placed in it and a chemical in the water is drawn into the oil to separate it from other chemicals. These are very specific yet common part of an organic chemistry kit

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:The actual law by pruss · · Score: 1

      I wonder about the wording. "'Chemical laboratory apparatus' means any item of equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue, including: (A) a condenser; (B) a distilling apparatus [etc.]". Does that mean that condensers, distilling apparatuses and the like are OK if they are not "designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue"? Or does it maybe not matter whether your particular condenser is designed, made or adapted for this purpose, because some condensers are designed, made or adapted for this purpose?

    25. Re:The actual law by famebait · · Score: 1

      Ayn Rand,

      No need to bring on the misanthropic nut jobs, this point (and the need to avoid it) has been recognized for as long as the rest of modern legal thinking.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    26. Re:The actual law by Tony · · Score: 1

      Actually, what we really need to do as a nation is give up the ridiculous "war on drugs" which, to date, is the source of more civil liberties infringements than any other issue, including the "war on terror".

      Meh. Give 'em some time. The "war on terror" has only been around less than a decade. You haven't given it a chance to start infringing on civil liberties yet.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    27. Re:The actual law by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'm an unarmed chemist, you insensitive clod!!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    28. Re:The actual law by swillden · · Score: 1

      Good point. Then there's also the coming "war on illegal immigration". If it goes the way I'm afraid it will, it'll make both the others look positively supportive of the bill of rights.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:The actual law by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

      I'm an armory, by industry, and .. *sigh.. too tired to finish this one. Someone else do it?

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    30. Re:The actual law by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      +11 Depresively Insightfull *shoots himself*

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  67. We make your choices for you by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the big deal?

    This is yet another example of the end of freedom, that's what. This is one set of people deciding that you are making the wrong choices with your freedom and they need to make all your choices for you from now on.

    They want to choose
    - your hobby,
    - what games you can play,
    - whether you can smoke,
    - what you can drink,
    - what you can eat,
    - what kinds of cars you're allowed to drive,
    - how fast,
    - where you can live,
    - how you celebrate the 4th of July,
    - how much money you can make,
    - how much money you can pay your employees,
    - how you raise your children,
    - what jokes you can tell at work,
    - the precise mix of fuel in your gas tank,
    - what health care you are to be allowed,
    - who you can rent housing to,
    - what's on your cable TV,
    - and what days you can water your lawn.

    What's the big deal? Why don't we all just make exactly the choices you might make and then we'll never have a problem?

    And the worst thing: the only "solution" people talk about is getting "person C" to be in charge of making everyone's choices for them instead of "person D".

    1. Re:We make your choices for you by X_Bones · · Score: 0, Troll

      would someone please mod this offtopic? I'm really having a hard time seeing how a knee-jerk libertarian rant about OMG TEH FREEDOMS has anything to do with a guy who is tinkering with large amounts of chemicals in the basement of his house in violation of common-sense municipal ordinances.

      Nobody's taking away this guy's ability to practice his hobby. Really. They're just telling him that he can't do so in an area of town where if he blows his house up he'd take the lives and property of innocent neighbors with it. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

    2. Re:We make your choices for you by z00_miak · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the most part about what you say, you must not forget that you have responsibilities as well as rights.

      I doubt there is much in writing, and perhaps its my own opinion, but every person has (should have?) the (often neglected) responsibility to behave in such a way that allows society to benefit the most people. To some this may sound like 'go back to russia' talk, but allow me to illustrate:

      I live in a city, like many, that has water shortage issues. There are now city by-laws in place that don't allow for watering lawns during the day, this is because a large percentage of the water evaporates from the heat of the sun. If everyone plays by this simple and common sense rule, and waters their lawn at night, they'll need to water less and their lawns will still be just as green. If nobody plays by this rule, we'll run out of water and the entire city is not only going to be unable to water their lawns, they'll be unable to drink, shower, etc.

      I realize that behaving with common sense and respect for others is obviously not on the top of many people's list, but try to understand why some of the rules are in place.

    3. Re:We make your choices for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So help me understand...

      1. The Feds took away his right to move out to the middle of nowhere to live in an area where his naive chemistry practices wouldn't endanger others, who also have the freedom to LIVE?

      2. They took our right to consume as much water as we want during drought, for our lawns, leaving none for everyone else? (ever heard of sharing or conservation?) Especially during a shortage. I'm so sick of people saying "our rights are being curtailed." Move to China, you'll shall understand what the word curtail means.

    4. Re:We make your choices for you by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ... every person has ... the ... responsibility to behave in such a way that allows society to benefit the most people.

      This is absolute bullshit. This means all behavior can be ruled in precise minute detail by saying the magic words "society benefits the most people". Want to enslave 25% of the population? Well, since 75% is "the most people" and they'll clearly benefit from the forced labor of the rest, I guess you just justified it then.

      Yeah, you didn't mean it that way. You just knew how people should make their choices in a few little ways and decided to justify it by the benefit to society. So does everyone else, only they know they should make some other choices on a different subject. You all go ahead and have the police enforce those choices. And that's why no one has any freedom left.

      I realize that behaving with common sense...

      There's no such thing as "common sense". The words "common sense" mean "agrees with me". If you think I'm wrong, come up with a clear empirical test for what's common sense and what isn't and post it.

      And no one would complain that much if it were just the lawn watering -- it's everything together. (There's no reason the delivery of water couldn't be privatized so I could buy as much as I wanted, but that's just an aside.) I live 2 miles from a huge river that floods every year, but we have lawn-watering restrictions because the local town has money to build a new Performing Arts complex but not enough to deliver water to people so they can water their lawns when they want.

      ...and respect for others is obviously not on the top of many people's list...

      The people who ask for this "respect" don't grant it to others in return. We have handicap parking signs, for example. Do they say "please"? No. They say "$200 fine". "Please" is respect and "$200 fine" is contempt. What's the basis for respecting others in such an environment?

  68. The big deal is 4th amendment by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Apparently you forget what it states.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  69. I would like a true discussion of this. by DigitalReverend · · Score: 5, Informative

    I contacted Ms. Wilderman, who actually answered her phone. http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/MarlboroughMA_Inspection/index
    Pamela A. Wilderman Code Enforcement Officer 508 460-3765

    She stated that the fire department was called for an apparent fire on the 2nd floor of Mr. Deeb's home. This allowed the firemen entry into the house. Upon further investigation (of the basement for a 2nd floor fire) the firemen discovered the chemicals and brought in the authorities.

    Ms. Wilderman said "We have zoning laws for this purpose, the firefighters were called into what they thought was a single family residence only to discover unmarked chemicals in the basement, he had a chemistry lab down there, in an area zoned residential". I informed her that I had an electronics lab, and beer brewing equipment in mine to which she made the comment "I bet your neighbors are thrilled about that". Of course I don't think my neighbors even know because they all mind their own business.

    Anyway this brings up a series of questions. Were the chemicals truly unmarked? Mr. Deebs is a retired chemist, surely he would practice some type of protocol. Second, if his activity is not illegal where is the justification of not only seizing the items, but then stating they will be disposed of. Will Mr. Deebs be reimbursed. What if they went into the basement and discovered a person to hand loads his own ammunition? It is a perfectly legal hobby practiced by shooters all over the country. Would they have seized those items?

    Finally, I would love to hear Mr. Deebs story on this. His reputation is being destroyed over a simple hobby.

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    1. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by onecheapgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you very much for posting this. It's too far down the page to get much attention, but I appreciate reading it.

      If the chemicals were, in fact, unmarked, this is a total non-issue. Furthermore, as the son of a chemist, I have absolutely no problem believing the chemicals were unmarked. When you work with something daily, you don't need a label to tell you what it is usually.

    2. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      If the chemicals were, in fact, unmarked, this is a total non-issuse

      Execept, of course, if there are laws and regulations requiring them to be marked - so that, for instance, if firefighters respond to a call at your house and see a bigass vat, they know whether or not it's something that might be hazardous to them and to your neighbors.

      Are there such laws in this location? Dunno. But according to TFA, "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I worked as an R&D chemist for 20+ years, and can understand why the town would be alarmed. A large scale lab (which it sounds like was in place here) should not be run on a hobby basis. The EPA and OSHA have significant regulatory impact on lab operations including safety and disposal requirements (no you can't just pour it down the drain) which sound like were being completely ignored here. Not to mention the fire department would be very concerned if they were called to a place where they did not know what they were going to be exposed to (exactly what happened here).

      As part of my job I was involved in training local fire and rescue teams on hazmat response. Fire departments in particular take this sort of thing VERY seriously, and it was no surprise they acted the way they did when they found this home R&D lab.

      Aside from the zoning issues I'd bet this operation was in violation of a large number of EPA and OSHA rules. Some of which could invoke criminal penalties and jail time. If the owner is not getting hit with any of this he should consider himself damn lucky.

    4. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ...if firefighters respond to a call at your house and see a bigass vat...

      Everybody has a "bigass vat" in their home! I happen to most often use mine to boil pasta in. Do I have to fucking label my pasta now?!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by jcgf · · Score: 1

      What they refer to as "unlabeled" might not be what we would think of as such. They might be thinking "all these containers had were a few letters and numbers - where are all the safety notices in case one of his neighbors' kids come into his basement?". I deal with the breeders and their self-righteous attitudes all too often. Why should I care about your crotchfruit? You made em, you raise em. Their existence should not limit MY freedom (I don't get any input into how they are raised). Sounds fair doesn't it?

    6. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by pz · · Score: 1

      I informed her that I had an electronics lab, and beer brewing equipment in mine to which she made the comment "I bet your neighbors are thrilled about that".

      If you were MY neighbor, I'd definitely be thrilled about it -- as long as you shared your beer!

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    7. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same setup. My neighbors do, in fact, love it because they get cheap electronics repair and free delicious beer.

    8. Re:I would like a true discussion of this. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Everybody has a "bigass vat" in their home! I happen to most often use mine to boil pasta in.

      I was thinking of a much bigger vat.

      But if you've got a pasta-pot's worth of nitroglycerine, anthrax spores, metallic sodium, or weapons-grade uranium, yes, I want you to label it, if you're living anywhere near me, so in case of emergency it can be handled in way less likely to kill me or damage my property.

      If you've got a pasta-pot's worth of water, salt, vinegar, grass clippings, or other non-hazardous stuff, I don't care, rock on.

      If you've got a pasta-pot's worth of pasta, I want a dinner invitation.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  70. Guess she'd have a real problem with Thomas Edison by jays8088 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One would guess she would have a real problem with someone like Thomas Edison and his chemistry lab on the rail car. There was a day when the basement inventor/chemist/scientist was looked on a hero, someone to look up to and certainly the cornerstone of wealth creation in the country.

  71. Happened to me in Valdosta, GA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happened to me in Georgia, Valdosta, in 1999 or 2000, dont remember.
    I got interested in chemistry during the first year of university and was experimenting in the apartment parking lot.
    Then one evening DEA arrested me, sealed off entire block, firefighters came, Air Force bomb squad came. Was not a pleasant experience - ended up with a hefty fine, lots of community service, and a probation.
    Home chemistry is not under attack, it is dead.

    1. Re:Happened to me in Valdosta, GA. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hm, reminds me of how I used to use carbon contacts (scavenged from D-cell batteries, mostly... though anymore they aren't carbon-zinc batteries anyhow) and a 9v battery for electrolysis of salt water. In hindsight I was probably creating chlorine gas, because it smelled awful... but hey, it was fun, and apparently I survived.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  72. I get that paper, and I dont see the article! by Analog_Manner · · Score: 1

    I live in Sterling MA, and I get the T&G delivered to my house daily. I can't find anything about this in my fuckin paper. Does anyone know what page it's on? please let me know at Analog.Manner@gmail.com

  73. So what is a valid home business in Massachusets? by ahfoo · · Score: 1

    I don't know about other locations, but in San Diego you can operate a neon sign shop in your garage. That entails pulling electric arcs off a 20Kv@1amp transformer that will easily kill a human being on contact during discharge along with operating ultra low pressure two-stage vacuum systems, running multiple oxygen torches with specialized heads and handling large quantities of mercury and hundreds of highly toxic and even mildly radiocative phosphor materials.

    Better yet, the products such home businesses produce include xenon, argon, helium, hydrogen discharge tubes that can emit highly hazardous frequencies of radiation. In addition, lasers in the 30watt range are perfectly doable. But why stop there. In addition vacuum tube variations on the thyristor such as the thyratron or ignotron and other components that can be used as military/utility grade high voltage/high current switching ignition devices are perfectly simple to create with the same equipment. That's all perfectly doable and legit in San Diego. Well, I suppose you wouldn't want to be getting into the market for high power ignition devices without a pretty decent reason, but that other stuff is all legit as it should be.

    It's just a simple fact that so much powerful high technology is already old news that has been in the public domain for many decades. People growing up in the fifties probably had better knowledge of basic chemistry than the general public does today. Harrassing hobbyists and garage business operators is certainly not going to make anybody safer. Quite the contrary: if you outlaw DIY scientists, then only outlaws will have mad tech skillz.

  74. If she's sued ... by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

    If she's sued, I'll contribute to her legal defense fund. At least as far as can be told from the original article -- as opposed to the knee-jerk commentary from the under-informed Make guest post -- she did nothing either illegal or wrong.

  75. Warrantless entry again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it me or is this practice (entering and raiding people's home without a warrant, trampling people's rights) getting more and more common nowadays in the country formerly known as the Land of the Free?

  76. Worcester Area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having grown up in the Worcester area I'm not surprised. I always felt the people (especially the town governments) in the area were backwards and overly conservative in everything, except of course giving town jobs to their relatives.

  77. Bad Summary by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for [the Massachusetts town of] Marlboro stated, 'I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.' Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down.'"

    Actually, if you'll read the full quote, she finishes with: "⦠There are regulations about how much youâ(TM)re supposed to have, how itâ(TM)s detained, how itâ(TM)s disposed of." and the article continues with: "Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments."

    So, even though he wasn't actively being a terrorist or doing anything wrong with the chemicals, there are still rules about how you're supposed to handle it and where and he apparently didn't abide by them well enough.

    Regarding the lack of a warrant, to the best of my knowledge, if you have something illegal sitting out in plain sight and a law enforcement agency is there on other business, they don't really need a warrant to get at it.

    1. Re:Bad Summary by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      So, even though he wasn't actively being a terrorist or doing anything wrong with the chemicals, there are still rules about how you're supposed to handle it and where and he apparently didn't abide by them well enough.

      Not exactly. The statement was "Mr. Deeb's home likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments."

      However, Mr. Deeb is only required to abide by the regulations of his own state and town. What some other state or locality does or does not allow is irrelevant.

      It's hard to read this as meaning anything other than, "We don't know of any law that you've violated, but we're going to steal your property anyway, and if you object we'll trump up some kind of technicality to charge you with a crime."

    2. Re:Bad Summary by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      However, Mr. Deeb is only required to abide by the regulations of his own state and town. What some other state or locality does or does not allow is irrelevant.

      Thank you, I was a little shakey on what jurisdiction was.

      It's hard to read this as meaning anything other than, "We don't know of any law that you've violated, but we're going to steal your property anyway, and if you object we'll trump up some kind of technicality to charge you with a crime."

      What? Where did they imply they were going to charge him with a crime? From the article, it just sounds like they're sure he's trampled over at least a zoning law or two and most likely violated a bunch of other regulations, too. Seriously, why would they care to dangle a hobbyist's materials over his head? It's a pretty piss-poor power trip and it's not like enforcing zoning rules is prestigious work. If he was running a meth-lab or manufacturing bombs, that'd be prestigious. A hobbyist doesn't read up on his zoning regulations? Who cares?

    3. Re:Bad Summary by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      From the article, it just sounds like they're sure he's trampled over at least a zoning law or two and most likely violated a bunch of other regulations, too.

      Yet somehow, they couldn't seem to think of any. I'm not surprised. Most zoning regulations concern things like residential vs. business uses; they don't dictate what sort of noncommercial hobbies people can engage in in their own homes.

      But we are moving away from an era of individual freedom and privacy toward one where anything not expressly permitted is forbidden.

      What? Where did they imply they were going to charge him with a crime?

      This is Massachusetts, where people have been subjected to criminal charges for things like harmless electronic ads and jewelry with blinking lights. So the threat is not even all that implicit.

  78. Home Science not Under Attack by FellowConspirator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even the newspaper article linked by the person making the sensational claim doesn't support the claim. The story appears in several places and the facts in each don't support the thesis that "Home Science is Under Attack".

    The chemist in question had a fire in his house. While the fire department was responding to the fire, they happened upon the lab with an unusually large array of chemicals and equipment. They asked the man what he was doing with them and he noted that he was a retired chemist, doing his own development at home now, and was even patenting and marketing some of the things he developed.

    The fire marshall was concerned that the lab might pose a fire hazard and contacted the DEP per the usual protocol, and they went through and checked it out. They notified the town of the situation, who noted that he was doing commercial chemical R&D (by his own admission, he was) in a residential area in violation of applicable zoning laws. The DEP was required to "close" the lab and clean up any chemicals for which there's a prescribed disposal procedure (e.g., you're not supposed to pour large quantities of it down the sink).

    The guy broke zoning laws and he got caught because of an unrelated fire in his house. That's it.

    1. Re:Home Science not Under Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, you are an idiot if you really believe that zoning laws were not meant to be broken. They are arbitrarily set by the city and county officials and nothing more. You can go down to your local municipal office and get a license to operate a business out of your home for a small fee. Does this also violate zoning? Sure it does, but since you paid to do it, then all is right with the world. However, it seems that the individual in question was not running an operation for production and distribution of materials from his home, so it is absolutely preposterous to even try to cite him for a zoning violation. Even if zoning laws were 'broken' then they still had no just legal grounds for seizing his property. You get cited for those types of laws not raided.

      "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation."

      Who is the 'we' she refers to? I work from home often enough. What gives people like her the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in my home? The zoning laws are not an excuse for this action, they are not intended to be used in this way. They are intended to keep industrial and commercial production out of residential areas, not to slap people with non-'customary' occupations that work from home. What if he was changing his oil in his driveway? Would they have taken his car because he was running an oil changing business? People experiment with electronics in their home. How is that any different? Perhaps they should raid all the homes that have a car on blocks in the front yard too, I am sure they will find all kinds of 'zoning' violations. It is a spiral that converges into insanity and you are its herald, you dumb schmuck!

      Is anyone reminded of Ayn Rand novels? Let's see, the looters arrest him and confiscate his work, but because he does not play along they have no choice but to release him. The GD looters will not stop until you all follow lock-step with what they think you should be doing. I think that I will found Galt's Gulch... Who's with me?

    2. Re:Home Science not Under Attack by FellowConspirator · · Score: 1

      The county doesn't have anything to do with zoning laws, and he can't get a permit for what he was doing where he lives. He could apply for a variance, but it's not as simple as a fee (he has to plead his case before the zoning board).

      The point is that there are pretty clear rules on the books. There's ways of getting an exception, but he couldn't be bothered.

      Zoning laws are intended to be used in this way. Keep in mind that he lives only a few miles from where there was a chemical explosion in a house that leveled half a neighborhood. They haven't forgotten about that yet.

    3. Re:Home Science not Under Attack by kismet666 · · Score: 1

      What rules? I just read the city's zoning regulartions and this use of one's home is not prohibited: http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Res/familyhsng/MarlboroughMA_CityClerks/MarlboroughMA_ZoningOrds/article5. What source are you citing?

  79. Freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom? What's that? I have my choice of lattes and video games.

    Gotta go! American Idol is on.

  80. Well, as usual the summary is not accurate by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the newspaper article "most likely" violated numerous state and local regulations. Nobody is tossing out specifics because the town isn't planning to issue a citation. At issue is "how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of" in a residential area. So the issue isn't "experimenting", it's storage, processing and disposal at a facility not zoned for those purposes.

    Common sense will show you that the scale of experimentation makes a difference. Making a few quarts of biodiesel or a few bars of soap, that's home experimenting. Making a thousand gallons of biodiesel or a thousand pounds of soap is an industrial process. There isn't a precise line between chemistry set stuff and industrial production, but it's there. Making four gallons of beer a week is a lot for a home brewer, but making a hundred gallons a week probably means you've "crossed some line".

    The story doesn't really give us enough details to know whether the raid was justified, or served any public purpose. That depends on what they expected to find, why the expected to find it, and what they actually found, none of which is at this time public knowledge. We don't even know what level of government initiated this, it appears it was the town.

    One thing that's almost certain is that the search did not require a warrant. It is what is legally called an "administrative search". According to the dictionary an administrative search is "an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security. One of the fundamental principles of administrative searches is that the government may not use an administrative inspection scheme as a pretext to search for evidence of criminal violations."

    So the health inspector doesn't need a warrant to check on the crazy lady who has 200 cats in her house, which is a code violation even if its perfectly permissible for her to have 2 cats, or even 20. Likewise I can have a dog or two, but I can't run a kennel in a densely populated suburban neighborhood unless I have a zoning variance (and possibly pay commercial tax rates).

    You can argue that there shouldn't be such thing as zoning regulations. And its probably true that there are many places where there is little or no purpose to them. But zoning laws and administrative searches are NOT unconstitutional, at least by the interpretation of the Constitution that has held sway for a century or more.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Well, as usual the summary is not accurate by keithjr · · Score: 1

      Nailed it on the head. The post and story describe the facility as a"home chemistry lab" but don't go any father into further details.

      What chemicals did he possess? How much of it was he storing? What were the storage conditions? What were the end results of his experimentation?

      We don't have any of this information, so I have no reason to call this a "nanny state" issue. Especially since it was a town the conducted the search, not the state or federal governments.

    2. Re:Well, as usual the summary is not accurate by TheHappyMailAdmin · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the summary was inaccurate, that the search of the home appears to have been perfectly fair and legal and that the community has the right to determine whether the lab work being done presented a danger. But something you don't discuss was that Victor Deebs and his wife were forced out of their house for three days and that there appears to have been no due process followed before depriving the Deebs of their home.

    3. Re:Well, as usual the summary is not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't a precise line between chemistry set stuff and industrial production, but it's there. Making four gallons of beer a week is a lot for a home brewer, but making a hundred gallons a week probably means you've "crossed some line".

      The problem is the fact that there is no exact line. This means the authorities get to decide in each case where the line is. Do you think the people in power actually use "common sense" to make that determination? Are you that naive? It's called selective prosecution and is undermining our freedom. How can you comply with the law when the people in power change their opinion on what's legal from case to case?

  81. Let her know how you feel by dyob · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pamela A. Wilderman Code Enforcement Officer 508 460-3765

  82. When are they going to discover a new continent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm getting sick of the police/narrow minded people having so much power. I was painting my car, with an HVLP gun and spraying less than 5 gallons of paint per year, well within the law in Texas. Well long story short my neighbors see me in a nylon suit with a gas mask and call me in as a meth lab.

    Cops came by and the saw me painting. One of them pulled me out by my fresh air line and I started swearing at him because I didn't see he was a cop. Long story short I had a 280lb man throw me on the ground.

    Then when they found out I wasn't violating any laws they told me if I was painting or welding again they'd pursue public nuisance.

    So the cycle has completed, the narrow minded have take over in America and crushed what innovation there was. When is someone going to discover a new continent so we can start the cycle over again?

  83. Good God. America has lost it by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    40 years ago, this man was considered the norm. We did chemical experiments in our house. NOBODY thought it was bizarre. This man writes a book on how to learn about chemistry at home and they raid his home without a warrent?????? Here in America, We have entered a VERY dark age.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Good God. America has lost it by xednieht · · Score: 1

      Did they also come and raid your spelling book? I'll warrant that warrent ain't a word.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
  84. This just in by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    "Stupidity not more dangerous than knowlege" - Massachusetts Authrorities.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  85. They came first for the amateur chemists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...and I did not speak up because I was not an amateur chemist.
    Then they came for the model rocketeers and I did not speak up because I was not a model rocketeer.
    They they came for the r/c pilots and I did not speak up because I was not an r/c pilot...

    1. Re:They came first for the amateur chemists... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      And then when all the geeks and dweebs were gone, there was no one left to screw up the grading curve.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  86. customary home occupation by OrangeTide · · Score: 0, Troll

    shut up, buy stuff and watch TV, prole.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  87. From TFA: They're calling it R&D-Violates Zon by TechForensics · · Score: 1

    R&D Lab in residential neighborhood. It's a zoning case. Ostensibly-- the city official describes it as a "hobby" but he did tell them he patents things and experiments may be related, in their view.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  88. Animal Control Gone Wild... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jackson County Michigan just got rid of such a petty bureaucrat. She was an animal control officer that put a pig farmer out of business because his pigs were in the mud. Well, the problem is that mud is necessary for pigs well being, it helps them keep from getting sunburned and it cools them. This same officer then (about a year or two later) raided a horse farm because she didn't like the way the horses looked (remember these horses are livestock not pets). A vet friend of mine looked at the horses and didn't see anything wrong - yet the county found some lackey vet to say that there was a sick horse in the herd (a very common occurence when you have more than 2 horeses). The upshot of this story is that the animal control officer no longer has her job and the county is getting sued for the value of the horses they confiscated and sold at auction. I would expect that this ordinance officer will meet the same fate when the agrieved party hires an attorney and sues both her personally (for civil rights violations) and the city/county for other things. These things have a way of working themselves out.

    1. Re:Animal Control Gone Wild... by laura20 · · Score: 1

      While pigs like to have access to mud to cool themselves, it is unhealthy for to live in it 24/7 - they should have a dry bedding area as well. So if the pigs' pen was nothing but mud, then they were indeed neglected and if the situation wasn't rectified upon notice, then yes, they damn well should have been put out of business.

    2. Re:Animal Control Gone Wild... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      (remember these horses are livestock not pets).

      Sorry for the pedantry, but horses are 'bloodstock.' Livestock is usually something that produces food. Unless it's different in America.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  89. Re:Ah, I love the smell of flamebait in the aftern by onecheapgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this won't be popular here...but storing hazardous/flammable/whatever chemicals ON THE FLOOR is not a lab. It's a hazard.

    You want to run a chem lab in a neighborhood? You better notify your neighbors clearly - especially if there's a fire. You should probably also consider storing chemicals properly.

    I halfway wish he had a bit of sodium in that basement Yeah, that could have been VERY interesting with all that water flowing down through the walls and ceilings.... At least they would have only been occupying his pile of rubble then.

    But hey, his rights to house flammable (and possibly explosive) chemicals trumps everything else. DAMN POLICE STATE!!!

  90. Read Feynmans Auto-Biography? by thermian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Him and his friends used to make Pipe Bombs!
    Yup, real actual bombs. Till one of his friends was killed by one.

    Any kid doing that today would be jailed and screwed for life. Feynman got to win a Nobel Prize, and, um, develop the Atom Bomb (but we'll ignore that one..).

    I'm not saying he should have been doing such dangerous stuff as a kid, but the point is, smart kids will do complicated but dumb things just because its fun.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:Read Feynmans Auto-Biography? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Uh, what punishment do you think should be meted out to a kid who makes an explosive that kills another kid?

      Clearly screwed for life might be a little inappropriate, but I'd have a hard time arguing against some time in juvie.

    2. Re:Read Feynmans Auto-Biography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't go by that.

      He was joking.

    3. Re:Read Feynmans Auto-Biography? by thermian · · Score: 1

      You can't go by that.

      He was joking.

      I think no-one got your joke...

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    4. Re:Read Feynmans Auto-Biography? by thermian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Strictly speaking there were several kids doing it, he wasn't there when the kid blew himself up (well, tore his leg open when the bomb went off, still killed him tho). They regularly built and detonated these bombs.

      My point isn't that there shouldn't be punishment, but the simple fact is that doing stuff like that isn't just the sort of thing 'evil' people do. Normal folk and genius's to be do it too.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    5. Re:Read Feynmans Auto-Biography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the kids who wrapped their friend in toilet paper and lit it.

  91. The poster is leading people on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster wrote:

    Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for [the Massachusetts town of] Marlboro stated, 'I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.'

    The actual article says:

    Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws. It is a residential home in a residential neighborhood," she said. "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby. He's still got bunches of ideas. I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation. ... There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

    Either the poster didn't properly read, or he/she just considers zoning bylaws useless. For those that do think zoning bylaws serve no point, let me reference the recent propane explosion that occured in the middle of a Toronto residential neighbourhood, leaving two people dead and hundreds of homes damaged, and is now the subject of a zoning review

    1. Re:The poster is leading people on... by elBart0 · · Score: 1

      The article does not state that any zoning laws were broken.

      "Mr. Deebâ(TM)s home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties."

      They invaded his house, tested the chemicals, found no toxic or radiological chemicals, destroyed the remaining chemicals, and don't have any charges or zoning law violations.

      The City of Marlboro has it's zoning laws posted here: http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/MarlboroughMA_CityClerks/MarlboroughMa_ZoningOrds/index
      I did a quick look but couldn't find anything that prohibited home chemistry labs.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:The poster is leading people on... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      "Either the poster didn't properly read, or he/she just considers zoning bylaws useless. For those that do think zoning bylaws serve no point, let me reference the recent propane explosion that occured in the middle of a Toronto residential neighbourhood, leaving two people dead and hundreds of homes damaged, and is now the subject of a zoning review"

      -----So does this mean that I should only be able to conduct chemistry experiments in areas zoned as "Industrial"? So, because of *ONE* propane explosion, you now think that anyone experimenting with chemicals needs to be in a properly zoned area? You must be one of those idiots who conducts an EIR before taking a dump, right?

      So, now that you seem to think that you have justified your claim of requiring correct zoning before conducting chemistry experiments, why not:

      1) Require all web surfing be done from monitored areas, since potential hackers might break into an area of national security.
      2) Require all internet users to be identified with a unique number, since anonymous web surfing can pose a "danger" to national security.
      3) Abolish prepaid cellular, since anonymous phone calls can be used to stalk, harass, and harm other people.

      Zoning laws are used to keep industrial, commercial, and residential areas separate. They are not, were not, and never shoulbe intended to keep people from acting within the law.

      By the way, not only did I dispose of my acetic acid/calcium bicarbonate experiment by dumping it on the side of the road, with complete disregard for the environment, but I also discharged the CO2 it generated directly to the atmosphere, untreated.

      What genius 'zoning' idea do you propose next? Citing people who fix their cars in their driveways because they are in an area zoned "Residential", and "Industrial"?

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    3. Re:The poster is leading people on... by sponga · · Score: 1

      Here is a video of some of the explosion and it looks like a nuclear bomb going off in the distance.
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=85d_1218472290

  92. Lawyer Up! by Spacepup · · Score: 1

    It's cases like this that our founding fathers included the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights. The code officer and fire department didn't have a warrent, didn't have probable cause, and didn't have the authority to remove items be they household cleaner or chemistry appartus. (The fire department doesn't have the authority to seize your property, but the police do.) If they thought a law was being broken, they had plenty of time to alert the police/state troopers/FBI/etc, build a case, and get a warrent. This is nothing more than a gross violation of this man's 4th amendment rights. IANAL but some days I wish I were. I hope this guy really sticks it to "the man".

  93. Hate to ruin your sensationalism, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the local authorities of Marlboro who undertook the raid. Not the state of Massachusetts. But then, this is Slashdot, we don't let simple facts get in the way of misinterpreting a story.

  94. The poster is leading people on... by thepacketmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The poster wrote:

    Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for [the Massachusetts town of] Marlboro stated, 'I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.'

    The actual article says:

    Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws. It is a residential home in a residential neighborhood," she said. "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby. He's still got bunches of ideas. I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation. ... There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

    Either the poster didn't properly read, or he/she just considers zoning bylaws useless. For those that do think zoning bylaws serve no point, let me reference the recent propane explosion that occured in the middle of a Toronto residential neighbourhood, leaving two people dead and hundreds of homes damaged, and is now the subject of a zoning review

    --

    --

    Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

  95. Businesses undergo inspection and regulation by langelgjm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I find it troubling that hobbyists are less trusted than corporations (assuming that these same experiments, performed by a corporation, would pose no problem - which I think the above quote pretty clearly implies).

    Running a company is going to require a number of licenses and inspections, depending on the type of work you do. Health or safety inspectors may come to examine your shop. You may be required to file compliance reports. None of that's true for a hobbyist's basement.

    Now, there's a good reason for that - "hobbyist" implies small-scale work that doesn't require inspections or regulation, because it's not the sort of thing that poses a safety hazard to anyone except perhaps the hobbyist. But when you're dealing with someone who has what sounds like a full scale lab and lots of stored chemicals, you've moved out of the category of "hobbyist."

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  96. Perhaps it's just me, but... by edremy · · Score: 1, Insightful
    despite my worries about the restrictions on personal freedom I have to wonder about the advisability of serious home chemistry work. Speaking as a (former) chemist I watched hideous safety violations daily at my previous job, and that was trained people working in a properly equipped lab on commericially zoned land.

    Sure, your neighbor *might* know what they are doing. They also might be doing things like

    • Leaving cans of ether sitting open on a benchtop and smoking a cigarette five feet away.
    • Leaving cans of ether sitting in a stockroom for *20* years. We had the bomb squad in to dispose of them.
    • Working with phosgene in a non-functional hood. Hint- if I can smell hay walking by the door of your lab, you might want to fix it
    • Storing various radioactives in a lab with no functioning controls at all.
    • Dumping cans of waste benzene and chloroform down the drain into their septic tank. The plant I use to work at is sitting on a lake of chloroform right now, ringed with positive pressure wells to avoid poisoning the water supply for everyone around them.

    Remember, these were all trained professionals. I'm not really interested in watching my neighbor's house explode because he didn't understand how to store ether properly, or having my well poisoned because he was too cheap to hire a proper chemical disposal service. Since my neighbor is a complete amateur, I have *no* idea how capable he is in handling this stuff. I've got a freaking PhD in the subject but there's no way I'm going to do anything beyond a chemistry set in my basement- I'm rusty and there's way too much chance of massive fail.

    Look at it this way- are you going to let your neighbor build high-power rockets in his basement and launch them from his backyard? (I'm not talking Estees, I'm talking the serious stuff) No? Why not? Because you hate his freedom or because they have a high chance of failure that could injure or kill a lot of people?

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:Perhaps it's just me, but... by mweather · · Score: 1

      Leaving cans of ether sitting open on a benchtop and smoking a cigarette five feet away

      Then I suppose we shouldn't let people work on their cars, either. I've seen the same with gasoline and piles of oily rags. I even have a buddy that reloads his ammo while smoking.

    2. Re:Perhaps it's just me, but... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Leaving cans of ether sitting open on a benchtop and smoking a cigarette five feet away.

      And the guy who works on his car or has a power lawnmower might be handling gasoline improperly, or dumping used oil down the toilet. I've just discovered that my neighbor is having an explosive gas piped into his home and is using it in his kitchen and basement in the vicinity of open flames. Somebody needs to confiscate his car, lawnmower, stove, furnace and hot water heater to protect the public safety!

    3. Re:Perhaps it's just me, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he has "ammo" he probably drinks all the god damn time too.

      Go to college, rednecks.

    4. Re:Perhaps it's just me, but... by edremy · · Score: 1
      Spoken like someone who's never dealt with ether. You're the exact reason why I *don't* trust random people to deal with this.

      Hint: ether's just a *tiny* touch more flammable than gasoline. It also has vapors that tend to sneak along the ground- take fire training with ether sometime. It's a ton of fun, seriously- there's nothing like watching a couple of feet square suddenly go up in bright flames. (Neat example at http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/ether_trough/ether_trough.htm)

      Oh yeah, and it builds up peroxides over time that can cause the entire bottle to detonate when picked up. You know how to check for peroxide contamination every few months? I mean, you do that with your gasoline, right?

      And ether is pretty benign when it comes to serious chemistry. I know people who do research into flourine chemistry- now that's *insane*. Gasoline is absurdly easy to handle compared to virtually any organic solvent used in real chemistry- low vapor pressure, low toxicity, chemically stable over long periods and so on.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    5. Re:Perhaps it's just me, but... by mweather · · Score: 1

      You know how to check for peroxide contamination every few months?

      I think I can dip a piece of paper in the ether every few months. I go through a much more complex process testing my pool.

    6. Re:Perhaps it's just me, but... by edremy · · Score: 1
      Does your pool explode, blowing up your house and possibly the ones next door if you make a mistake or forget? Given that you seem to have no idea whatsoever of the flammability of ether or any knowledge of peroxide contamination, *I* *don't* *trust* *you*. You flippantly blow off serious risks by comparing them to trivial problems like oily rags and swimming pool pH balancing- you're clueless and you don't even know it.

      Ever wonder why you don't want meth labs in your neighborhood?

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  97. Makes perfect sense by xednieht · · Score: 1

    I would not want to live in a country where an inquisitive 12 year old is more intelligent than the distinguished leader. Down with science, burn the books.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  98. Look at the other side of this... by bradgoodman · · Score: 1
    I guy has a bunch of chemicals, some of which may be toxic, dangerous, etc. stored in a very unsafe manner.

    If he had leaking 55 gallon drums of radioactive sludge in is front yard, and the zoning people drove by and saw it - would they be powerless to do anything about that?

    I don't know that they are necessarily saying that he can't have the items - maybe they are. There are zoning laws that state substances you can/cannot have - how they must be stored - how the environment must be safeguarded against them - what precautions must be need for fire prevention - and to alert any responders to the residences of the potential dangers in there. I don't think any of these were follows.

    Ya' know that little emblum on trucks/buildings that says how "flammable/corrosive/poisonous" something is? Did he have those?

    Gas stations, factories, labs and other places that have quantities of hazardous chemicals are required to have fire suppression, catch-basins, safe-storage, first-aid measures and other stuff. There are rules and zoning requirements involved.

    The issue here is not necessarily whether or not he was allowed to posses those substances, but whither or not he was possessing them in a way which was safe and lawful - as defined by the zoning laws and fire codes.

    The did not need a warrant because the stuff was "in plain sight" when the first-responders went into the home.

    1. Re:Look at the other side of this... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      "would they be powerless to do anything about that?"

      No, they should simply follow the Constitution and due process.

      "I don't think any of these were follows."

      What you think and a nickel will get you five pennies.

      "Did he have those?"

      Was he required under the law? Did that allow the State to violate his Constitutional rights?

      "There are rules and zoning requirements involved."

      Once again, did the rules apply to this guy? And second, did that violation, if it existed, allow the State to violate his Constitutional rights?

      "The issue here is not necessarily whether or not he was allowed to posses those substances, but whither or not he was possessing them in a way which was safe and lawful - as defined by the zoning laws and fire codes."

      Agreed that that's one of the issues. But it's not "The" issue. The real issue is whether the State violated the guy's Constitutional rights.

      "The did not need a warrant because the stuff was "in plain sight" when the first-responders went into the home."

      You're right that the fire department did not need a warrant when they were in the home. But when the State came back to fully search it, including areas that were not in plain site, a warrant was clearly needed.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:Look at the other side of this... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      [the authorities] should simply follow the Constitution and due process.

      And your Constitution (assuming you're an American) says that you shall be safeguarded against unreasonable searches. Now, how is the local fire department doing an on the spot inspection of the premises after an emergency call for a fire an unreasonable search? It is in fact common sense to inspect the premises for structural damages and possible fire hazards immediately after putting out a fire, and if quantities of unknown, possibly hazardous, substances are found, I know of no fireman that wouldn't call in assistance. There is no thinking in Western legal philosophy that would qualify this as an unreasonable intrusion of the State in a private matter. None at all. If you think there is, I'd like to see some citations.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  99. This just in - Louis Pasteur Detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a good thing people weren't always running around with delusional paranoia

  100. More than 5 lbs of gunpowder usually illegal by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    As early as 1821, there were restrictions on how much gunpowder you could have around in a city house. 5 lbs was a common limit, and still is. In New York State, above 5 pounds of black powder, the licensing, reporting, and safety rules apply; for example, storage within 75 feet of an inhabited building is not permitted.

    Modern smokeless powder isn't a major explosion hazard, but black powder is.

  101. Proper use by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

    I hope that these dangerous things end up somewhere that will handle them properly, like a government run Anthrax facility. Is it reasonable to assume that even if he was doing something iffy, that it would be wise to remove it from context when the person was obviously competent and willing to explain and work with them. By handling something without specific knowledge of the individual, many things can become hazardous by recombination and association in a way that the user never intended. Many household and farm chemicals can present a risk when improperly handled and by excluding the person who had immediate knowledge they create a greater hazard. Many of the chemicals we use here in farm country can be used in improper ways and if a farmer has a lot of anhydrous, it invariably means he is farming and not producing Meth. The isolation of the government from people leads to this problem. If they had known the guy and spoke to him as a person, would this situation have ever arisen.

  102. Read the newspaper article before donating! by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    I didn't RTFA in detail

    Well, you probably should have. And I mean the actual newspaper article, not the sensationalistic blog post. Here's a quote from the article:

    Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties.

    "He's been very cooperative," Ms. Wilderman said. "I won't be citing him for anything right at this moment."

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  103. A little perspective. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

    Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said.

    So, the firefighters come in to put out the fire, and notice vials of chemicals all over the place. The firefighters pretty much have to assume that they could be harmful, and would be compelled to investigate. It sounds like the good doctor was a little sloppy in how he stored his chemicals. They were definitely not confined to his basement lab.

    So, these chemicals are in plain view during an investigation. The need warrant may not be applicable.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  104. To finish that joke by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 3, Funny

    mitgib: Here in South Carolina, I really think it is a status symbol to have your own church, because there are 3 on every corner.

    And on the fourth corner, there is a bar with a sign out front that says "No loitering by order of the Pope."

    --
    You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
    1. Re:To finish that joke by mitgib · · Score: 1

      mitgib: Here in South Carolina, I really think it is a status symbol to have your own church, because there are 3 on every corner.

      And on the fourth corner, there is a bar with a sign out front that says "No loitering by order of the Pope."

      I really wasn't joking, but I do see the humor in it all. Here is Rock Hill SC recently the City passed a no jaywalking ordinance so a local bar and grill could get a liquor license as it was across the street from a church. There are so many churches in the community is would be hard to spit without hitting one.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    2. Re:To finish that joke by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1

      Northerners, can't even joke funny.

      Its funnier if you say:
      "And on the fourth corner, there is a bar with a sign out front that says "Please drop snakes into basket before entering." for the pentacostals, because in the "Bible Belt" theres damn few Catholics. Baptists, Evangelicals and Methodists...you know Protestants. They don't particularly like the Pope.

      Old joke:
      "If you take a Baptist fishing with you, be sure to bring along two, because if you bring just one, he'll drink all your beer."

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
    3. Re:To finish that joke by PopeScott · · Score: 1

      Thats because I'm inside, and I dont like crowds around my bar.

    4. Re:To finish that joke by tombeard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That can't be right because in SC it is illegal to sell alcohol within 1000 yards of a church. Southern baptists have been known to build churches specifically to have package shops and convenience stores shut down. Yes, it works retroactively.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  105. No warrant, no evidence? by argent · · Score: 1

    Quote, counterquote: "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby." Not a business. Note the emphasized word here: "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments". That doesn't mean there was a zoning violation, it means there there may have been one (regardless of what Mrs Wilderman says... if there aren't specific regulations being broken there's no violation). Unless Mass. laws are excessively strict, if they suspect one they're supposed to investigate, give him a notice to that effect, give him time for remediation, and then if he doesn't cooperate they get a warrant to go in and act.

    This has nothing to do with whether "zoning bylaws are useless" or not, and everything to do with procedures either being deeply broken or not being followed.

    And it's got nothing to do with propane explosions, either:

    None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.

  106. What other books are banned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cool book.

    What other books are banned from public libraries? There must be a list somewhere.

    I found this:
    http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/
    and this:
    http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html
    but, dammit, I've read most of them. Where are the really bad ones?

    You can join me in Hell during:
    Banned Books Week
    Celebrating the Freedom to Read
    September 27â"October 4, 2008
    http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.cfm

  107. Firefighters don't need a warrant by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    Sue the ignorant bitch (Pamela Wilderman) her employers, the state, any judge issuing a warrant without cause etc.

    Ugh. Firefighters don't need a warrant to enter your home, people:

    "Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home."

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  108. Re:A little perspective. Some Closure by camperdave · · Score: 1
    Oops! Forgot the slash on my /blockquote. This is how it was supposed to look:
    .

    Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

    Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said.

    So, the firefighters come in to put out the fire, and notice vials of chemicals all over the place. The firefighters pretty much have to assume that they could be harmful, and would be compelled to investigate. It sounds like the good doctor was a little sloppy in how he stored his chemicals. They were definitely not confined to his basement lab.

    So, these chemicals are in plain view during an investigation. The requirement of a warrant may not be applicable.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  109. Mod Parent up! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    And don't call it redundant... Stupid people need repetition!

    1. Re:Mod Parent up! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Apparently because they can't learn from their mistakes.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:Mod Parent up! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Now I have to clean the monitor... That was funny!

  110. Fire was on 2nd floor, not in the basement. by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

    So the firefighters were called, because it appeared a 2nd floor window AC unit was on fire. How did they end up in the basement?

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  111. Someone from the scene.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did have numerous jars and boxes, most of which were just excessive samples sent by various chemical companies, and old non-volatile things he's mixed in home canning jars and left as they were impractical to clean. The jars were numerically labeled, and he had a corresponding sheet detailing what everything was. None of the chemicals were toxic, or explosive. He had all the Material Data Safety sheets on everything and was offering them to the authorities from the beginning. The authorities overreacted, and by the time they realized what the situation was, it was too late to stop it. UPS & FedEx (the primary shippers of the chemicals he received) will not ship toxic or explosive chemicals to a residential area. They authorities also took all of his notes on what he was working on, making it difficult or time consuming to continue.

  112. 40 years ago ... by Quirkz · · Score: 2, Informative

    40 years ago they thought thalidomide (sp?) and DDT were beneficial chemicals, safe to expose all kinds of people to. Asbestos, too. Now they're a little more cautious about making sure people aren't getting poisoned or blown up.

    You may benefit by reading the article, which explains that the fire department was called, and when they discovered the 1500 jars of chemicals they determined it appeared to pose at least some risk in a residential home. Learning chemistry at home was not the crime, here. In fact, other than the enforced cleanup, it looks as if Deeb isn't going to be cited with anything.

    1. Re:40 years ago ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did read it earlier. Sounded to me like that want to charge him, but do not know with what. There was nothing poisonous, or explosive there. In addition, it was all small quantities. It would be better let him have it. Yeah, some might be biologically dangerous, but still...

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:40 years ago ... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Who are "they" and why is it any of their business if I get poisoned, sick or get blown up on my property?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  113. That's simply not true, and never has been. by hey! · · Score: 1

    I didn't hear the part about the authorities bashing in this guy's front door. Where did you get that?

    In any case, they wouldn't need a warrant to demand access to the house, under penalty of fines or other punishments, to investigate zoning or other code violations. That's called an "Administrative Search". The law governing administrative searches is different.

    The fourth amendment only requires that such searches be "reasonable", not that it be supported by a warrant. Such searches have never customarily required warrants. About forty years ago the SC clarified the requirements for such searches, which hare somewhat different from the probable cause required for warrants. Pretty much it amounts to being part of a regulation standard which is rational and balanced.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:That's simply not true, and never has been. by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Even if something is out of code you usually don't take it out of the house. His property was basically stolen from him with no recourse in court to demand to know what codes he broke.

    2. Re:That's simply not true, and never has been. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, first of all you don't have an basis to make that claim. According to the article the Deebs are cooperating voluntarily, and avoiding citations and fines as a result.

      Secondly, when a homeowner does not or cannot correct certain violations, the municipality can take steps to correct that violation without the owner's consent. For example, if you live in a place prone to wild fires, city safety codes may prohibit letting large piles of brush collect on your property. If you receive a citation for having a brush pile and don't remove it in a timely fashion, the city doesn't have to wait for you to change your mind. It can hire a contractor to remove the brush even though its technically your property that is being disposed of. They can even send you the bill.

      About the only Constitutional limitation on this process is that it has to be reasonable. If you had an extremely valuable antiqe car up on blocks on your front lawn, the city could ask you to remove it. If you didn't presumably the could dispose of the car, but they couldn't use that as a pretext to seize the car and auction it off to make money.

      In this case, the chemicals might represent a considerable investment, but collectively they're worse than valueless; they represent a disposal expense.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:That's simply not true, and never has been. by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well did he get a notice that he needed to clean up his lab or that certain chemicals are not allowed in certain quantities or that he was disposing of the wrongly? I think not. End of argument.

  114. Do we even have a Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an unreasonable search and seizure and is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
    They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
    They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
    They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
    Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
    Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  115. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the Worcester Telegram & Gazette story:

    Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

    Welcome to the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Go home, watch TV, marry something and continue voting for whichever Democrats promise to pay the most. Oh, and NO UNAUTHORIZED PAINTING, comrade.

    I escaped the East coast 14 years ago. Enjoy your nanny state.

  116. Regardless, Chemistry still lacking by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few posters have noted that there was a fire in the household etc. Regardless, as a kid, I grew up in the "new age" of computers. A Commodore 64 in-hand, I played video games on it and did a bit of programming. I had a huge interest in science. But, like many other kids, were were generally more fortunate than our parents and our toys were more expensive and significantly less educational and a huge was of time: video games and cable TV. No less than straight-A's from grade school to high school.

    My father had chemistry sets and Meccano toys when he grew up. I had access to Meccano parts and motors but I grew bored and tired of it. Instead video games and TV.

    My father and I are on equal footing in terms of IQ. He's a doctor. I studied in science at university-level but I grew frustrated with Chemistry and Biology simply because it didn't come "naturally". Perhaps that's an excuse. Whatever. Not important to my argument. I think not having chem set was one reason. I don't regret what might have been - I didn't want to be a doctor after all. But, this society is probably turning away a lot of brilliant minds. Banning learning tools - books, chem sets, etc. is a bad, bad move. Maybe I could be an astrophysicist if I'd not had video games and cable TV. If not me, then some other would-be Nobel Prize winner.

    So, I think before any governments go banning or raiding people's homes for chemistry sets - whatever the reason - they should consider the effects of this on society and the education system. For parents that *know nothing* about Chemistry, they are not going to buy little Johnny a chemistry set because all the negative attention its getting in the media makes them think he's going to take the house down. See Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax.

  117. what was missing from the articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I definitely don't agree with what they did, but there seems to be a part of the story that is missing from those links that can be found here: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1386717640/Some-Marlborough-basement-chemicals-identified
    Evidently the chemicals were found during a response to a fire at the house.

  118. What is wrong with you?! by Arccot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uggg... more knee jerk reaction to a pretty obvious case of prudent police work.

    There's a fire in his house. The fire dept. and police come, and put out the fire. In the process of putting out the fire, they notice hundreds of vials of chemicals. Not in a rack, not on a shelf, not even on a table, but all over the place. On the floor, on furniture, everywhere. No reasonable chemist would be dumb enough to do that with any chemicals.

    What would you want the police to do? Walk out without doing a little due diligence? There's a good chance he is storing these chemicals unsafely, and he is endangering his life and possibly others as a result. So they call in the experts to clean it up. And then they take a look at what he's done wrong, and probably will give him a fine and a slap on the wrist.

    It's amazing how many Slashdotters don't even bother to do a bit of research before coming to their black-and-white conclusion about how The Man is bad and this poor fellow is being an upstanding citizen with his rights violated. How dare the police invade this man's home! It's an attack on science! They hate the science!

    RTFA!

    There are alot of Slashdotters that seem to take pride in their critical thinking, intelligence, and analysis skills. Honestly, alot of you really don't demonstrate it very often here. It's more like a lynch mob than a bunch of intelligent people discussing issues.

    1. Re:What is wrong with you?! by Sloppy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's amazing how many Slashdotters don't even bother to do a bit of research

      Do a bit of research? RTFA. Research?! Are you trying to encourage people to break the law?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:What is wrong with you?! by Arccot · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many Slashdotters don't even bother to do a bit of research

      Do a bit of research? RTFA. Research?! Are you trying to encourage people to break the law?

      A bit of research is fine. A lot of research, say around 1500 vials of it, is not. So I'm only advocating a bit of research this time. :-)

    3. Re:What is wrong with you?! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll try not to get carried away. :-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:What is wrong with you?! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      But who gets the right to decide what is too much for me?

      And then what, i have too many cans of food? Or too much ammunition stored? Or too many pets? How about too many kids...

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:What is wrong with you?! by pz · · Score: 1

      Uggg... more knee jerk reaction to a pretty obvious case of prudent police work.

      There's a fire in his house. The fire dept. and police come, and put out the fire. In the process of putting out the fire, they notice hundreds of vials of chemicals. Not in a rack, not on a shelf, not even on a table, but all over the place. On the floor, on furniture, everywhere. No reasonable chemist would be dumb enough to do that with any chemicals.

      1. Police don't normally respond to a fire. Firefighters do. You've got the facts not quite right.

      2. What, exactly, were the firefighters doing in the basement when the fire was on the second floor?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    6. Re:What is wrong with you?! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Two things, 1) to make sure nobody else was in the house, and 2) to make sure the fire hadn't spread to other parts of the house.

    7. Re:What is wrong with you?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, I'm not sure what police are doing fighting a fire, but whatever.

      What would you want the police to do? Walk out without doing a little due diligence?

      No, I'd expect them to walk out and do a little due process. You know, like a warrant? Respect his rights? Act like this is America and not some fascist dictatorship?

      Then, when they discover that the chemicals are harmless, which they did, to return them to their owner, which they did not do.

      So we have a breech of due process and a breech of privacy and property rights.

      The fact that you're so willing to ignore that due to plain old fear (he might kill someone with the harmless chemicals!) is just sad. And disturbingly normal, which is even more sad.

    8. Re:What is wrong with you?! by sponga · · Score: 1

      Actually they do have laws or code enforcement for these things

      Too many cans of food?
      There are laws against people like this, we call them 'pack rats'. They build up so much crap in the house that it becomes a danger to them or any firefighters that might have to respond to a fire to that house. On the contrary I had a mormon friend who had a garage full of toliet paper and canned food, I guess they prepare for the 'end of days' scenario but they also stack it so it is not a fire/falling hazard. When we wanted to go toliet paper someones house, well we knew to stop by our mormon friends house for a restock.

      Too much ammunition stored?
      Yes, like the one above you become a safety hazard to others, firefighters and most likely laws. Depends on the state and most likely your distance from other residents.

      Too many pets?
      Funny story about a lady who had well over 40 cats and we used to call her 'the cat lady', she was one of those super overweight ladies who loved animals too much. One day the SPCA and Health Code department was over there telling her she had to get rid of a majority of her cats and to clean up the place. She was a pack rat and had stuff stacked up to the ceiling just waiting to catch on fire.

      Too many kids?
      They have this thing called 'social workers' and they come to investigate whether you can take care of the children and whether you should be able to keep them. The mormons have proved that you can have two vans full of children and no laws against that.

    9. Re:What is wrong with you?! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Not in a rack, not on a shelf, not even on a table, but all over the place. On the floor, on furniture, everywhere. No reasonable chemist would be dumb enough to do that with any chemicals.

      Source, please. Everything I read says the chemicals were in the basement, and the firefighters didn't even find them until they checked the basement to make sure it was "ventilated".

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  119. Messed up by Ted+Freeman · · Score: 1

    Things in Massachusetts are pretty messed up. I can say that in the last 17 years of "science experiments" I have never had any thought of interference from the authorities. My nearest neighbour is more than twenty miles away and I don't think anyone in Helena knows about my shack anyway but I am ready to defend it with all my improvised "science experiments" when they come.

  120. Freely based on Martin Niemöller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they came for the hobby chemists, and I did not speak out -
    because I was not a hobby chemist.
    Then they came for the electronics geeks, and I did not speak out -
    because I was not a electronics geek.
    Then they came for the crypto freaks, and I did not speak out -
    because I was not a crypto freak.
    Then they came for me - and there was no one left to do things and stuff.

  121. The original poster is being a bit disingenuous by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm not saying this was a good call on the part of law enforcement, and if they dispose of his stuff and it's not found to be dangerous, he should be compensated for materials at least. However, the OP cut off the original quote, I assume to make his snarky "interpretation" sound less silly. Here's the part he left off:

    There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of." Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties.

    It doesn't sound to me like the law acted because they didn't take chemistry 101. I suspect they acted because, far more than a child's chemistry set, there was a full-blown laboratory in this guy's house where "vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor." It doesn't sound like very safe or up-to-code setup.

  122. police state gone wild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll just hurt you bad, as in put in the hospital bad, and/or kill you today. I'm not a kid, I have watched it change for the worse over the years. The only thing some hog has to say is "he made a furtive gesture" and that's it, they can do whatever they want to you, gang beat you, taser you to death, pepper spray to the eyes then kick your skull in, shoot you, it doesn't matter, they can do it and get away with it now..and jeebus don't get caught getting a pic or vid, try to keep that hidden if you ever are trying to document some of their behavior, they'll kill you for that as well if they think they can get away with it. They shot some innocent kid in the head a few years back when they stopped a car, they were looking for a bank robber and the car very loosely matched the description but was in no way good enough to be the car they were seeking, his girlfriend was driving, one pig on one side of the car demanded his ID, as he reached for his wallet the other pig shot him in the head at point blank range, and that was the excuse they gave, that "furtive gesture" and "officer feared for his sorry ass safety" and absolutely nothing happened to the cop. There was just an incident last week where a small town mayor got raided because the pigs themselves, using an "undercover" pig, delivered a package with pot in it to his house. They then raided the house, blew away his harmless labrador retriever dogs, terrorized both the mayor and his wife for hours. It turned out to be some scam with dealers delivering pot-pot, just pot, not even so called "hard drugs"- to the wrong address on purpose where someone else would pick the stuff up. But this time the cops intercepted it and made the delivery themselves. And they knew what this scam was but raided the innocent house and people just for goddamn fun or something! So far, nothing has happened to them and the chief of oinkers there defends the actions as "justified". Similar happens daily all across the nation, there are thousands of these incidents. They need to be totally shunned from normal society, I am serious, no one rational should have a single thing to do with them socially from here on out until we get real community policing back and dump this ultraterror gestapo shit they have as "policy", it is perfectly apparent they have nothing in common with regular "civilians", you are just a target for them, and it just keeps getting worse and worse. Look around the planet, how do asshole dictators stay in power? The paramilitary who follow any order given, and they promote and exalt the most ultraviolent ones. The US is no different.

    1. Re:police state gone wild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a kid

      Yes, you are, and you're disguising it very badly.

  123. Slanted by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down.'"

    I think what's infinitly worse than government intervention in private matters is articles that are terribly slanted.

    1. Re:Slanted by zerOnIne · · Score: 1

      Hi, you must be new here.

      --
      09
  124. Ooh, Scary by zerOnIne · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's Massachusetts. We don't like your science and technology very much over here.

    You know, after ten years of living here, I still tell people I'm "originally from Maine" so as not to get lumped in...

    --
    09
  125. The scary thing by hey! · · Score: 1

    is how many people don't know what their Constitutional rights actually are.

    Not knowing the extents of your rights is asking for trouble.

    OK, so maybe the administrative/criminal search dichotomy is a bit obscure. But you'd better believe that somebody who is in your home for a valid reason, even a private guest, sees your marijuana garden, then that can be probable cause for a criminal warrant. A lot of people here seem to think there's some kind of "no fair" rule that invalidates anything firefighters might notice during a call.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:The scary thing by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, people here are mostly incapable of grasping that there's more to law than criminal law. When firemen come into your home laboratory (at which point they're already disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt about what a knowledgeable chemist you are) criminal proceedings are the least of their concerns.

    2. Re:The scary thing by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Wow! your User number is LOW!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  126. Burden of proof is "on the man" by tjstork · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how many Slashdotters don't even bother to do a bit of research before coming to their black-and-white conclusion about how The Man is bad and this poor fellow is being an upstanding citizen with his rights violated. How dare the police invade this man's home! It's an attack on science! They hate the science!

    The burden of proof otherwise is on the man. Government has to prove itself innocent of trampling civil rights and the rights of the people because we have seen that government is not honest.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Burden of proof is "on the man" by Arccot · · Score: 1

      The burden of proof otherwise is on the man. Government has to prove itself innocent of trampling civil rights and the rights of the people because we have seen that government is not honest.

      What civil right was trampled in this case? They believed the situation to be potentially unsafe, and based on what I see I agree with them. So they removed him and swept the place to find out what was going on.

    2. Re:Burden of proof is "on the man" by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      His castle, his right to stand there in the green glowing muck if he wants to.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  127. Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Texas right now is polling for McCain by only 7 points, which isn't "very Red" (Bush beat Gore and Kerry by 61:38% and 59:38% respectively, about 20 points).

    Senator John Cornyn is beating his underfunded Democratic challenger by only 10 points, while Cornyn's approval rating is under 50% (usually a signal that an incumbent is going to be defeated on Election Day).

    The Texas delegation to the House of Representatives is only 19/32 (59%) Republican.

    The Texas state legislature is only 4 switched seats (2.7%) from a Democratic majority.

    All those districts have been carved out (gerrymandered) specifically for Republicans to gain the most seats - more so than in any other state. Those delegations come at the end of a period of Republican domination of the government (despite similarly thin margins nationwide) that prioritized overrepresenting Republicans everywhere, especially in big Southern places like Texas (the Bush HQ).

    With all those advantages, the best the Republicans could do in Texas was a little better than the 50%+1 required for majority rule. Which majorities in every chamber have decreased steadily from initial large Republican gains. Trending back down towards the longtime Democratic majorities that controlled Texas until Bush Sr was the first Republican elected in the state, in the 1960s. Now that the Bush Dynasty is quickly waning, and Bush Sr himself near the end of his life at the center of a vastly powerful political network, Texas isn't looking nearly as Red as it once was.

    By 2010, if not 2008, Texas will probably be as Blue as the rest of the USA.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't (D) vs. (R), but ideas. The Democratic party of the 1960s isn't the Democratic party of today. I would have been proud to consider myself a Republican then, but today --- I refuse to identify myself as such.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    2. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      1. How does that make Texas still a "very Red state"?

      2. You would have been proud to consider yourself a Republican back when they were doing everything they could to stop the Civil Rights Act and to elect Nixon?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Samrobb · · Score: 1

      2. You would have been proud to consider yourself a Republican back when they were doing everything they could to stop the Civil Rights Act and to elect Nixon?

      From Wikipedia on the Civil Rights Act:

      The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in the United States since Reconstruction. After it was proposed to Congress by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, Southern Democratic senator James Strom Thurmond sustained the longest filibuster in history in an attempt to keep it from becoming law.... Because of Democratic opposition and amendment of The Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was largely ineffective in its enforcement and its scope.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    4. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1957 was not the 1960s. By the 1960s, the Dixiecrats had given up being actual Democrats, and joined the Republican Party.

      1964 was in the 1960s that you would proudly have called yourself a Republican in. That was the year that the actual law that we actually call the Civil Rights Act actually passed. Solidly opposed by only Southern Republicans and a few strays elsewhere. Southern Republicans which included those ex-Democrats. Who were proud enough to call themselves Republicans in the 1960s that they adopted the name professionally. Strom Thurmond, the ultimate Dixiecrat, turned Republican for the vast majority of his long racist career, starting in 1964 against the Civil Rights Act.

      So I can see why you'd have been proud to call yourself a 1960s Republican. Because you'd rather cook up some other Civil Rights Act that isn't the one we're talking about. Because you'd rather use the 1950s as an example than the 1960s we're talking about. Because you evidently have no problem whatsoever doing everything you could to elect Nixon. All of which is consistent with being a Republican today.

      Congratulations! You're a proud Republican.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Moderation -1
          100% Troll

      Ask how bad stats are really good stats, and how someone could be proud to work against the Civil Rights Act and for Nixon, and TrollMods try to cover it all up.

      There's no better demonstration of what Republicans have to be proud of than that Republican denial. Thanks for helping out!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Samrobb · · Score: 1

      Why the hate? Did I kick your puppy or something? If so, I apologize.

      If you're unwilling to accept the 1957 CRA as legitimate, go ahead and read about the 1964 CRA, where again, the Democratic party was leading the opposition to civil rights reform.

      Let's be fair, though. This *wasn't* a party issue, despite your desire to make it appear to be one. It was a North/South issue. Northern senators and representatives (largely Republicans) were in favor of the CRA, while southern senators and representatives (largely Democrats) were stridently opposed. The article you cited indicates that the migration of the Dixiecrats to the Republican party was mainly an attempt to escape association with LBJ and his support of the CRA.

      If you want to argue it was a party issue, though, feel free. In both cases, 1957 and 1964, it was the Democratic party that presented the greatest opposition to civil rights reform.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    7. Re:Texas Is Not a Very Red State by Samrobb · · Score: 1

      Are we looking at the same numbers? Because the references I quoted you pretty much disagree with your statements. For the record, from the wikipedia article on the 1964 CRA:

      Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

      The original House version:[9]

              * Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
              * Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

      The Senate version:[9]

              * Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
              * Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

      The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

              * Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
              * Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

      Ok. Tell me how 80% of a party voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act is, in fact, "opposing civil rights"?

      As for the "lying Republicans like you" comment - frankly, I'm disgusted. I've cited facts and figures from a (famously) unbiased source, and yet, you still insist that I am the one who's making things up?

      As for your ad hominem attacks... you apparently have zero knowledge of me, or my personal views or beliefs, other than that I'm an avowed Republican. And yet, based solely on that one choice - my political party - you have the unmitigated gall not only to judge and condemn me, but to do so based off of your inference of my beliefs? Isn't that the very definition of prejudice?

      You, sir, are not just an ass. You have demonstrated yourself to be a bigot of the worst sort.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  128. I called her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I told her to keep up the good work.

  129. Let's take this completely out of context... by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do you propose I play with it in a balloon indoors? If I get arrested for doing something stupid, I'd feel a little better knowing my family won't get soaked in the next rainstorm because I blew the roof off the house.

    The above is pretty funny, for certain values of "it"... I mean, you soaked your family? Blew the roof off the house?? Dude...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Let's take this completely out of context... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Oh, that was SO un-called-for, you sick bastard.

      But you're absolutely right.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  130. He's a WITCH! WITCH!!! WITCHHHH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Massachusetts. He's lucky they aren't falling completely back to their old ways and burn him at the stake.

  131. Nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new here. This is, after all, the same state that is jailing people for possessing something as simple as a pellet gun. They don't care about the 2nd amendment, why should they care about any of the other ones?

  132. Perhaps we should let the authorities know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we should let the authorities know how we feel, instead of relying on the people of that little town. Pamela A. Wilderman Code Enforcement Officer 508-460-3765 Joseph.Ferson@state.ma.us 617-654-6523

  133. Maybe he was just saving his own urine! by wsanders · · Score: 1

    A sailboat near mine caught on fire in the marina way back when. When firefighters responded, it turned out the guy had been saving his own urine for several years. OK - who's the rookie wants to put that one out!

    All you inconsiderate clods! Shooting your mouth off before you even know what kind of chemicals he had.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    1. Re:Maybe he was just saving his own urine! by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.

      Most people would be really pissed if the had to spend several days in a motel because the fireman found a can of Draino and a bottle of vinegar downstairs in the basement

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Maybe he was just saving his own urine! by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      When firefighters responded, it turned out the guy had been saving his own urine for several years. OK - who's the rookie wants to put that one out!

      Man, would I be pissed if I ran into that.... :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Maybe he was just saving his own urine! by bibendum59 · · Score: 1

      The reclusive Howard Hughes has finally been found.

    4. Re:Maybe he was just saving his own urine! by g4sy · · Score: 1

      He has to pay for the crew that went and disposed of all the chemicals. Most of which are not cheap! I just spent 400$ on KOH.

      --
      somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
      if(color==blue){speed--;}
    5. Re:Maybe he was just saving his own urine! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I suppose when he get s the bill, there will be suit file against the municipality for damages to his property, the return of his illegally confiscated property, expenses inured for the motel and meals purchased, legal fees and punitive damages.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  134. Listen to them by Sloppy · · Score: 1
    Forget about chemistry-specific concerns. Check out what they said:

    Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said Mr. Deeb was doing scientific research and development in a residential area, which is a violation of zoning laws.

    No scientific research and development in a residential area.

    Question for Slashdot: how many of you think you are creative enough, that you could have made up something this stupid if you tried?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  135. How's it supposed to function? by kramer2718 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Any good fascist state function due to the hard work of strict compliance officers such as Pam Wilderman. Her work phone is (508) 408-4118. Give her a call and congratulate her on her good work.

  136. waiting for a warrant when there's a fire? by pbhj · · Score: 1

    I guess waiting for a warrant when there's a fire seemed a little un-neighbourly?

    Fire crews entered the house to put out a fire, they noticed fire hazards which in turn appeared to be a zoning violation and reported it on (heck the police probably have to be there in case there's accusations of arson/ insurance fraud). The police, not knowing their organic chemistry too well, called in a chemical hazard team to establish the nature of the problem ..... and it goes on from there.

    He could have been financially charged for commercial disposal of the hazardous substances I'd imagine, which would probably be very costly.

    1. Re:waiting for a warrant when there's a fire? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Did you think just for a moment that maybe like a billion other people said the same thing you just posted? Go read my replies to them. I'm tired of typing it out.

  137. ATTN SLASHDOT EDITORS: by jay-be-em · · Score: 1

    Do you fucking job people. How fucking long would it take you douchenozzles to take 10 minutes to read the article, do a little cross-checking and determine if the summary/story/headline is outrageously mischaracterizing the events that happened?

    I understand that sensationalist headlines are probably being used, to some degree, to get clicks -- but there are enough interesting stories out there that you don't need to outright lie. Much more of this and I'm not even going to check my /. rss feed anymore.

    --
    "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
  138. O boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's next , biodiesel homebrewers?

    (By reading this comment you agree to NOT be employed by any goverment.) just to be safe ;)

  139. "scientific research and development"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "scientific research and development"? What qualifies as "scientific research and development"? Can kids build projects for their schools science fair at their homes or do they have to get a lab. What about science experiments that they have to do at home for homework? Would they let a little kid experiment to get a baking soda and vinegar volcano be more impressive? Yes. How about an adult with a knowledge of chemistry to try to do a similar thing, making a chemical reaction more powerful?

    The real problem here is the laws. We see here a situation that we agree is a mistake, but the authorities were just doing what they were supposed to do. According to the officer, scientific research and development is banned from residential areas. This law is trying to stop problems that would involve the peace and protection of a neighborhood. Research refers to learning something by a logical process of experimentation. Development refers to using science to do something. Banning experimentation blocks a lot of things. Gardeners are a great example. Can someone place some new plants in different areas of their yard to see where it will live best? Experimenting with the amount of watering to see how a plant will live best? All of that is a no-no. If a gardener has a plant that is not doing well and the gardener finds out that the plant lacks a nutrient in the soil, can that gardener replenish those nutrients around that plant?

    The law should really only restrict if what someone is doing bothers or endangers others. Thats really the goal of most laws, to protect the people while still giving them maximum freedom. A similar thing is computer hacking. If someone hacks a computer of their own for learning about how it works or if they forget their password, should we punish them if they didn't harm anyone. But on the other hand, we can't let malicious hacking occur either. We need to have laws that only restrict and prevent problems. This is an example of where a law is poorly made to slack off on the freedom end.

  140. Yet another moronic move by my city officials by kadehje · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sometimes I wish I hadn't bought a place in Marlborough in 2005. Shortly afterward, the city council tried to pass the harshest sex-offender law in the state and among the harshest in the country. This law, if enacted, would have barred Level II and III offenders from living, working, or even existing in 98% of the city. The mayor vetoed it, and then a nominally reduced version was passed over her veto a few months later. The 1,000 foot exclusion from any place children congregate (as opposed to 2,500 feet) still bars those on the registry from setting foot in 80% of the city's area for any purpose, including the city's large mall and the vast majority of other businesses. Laws like these imposed on people who often have either committed minor offenses (e.g. urinating on the side of the road) or have been punished rather severely already (e.g. 5 or 10 years in the state's maximum security prison for a rape) discourage people from re-entering society and can inspire more severe crime. If a "Level III" offender is really that much of a risk for finding the closest 7-year old kid and forcing his way on him/her, the proper place for that offender is a 6x10 cell for the rest of his life. Otherwise, once he's served his sentence, give him a chance to start his life over.

    And now they go ahead with this kind of crap? I don't care how the stuff was found or how hazardous it was. If it were a genuine hazard, proper response by the FD would have been to give the guy 14 days to get the offending chemicals off of the property. Usually zoning infractions like are handled by a cease-and-desist order that can be challenged in court to determine if the facts of the case really constitute a zoning violation. Ten years ago, that kind of seizure without wouldn't have flown even if the contraband was pure cocaine, and the war on drugs has lasted a lot more than ten years.

    I hope the mayor speaks out on the way this went down. When I found out about the sex offender thing just before last year's election, I decided she was worth voting for re-election. (I'm not on this list by the way, I'm just a fierce opponent of it since it's the prime example of the left wing being just as anxious to infringe the Constitution as the right wing in this country).

  141. Oblig Idiocracy by ari+wins · · Score: 1

    Go away, 'batin.

    --
    Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
  142. This behavior is a national threat by X86Daddy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The US really shouldn't allow things like in-home laboratories... This is no longer the time for developments the likes of which this guy was involved in. Really, read the second paragraph. Does the US want that kind of person and those kinds of developments occurring in our country again? We need to focus on watching TV a bit better.

  143. SOME home chemistry DOES need regulation... by core_dump_0 · · Score: 0, Troll

    "In 1951, A.C. Gilbert introduced his U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, a radioactive learning set we can only assume was fun for the whole math club."

    http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/12/gilbert_u238_atomic_energy_lab.php

    1. Re:SOME home chemistry DOES need regulation... by mweather · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can still do all the experiments in that kit legally. It's not like you can't buy uranium 238.

  144. What is Wrong With Slashdot these days? by ramtin3 · · Score: 1

    I am literally going to be boycott Slashdot if it keeps up with these stupid scare headlines. I feel like I am discussing politics with crazy rednecks or conspiracy theorists. "Science" is not under attack. This was simply a zoning issue. Western democracies have decided that it is ok to demarcate certain areas of a town for certain uses so people can't build a cement factory next to your home. Call me a fascist, but I wouldn't like my neighbor using his house as a chemistry lab where he could (potentially) have explosive or radioactive stuff. Furthermore, "The Government" is a stupid term because there is no connection between what state, federal, and local governments do. The country comptroller has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Bush administration.

    1. Re:What is Wrong With Slashdot these days? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      No where in the posted story does the issue of zoning come up.

      How about you go ahead ad boycott, it will be a better place around here if you do.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:What is Wrong With Slashdot these days? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Learn to bloody well read, you wanker. Ms. Wilderman's comments on what is or isn't appropriate use of a residential area for a chemical research facility is a zoning issue coming up.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:What is Wrong With Slashdot these days? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I was going to comment, but since you decided to use childish words instead, i think ill pass.

      I think i hear your mother calling you, should be getting back inside.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  145. Second hand story time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Probably the best teacher I ever had was a Chemistry professor at the University of Washington. "Wild" Bill Zollar. Fantastic storyteller. Anyway, he was telling us about his time as an undergrad at the University of Alaska. He was majoring in Chemistry to he could graduate in time to take a trip he'd won to Hawaii. Well, he ended up being responsible for reacting left over WWII sodium metal to get rid of it. As we all know sodium metal + water = exothermic and sometimes BOOM. (This is how we knew this would be a good story.) So he and his TA are up late doing this. And the TA says "Hey want to see something cool?" So they take a chunk of sodium metal and throw it in a fountain. BOOM! Splash. Yay! So the TA says, more or less, "Ok goodnight. Have fun doing this increadibly tedious job, unsupervised, by yourself, in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure nothing will go awry." So here he is with untold kgs of sodium metal, reacting little slices of it with water. There's no one to go ride bikes with, and he's a smart young man with apparently poor impulse control. So he soaks some rags in oil, and wraps up a few bricks of sodium metal. Binds them up. Puts them in his car and proceeds to drive out to the nearest dam. So he stops the car over the water, tosses the parcel off and proceeds to drive away. Nothings happening, "Mission Accomplished." Before he gets across the water a 400 foot column of flame which must have lit up his car is busy burning down some guys outhouse on the bank behind him. Of course he went on to do other things, like thermite a trolly to it's tracks outside Harvard while he was at MIT, and then all kinds of important and extremely valuable work.

    1. Re:Second hand story time.... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      > thermite a trolly to it's tracks outside Harvard while he was at MIT

      Are you sure? I seem to remember that being a Caltech story.

    2. Re:Second hand story time.... by jagdish · · Score: 1

      There is nothing like dumping some sodium in a large body of water.

  146. Haven't moved on from the 17th century. by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Funny

    He's lucky they didn't hang him as a witch.

  147. Home Science Under Attack In Massachusetts by rally2xs · · Score: 0

    Pretty soon they'll pass a law that says, "Don't do anything unusual." If you look at all the bonehead things that people are getting arrested for nowadays, they seem to be enforcing such a law before its even been passed.

    1. Re:Home Science Under Attack In Massachusetts by mweather · · Score: 1

      The UK has a law like that. They call it an anti-social behavior order, or ASBO.

  148. Heck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all do chemistry on a daily basis, the difference is that we usually don't do it as our daily plan. Brush your teeth, take a bath and even breathing. Cooking is actually an advanced version of chemistry.

    The area of chemistry is so wide that it's in no way possible to ban it all. And some people are stupid enough to think that it's dangerous to create huge soap bubbles or analyze the water yourself.

    I'm doing chemistry right now, sitting here at my desk websurfing. I'm turning coffee into urine.

  149. Suspicion by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is a terrible thing to waste.. or something like that.

    Cant have our citizens learning about things that hasn't be cleansed by the ministry of education now can we?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  150. For All you People Supporting the Government.... by Yinepuhotep · · Score: 1

    How do you explain this? (From TFA):

    Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb's basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products.

    --
    Gun control: The belief that a woman, raped and strangled with her panties, is morally superior to a dead rapist.
  151. contactzors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pamela A. Wilderman. Code Enforcement Officer.

    508.460.3765

  152. Pro-government morons. by Yinepuhotep · · Score: 2, Funny

    None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products. (From the newspaper article)

    Despite this admission from the authorities, they STILL stole his property. And you pro-government people are saying they had the right?

    Morons.

    --
    Gun control: The belief that a woman, raped and strangled with her panties, is morally superior to a dead rapist.
  153. So, what was he doing? by seanonymous · · Score: 1

    If you're not using chemicals to make meth, you're not using them to make explosives, and you're not using them to make everybody have a permanent smile, you're doing something wrong.

  154. And I say BullS*** by bobKali · · Score: 1

    You cannot increase freedom by reducing freedom.

    Capitalism is simply what naturally happens when people are allowed to run their own lives. How can you logically draw a line and say that it's OK to have X amount of dollars, but immoral to have Y? Who died and made you Moses?

    Damn right I want "freedom from public services, freedom from labor unions, freedom from environmental regulation, freedom from anything..." I want you and the government, the church, my neighbors, their dog, and pretty much the entire rest of the planet the hell out of my life.

    1. Re:And I say BullS*** by nickhart · · Score: 1

      You cannot increase freedom by reducing freedom.

      No? The freedom of capital to do as its owners wish of necessity requires a reduction in everyone else's freedoms. If a capitalist wants freedom from labor unions--the corollary is that workers lose the freedom to form labor unions, the most basic way in which workers can fight back against attacks on their standard of living. If a capitalist wants freedom from environmental regulation, it necessarily means that workers who live in areas polluted by the capitalist will suffer more (a reduction in the freedom to live a healthy life). Capitalists are a tiny minority who profit from others' labor and contribute nothing to society. They are already the most free people on the planet, with power and privileges that the vast majority of us will never see. Increasing their freedoms means a reduction in workers' freedoms. So yes, it is a necessity to reduce the freedom of capitalists to run roughshod over the rest of society in pursuit of their own narrow, selfish aims in order to increase freedom for workers--the vast majority of people on this planet.

      If you don't believe that, then either you are a millionaire or you have OD'd on the capitalist Koolaid they feed kids in school.

  155. The found it because there was a fire at the house by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    As others have mentioned they originally found the stuff because of a fire at the home. I did a search for the guy's name and found another article that confirms this. This article has the more sensational title, "Marlborough fire leads to discovery of basement full of chemicals (must resist urge to call title inflammatory...)

    I generally am suspicious of the authorities in such situations but at least here it seems as if there might have been some reason. It sounds almost as if this is similar to some guy having stacks and stacks of newspapers in his house. As in most cases there is more to the story than a short newspaper article tells us.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  156. So we're not allowed to have geeky hobbies anymore by Doug52392 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thats pretty much what the article said, "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation". So anyone who doesn't have a "normal" hobby is going to be raided by the Man?

    I live in Massachusetts, so is the police going to come to my house and raid it and steal all my stuff because ham radio isn't considered a "customary home occupation"? How about servers, are they going to take all my servers and say running servers isn't considered a "customary home occupation"?

  157. Founding fathers by Atrox666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well when the INHERENT freedoms of the founding fathers were being tread upon by the "Lawful Authorities" they started shooting them. I'm not suggesting it as a recourse only stating that it is a traditional and patriotic American solution.

  158. He never broke a zoning law by scorp1us · · Score: 0, Troll

    Pamela A. Wilderman, Marlboro's code enforcement officer, said ... "I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere." ... "There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

    • She thinks he crossed the line. (what line? - is he incorporated at this address, and this doing this commercially?)
    • She thinks he violated possession regulations.
    • She thinks he has been illegally disposing.

    All of which she thinks. Absent a warrant, it is unlawful search & seizure. If they had observed the chemicals and then issued an investigation, finding he was actually in violation, that would be a hell of a lot better than this "he's doing something I don't approve of".

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  159. Re:For All you People Supporting the Government... by Arimus · · Score: 1

    Err... he did have a fire in his home.

    A fair few household chemicals are either flammable or give off nasty fumes when burnt...

    --
    --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  160. Chemicals by chaz373 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Without judging the man accused or the authorities (I don't have enough information), I would point out that many people could be inadvertently affected by this. I used to have a house with a pool, and the chemicals necessary to keep it sanitary can be quite dangerous if misused or improperly stored. Some of the pool chemicals include; Sodium Dichloro-isocyanurate, Sodium Bisulfate, Trichlro Isocyanruate, Muriatic Acid or Hydrochloric Acid, Lithium Hypochlorite, Aluminum Sulfate etc. Indeed, some of these chemicals can be used to make drugs, explosives, or other "bad" concoctions. So, does every pool owner need to watch for BATF agents performing a no-knock raid? The other thing is if you have a large pool, than you WILL have gallon jugs of these chemicals, so quantity alone cannot be a standard for liability.

    --
    There is no security when liberty is sacrificed.
  161. Deeb? by Drogo007 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who keeps reading it "Mr. Dweeb"??

  162. Re:When was it banned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell us about how M$ is to blame for all this.

  163. You're right but... by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    You're right, but wouldn't you feel better if the person responsible was punished? Other than that, what stops her from doing it the next time?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:You're right but... by UltraAyla · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. These actions should be disciplined and prevented - I just don't think this has anything to do with red states vs. blue states as OP says.

  164. Re:Ah, I love the smell of flamebait in the aftern by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

    I work in a lab with plenty of toxic chemicals, etc, and I can't say that I would appreciate that going on next door. As a neighbor I would at least want a heads up to GTF out of there if his place caught on fire.

  165. a matter of public record by tuckerbeck · · Score: 1

    Marlboro, a town 1660, a city 1890, a police state 2008. http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/MarlboroughMA_Inspection/index

  166. I would be afraid . . . by pablochacin · · Score: 1

    You guys there in the US have considered seriously what is happening with your civil rights? If I were you, I would be very, very afraid. And also very, very mad.

  167. MOD PARENT UP, please by nhtshot · · Score: 1

    I really wish I had mod points right now..

  168. I never had trouble in Houston by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I lived for years in Houston and don't remember any proselytizing. Sure, there were the mega-churches every few blocks, but I never went into them and they didn't come to me.

  169. Re:Cannot make first post here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it was me, you fools!

  170. You can't own an Erlenmeyer Klein Bottle in Texax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is an Erlenmeyer Klein Bottle legal in Texas? http://www.kleinbottle.com/erlenklein.htm

  171. theEddieCurrents by theEddieCurrents · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Through family associations, I was able to go to a wonderland place as a kid, the chem lab at an oil refinery. I was given the most excellent glassware and stuff that they were replacing. Top line gum rubber hose, fittings - on and on. I had a a "lab" in my basement that was, as you might imagine, pretty amazing. I messed with lot's of things; gun powder and such, acids, bases, wow. You could buy sulphur, saltpetre, ribbons of copper, zinc, magnesium, brass tubing, glass tubing ... all the the Newberry's Dime Store! They had a huge selection of chemical wares in little glass bottles with blue and white labels. This article really made me float back 45 years and once again I was standing, transfixed in front of the huge wall of little jars, imagining what I could make. I run networks now days but my experiences with chemicals and labs were some of the best times I had as a kid. I went electronics but ... what could I have made?? Anyone that would have shut me down is unthinkable and wrong. I endangered no one but myself, if at all. I was very careful. My parents applauded and supported my efforts - they supported everything creative that I did and they were the best. So ask Ms. Wilderman what 6.02 x 10 to the 23rd is? If Pam can't answer, she shouldn't complain.

  172. Worcester? by Illbay · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here's the local article from Worcester...

    See how bad things have gotten? In today's climate, they'd never have been ABLE to invent Worcester-shire Sauce.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  173. Neigbors complained ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... about the frequent thunderstorms and cries of, "It's alive!" from his cellar.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  174. MassCops Forums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've dealt with a lot of these Mass cops before - they are very, very frightening people. They are power hungry morons who bash the innocent and have very distorted views of reality.

    They have their own message board.. take a look for yourself if you'd like to be very disturbed:

    http://www.masscops.com/forums/

    Be sure you check out the 'Ask a Cop' help forum where they just make fun of people seriously trying to get help

  175. Pretty dammned dangerous by mbessey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with these bottle bombs is that it's difficult to predict when the pressure in the bottle will get high enouigh to burst it, and when it does burst, it sprays caustic chemicals everywhere. If you want to do something like this, stick to the Dry Ice and water variant. At least with those, the worst you're likely to get is a bad cut from flying plastic, rather than a full-body chemical burn.

    Oh, and remember to wear eye protection. Always.

  176. Next Step by MRB+Constant · · Score: 1

    The next step is to outlaw experimenting with computers.

  177. OMG by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 0

    Europe laughs!!!!

  178. and this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IS exactly why I moved from that crappy state

  179. Know-Nothing Politics by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    I do not think we will survive this proud-to-be-stupid anti-intellectualism now so widespread in our ailing society.

    Spot on. Reminds me of a great article in yesterday's NYT:

    Know-Nothing Politics By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: August 7, 2008 So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: "Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!" O.K., I added that last part.

    And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I've been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the "party of ideas," have become the party of stupid.

    Now, I don't mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don't mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

    What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism â" the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise â" has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through."

    In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: "The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking," said Representative John Shadegg.

    What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be "insignificant"? Presumably they're just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, "want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs."

    Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don't count on it.

    Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, "They attacked us, and we're going to strike back" â" and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren't the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.

    Let's also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. "Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man," declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. "He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world."

    It wasn't until Hurricane Katrina â" when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, "if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help" revealed the true costs of obliviousness â" that the cult began to fade.

    What's more, the politics of stupidity didn't just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.

    Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly â" that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.

    All this is in the p

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  180. A similar thing happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    And by "similar", I mean "warrantless search but they didn't steal my property, although they might as well have". I operated an orchid flasking lab out of my home for 10 years. One day, out of the blue, a plainclothes cop shows up, tells me he has information that I'm growing marijuana, and would I consent to a search of my property. I panicked and said "yes, if you get a uniformed officer to escort you" because anybody can show up and claim to be a cop. Uniform shows up, they go through my crawlspace, attic, every room in the house, the garden shed, and find nothing. They tromp through my (until that point, sterile) lab, which is filled with metal racks and growlights, and probably over $100k worth of other people's orchid seedlings. I show them my business brochures and explain what I'm doing. They leave. No apology, nothing. A few days later I started to notice contamination in my previously sterile flasks. Despite my best efforts, the contamination spread (spider mites) and I lost almost every single flask. All because the cops couldn't be bothered to wipe their feet. I ended up pissing off a lot of customers and losing my business because I let the cops intimidate me.

  181. Re:Cannot make first post here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop talking to yourself fool!

  182. Great, I'm next... by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    With liquid fertilizer, pesticides, saltpeter, oils, powders and all of the other things on the farm, is the sheriff coming after me?

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  183. Re:The actual law.. SORT OF by link-error · · Score: 1

        When you say gun, you should say hand-gun. Anybody, even without a license, can carry a rifle without a permit. Even into a bank!

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  184. The question you need to ask yourself is this. by celtic_hackr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How big were these 1500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes.
    It could be he had a number of chemicals in boxes he had yet to unpack.
    It could be that 1000 of those vials contained less than an ounce of chemical. To me a vial is usually a minute quantity of something, bigger than an ampule and msaller than a jar or bottle.

    The second question you need to ask is was this scattered all over the floor, or was it neatly arranged on the floor underneath shelfs (aka furniture). What kind of furniture are we talking about? Tables perhaps? Shelving? Sofa? Chair?

    This is a retired chemist. I think it is safe to assume he knows how to handle chemicals. After all, this is a chemist who has managed to survive for decades without blowing himself or Massachussets up. Maybe we should give him a bit more credit than the article. Maybe we should take the articles interviewees with a grain of salt (or heck a whole vial of salt).

    However you roll this, it does not bode well for chemistry sets. Fortunately for me, a local science store is well aware of this and builds custom chemistry sets for those in the know. Along with the totally lame commercail ones we see in today's market.

  185. Perhaps a bit of history: McCarthyism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rabidity is cyclical.

    The torture-murder of millions upon millions of women & Jews, in the name of "or lord, king of Jews",
    then the Salem rendition of it,
    then Nazism ( helped along by the appeasers )
    then McCarthyism,
    then "terrorism" being used as the excuse to terrorize god given worth...

    It's all same old same old:
      authority murdering living independence, hated diversity, feared autonomy.

    The only way to reduce the root problem,
      is to make basic "education" include something like Outward Bound,
      so that MOST individuals gain, while young, *understanding* of others' autonomous worth.

    Every alternative seems to bandaid the symptoms, without touching the cause.

  186. hyper-blue? by alizard · · Score: 1

    A code-enforcement worker who closed down a high-tech startup in "hyper-blue" California because "it's not a customary home occupation" would get her worthless ass run out of government and hopefully, the hell out of the state.

    No, it isn't Red v Blue ... it's dumbass v everybody.

    "People always get the kind of local government they deserve." Usually a grim comment on both a government and its citizens, but ... WTF is it with MA? Is it the water?

  187. I live nearby- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and things like this are to be expected in my town. With the traffic cameras and police antics, it's quite similar to the UK.

    This is the city that took 40 years to repave a major street because of contractor issues, and where Charter Communications has a government-supported monopoly on Television and Internet Service.

  188. Do you have or plan a high-tech garage startup by alizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    in Worchester? MOVE NOW.

    That "not a customary home occupation" test can be applied to anything VCs are likely to fund. So get out now before the city shuts you down for not doing something that's within the rather limited comprehension range of their code enforcement officer. "You're programming computers? EVIL HACKER, I'm calling the police right now! You've crossed an invisible line!!!" Alternative energy? "Algae is dangerous! I have to clean it out of my pool every week. And you're growing the stuff? The Department of Homeland Security knows how to deal with your kind!" Otherwise, assuming you stay out of jail or Gitmo, you'll have to watch your competitors in saner jurisdictions pull ahead of you while you try to get your hardware and data files away from the city.

    There are reasons why even left-wing Democrats joke about the "People's Republic of Massachusetts". If this kind of nanny-state crap becomes prevalent in MA, even MIT's chemistry classes are likely to turn into high-school style 'comment and take notes on the experiment you'll be watching on video' crap. Though more likely, they'll simply find a saner state to move to.

  189. well, i'm glad you decided it was *way* too by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    well, i'm glad you decided it was *way* too much stuff.. after all, it's liberty for just us not all, right?

    I agree with GP, the zoning laws are not meant to be abused in this way, and there are way too many broad laws on the books, often covering victimless crimes, put in place by special interests, many of which are long extinct!

    There needs to be a national constitutional amendment dictating a 5 year sunset on every single law, NOT renewable by simply passing a "renewal" bill. You have to rewrite the entire law on the same piece of paper, with no riders, and pass it again.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  190. the idiots who moderated this post "insightful" by alizard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    should delete themselves off slashdot, as should you. If you're anti-science, you have no place here. Most of those chemicals are probably more dangerous than table salt, and the user is a qualified professional chemist.

    The code enforcement officer's irrational fear does not justify yours. Or your spewing it all over slashdot.

    It's dumbasses like you who are the reason why the US is slipping behind the rest of the industrial world in science education. Your kind of nanny-state horseshit is why high school students watch chemistry experiments on video instead of doing real lab work and why parents who want their kids to learn real hands on science instead of computer simulations can't get decent home chemistry sets anymore.

    1. Re:the idiots who moderated this post "insightful" by CKW · · Score: 1

      I have an MSc in Physics and I had a big chemistry set when I was in high-school.

      A bunch of the people that replied to my message have valid points.

      Did the article list the chemicals? Show pictures of the "careful or not so careful storage"?

      No, all I see is massive trolls of hyperbole from both sides. I see no reason for someone to run screaming down the street yelling "WOLF, WOLF, WOOOOOLLLFFF!!!!" about how "the man" is coming to take all your shit.

      I trust the firefighters and the elected officials until proven otherwise. The fact that an independent laboratory have to spend money testing shit to figure out what it is tells me something (although it isn't evidence per se).

      SHOW me the EVIDENCE that "the man" is oppressing you or that they're nannying someone too much. Don't post an article on Slashdot that is full of hyperbole and wolf screamers and then defend them based on no evidence what-so-ever.

      Too many bloody people screaming "the other side is coming to gets us" at the top of their voice.

  191. Then they pass a few bills on the down low.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Then they pass a few bills on the down low as "campaign contributions" and keep on violating the laws, or, if the public ire is up, get slapped on the wrist while the laws are quietly changed for them.

    The truth is corporations have more rights than the average "insect".. i mean citizen.. because we live in the neo-fascist states of america, otherwise known by Shirow & co. as "the american empire".

    to qoute a hackneyed crappy film: "welcome....to the real world"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  192. Re:For All you People Supporting the Government... by mweather · · Score: 1

    Ammunition gives off high velocity lead when it burns. Are you suggesting the government not allow us to keep ammo?

  193. I am that old... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    I got a 790 on the chemistry section of my college board exam in '65. (Felt like I'd let my college chem teacher down by not getting 800. He really liked the students to get perfect scores on the quizzes and exams, and would buy 'em an ice cream cone or a sundae respectively when they did it.)

    But come '66 in college the drug war was just getting started. The government was nosing into purchase records for a lot of reagents and lab glassware and equipment. And the college chemistry store reacted by restricting private purchases of anything the government required reporting on - which put a big crimp in doing any serious experimentation outside a sponsored research project.

    I saw that this would only get worse for the foreseeable future - which meant work for a company and they get all the benefits. So I switched back to my first love - electronics - and from there went into computer science and programming.

    (Helped to have access to Galler, Riddle (as in "Djikstra and ..."), Blue, and "Doctor Dave" Mills, along with Leith and Upatnieks, Fredricks, both Larrowe brothers, etc.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  194. "great pretender"? by alizard · · Score: 1

    As a chemist, you aren't exactly convincing. As for "what someone can easily do with household products", your experience is probably limited to exotic enemas and unless your experiments run to things like jalapeno sauce up your ass, nobody is going to want to read about them.

    1. Re:"great pretender"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  195. Arg...please follow the rules not feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theirs not much hope when societies carters to the ignorant or the paranoid. People burned witches, made people falsify confessions, and other crimes through out time due to ignorance/paranoia. I had hoped that we had all learned from the past but perhaps this is too much to ask for. With to dayâ(TM)s technology, one should not have to put up with this behavior or work hard to get this resolved. I can only hope this is an isolated incident.

  196. would your company be Microsoft by alizard · · Score: 1

    and your job be on the Vista development team?

  197. Loose Translation by Larryish · · Score: 1

    Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties.

    "He's been very cooperative," Ms. Wilderman said. "I won't be citing him for anything right at this moment."

    Translation: If this guy tries to fight us on the illegal seizure of his goods, we will make his life hell with court dates and trumped-up charges.

  198. ASSachusetts..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    ""This is Mr. Deeb's hobby. He's still got bunches of ideas. I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation. ... There are regulations about how much you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of."

    -----What's next? Raiding people who take part in a hobby?

    Good idea! Next on thie "To Raid" list:

    1) Home gardeners: because they deal with toxic chemicals. Since the are adept at growing things, they *potentially* apply that knowledge to cultivating marijuana or opium poppies.
    2) Model rocketeers: because they deal with flammable materials. Since they are knowledgible in rocketry, they could *potentially* build a missile.
    3) Hunters: because they have guns and know how to use them. 'Nuff said. Plus, they know how to kill things.
    4) Sport fishermen: because they have boats that could *potentially* be used to smuggle drugs or weapons into the country. They also know how to kill things.
    5) Computer enthusiasts: because they are knowledgable in computers, and could *potentially* hack into the pentagon and steal national secrets.
    6) Auto mechanics: because their knowledge in automobiles means they they could *potentially* build car bombs.
    7) Hot dog vendors: because their integration with the public means they could *potentially* introduce weaponized pathogens into large populations unnoticed.
    8) Amateur pilots: because they can *potentially* fly suicide missions into buildings (remember 9/11?!).
    9) Woodworkers: because they can craft sharp objects out of wood that could *potentially* be snuck undetected through an airport x-ray machine.
    10) Musicians: because Rock N' Roll is the Devil's music.
    11) ANYBODY WHO IS IN POSSESION OF A CAN OF RAID, ROUNDUP, OR LYSOL: because the only excuse for having it is killing things.

    Instead of going after drug dealers, murderers, and incompetent state employees, Massachusetts decides Julius Kelp is more dangerous. Way to go.

    Maybe they should change their state name from Massachusetts to simply "Ass Hats".

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:ASSachusetts..... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      7) Hot dog vendors: because their integration with the public means they could *potentially* introduce weaponized pathogens into large populations unnoticed.

      I think they already do that, just not intentionally.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  199. let's see a cite by alizard · · Score: 1

    Prove that the city government actually prohibits "scientific research" in residential neighborhoods with the relevant code citation.

    Is someone checking a barometer for a science fair project on weather banned? Is someone doing computer security research banned? Which zoning laws are you discussing and how do they define "scientific research"?

    You don't know, do you?

    All you've done is take the word of a government employee repeated by the legacy media and assume that she knows what she's talking about, despite the fact that the article makes it apparent that she doesn't.

    1. Re:let's see a cite by winomonkey · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you could take a look here and look around a bit. Some research will show you that, and I quote:

      "Zoning ordinances or by-laws shall also provide that uses, whether or not on the same parcel as activities permitted as a matter of right, accessory to activities permitted as a matter of right, which activities are necessary in connection with scientific research or scientific development or related production, may be permitted upon the issuance of a special permit provided the granting authority finds that the proposed accessory use does not substantially derogate from the public good.

      In any city or town that accepts this paragraph, zoning ordinances or by-laws may provide that research and development uses, whether or not the uses are currently permitted as a matter of right, may be permitted as a permitted use in any non-residential zoning district which is not a residential, agricultural or open space district upon the issuance of a special permit provided the special permit granting authority finds that the uses do not substantially derogate from the public good.

      "Research and development uses" shall include any 1 or more of investigation, development, laboratory and similar research uses and any related office and, subject to the following limitations, limited manufacturing uses and uses accessory to any of the foregoing.

      "Limited manufacturing" shall, subject to the issuance of the special permit, be an allowed use, if the following requirements are satisfied: (1) the manufacturing activity is related to research uses; (2) no manufacturing activity customarily occurs within 50 feet of a residential district; and (3) substantially all manufacturing activity customarily occurs inside of buildings with any manufacturing activities customarily occurring outside of buildings subject to conditions imposed in the special permit.

      A hazardous waste facility as defined in section two of chapter twenty-one D shall be permitted to be constructed as of right on any locus presently zoned for industrial use pursuant to the ordinances and by-laws of any city or town provided that all permits and licenses required by law have been issued to the developer and a siting agreement has been established pursuant to sections twelve and thirteen of chapter twenty-one D, provided however, that following the submission of a notice of intent, pursuant to section seven of chapter twenty-one D, a city or town may not adopt any zoning change which would exclude the facility from the locus specified in said notice of intent. This section shall not prevent any city or town from adopting a zoning change relative to the proposed locus for the facility following the final disapproval and exhaustion of appeals for permits and licenses required by law and by chapter twenty-one D."

      So, let me see, need special permits, need to have the government verify that it will not impact the good of a community (not saying it's 'right' - but it is written in certain laws ... plus, deregulation leads to things like Chinese manufacturers sending lead-based paints and whatnot our way), problems with disposal of waste (which was one of their concerns, listed as such in the article). Yup. Government is totally making this one up to attack the sciences. No written documentation or laws or by-laws or regulation or anything was setup for these situations.

      He can still do his science if a) he gets the permit, and b) the folks in charge decide that he can perform research without blowing up the neighborhood or dumping dangerous chemicals down his drain.

      Quoth you, "You don't know, do you?"
      Quoth I, "Um, well ... maybe yes?

  200. mod parent post "insightful" by alizard · · Score: 1

    Unless you live outside the USA or are an anti-science crazy, there really isn't anything funny about the post. The support for the nanny-state position I see here reminds me of why I don't hang out here as much as I used to.

  201. RTFA by alizard · · Score: 1
    the article says:

    None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.

  202. This is so frustrating by slider3618 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This drives me crazy. My hobby is microscopy, and it is nearly impossible to get the supplies I need - and I am a pharmacist. After pondering this dilemma, I started carrying a number of chemicals, and repackaging them in smaller portions for the group of people who share my interest, and I charge cost for them. Every time a health inspector or Board of Pharmacy inspector comes in I have to explain and justify why I carry these "exotic items". I used to get Nitric acid from the local pharmacy when I was a kid just by saying it was for my chemistry set. Things have sure changed.

  203. Re:He's a WITCH! WITCH!!! WITCHHHH!!! by Miseph · · Score: 1

    Well, Worcester isn't all that far from Danvers... (note that the infamous Witch Trials were held in Salem Village, which is now known as Danvers, and not in the city of Salem, tourism titles aside)

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  204. Workshop Equipment by Pogdranaut · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long before people in possession of scary "hacking software and equipment" are subjected to similar intrusions?

    I wonder how long I'll be able to own a metal working lathe. I can see a day coming when such a powerful tool will be illegal for private citizens.

  205. Call Them On It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you'd like to let the dumbass know how you feel..... Here's a Link To the Govt. Office there - http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Gen/MarlboroughMA_Inspection/index

  206. Massachusetts versus America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About ten years ago, I had a code enforcement person come to my door about something in my backyard not visible from the street. He asked to come out back to inspect, I asked him if he had a warrant. He said no.

    "Then get the fudge off my property."

    He threatened to come back with police and a warrant. I told him to feel free, but if he stepped one foot on my property again without a warrant, I would subdue him myself, call the police, and have him arrested for trespassing.

    Never saw that idiot again. Of course, that was Arizona, not Taxachusetts.

  207. What do you expect? by jridley · · Score: 1

    It's Massachusetts! Anything that falls slightly outside the realm of "normal" as judged by a paranoid cop must be raided and destroyed. Just be happy they didn't decide to call in the bomb squad and detonate the house.

  208. Responding to a Fire... by YuriPup · · Score: 1

    Wow this whole thing is pure spin. Read original article. The Fire Department responds to a fire on the premises. Unrelated to the fire they find (quoting from the newspaper article linked): Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement. So while reaction from the official quoted is troubling--it sounds like initial response was spot on and it would have been irresponsible of the Fire Department not to check it out.

  209. The Rule of Law Matters by tjstork · · Score: 1

    They believed the situation to be potentially unsafe, and based on what I see I agree with them.

    The point is, it was done unlawfully. Look, I voted for Bush twice and number myself among the dozen people left in the USA that would vote for him again. So, its not like I'm some kind of a flower carrying, unicorn riding love and passion guy.

    But...

    This is a clear case of the end justifying the means. We can't have a country where the government is allowed to go and trample someone by merely waving a safety flag. The government has to make its case before the people and in a consistent fashion. Taking the case before the people, via a trial, is the essence of democracy and, and consistency is the hallmark of the rule of law. In this case, our government capriciously applied a zoning statute, violating consistency and civil discourse and did so to trample someone's rights.

    You can't have cops just busting into your house because they argue some provision of safety. It's pretty simple. It's like, I thought conservatives were against excessive power applied by the government. Look at it this way... this is another spin on that god-aweful eminent domain decision. William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, are all rolling over in their graves, right along with Ben Franklin, saying:

    "He who trades liberty for safety deserves neither!"

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:The Rule of Law Matters by Arccot · · Score: 1

      It wasn't done unlawfully. They didn't bust in. There were already there putting out a fire!

  210. Then demand inspection and certification by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    If the law requires that the location be inspected and certified, demand that they do so. If they refuse to inspect, document everything. If they inspect but refuse to certify, demand that they document what the failures are, etc.

    Give the local board/council/whatever an opportunity to rectify the situation by showing up with all of your materials. Point out that the law makes coffeemakers, household solvents, etc. require inspections, and suggest that they'd better be budgeting to hire additional inspectors to handle every home in the town starting, oh, next week.

    If they refuse to do anything about the situation, get your friends and neighbors into the act.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  211. The price of health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a response to your side-swipe at universal health care.

    The US spends more per-capita on health care than many nations with universal health care, while only covering about 75% of the population. We do this via "insurance," which is far more expensive than the cost of the health care itself. It's also why the majority of people in the US have very little control over their health care, and are stuck with HMOs, thin lists of acceptable procedures, and are dropped from coverage if they suffer a life-threatening illness that keeps them from working to afford the health care.

    The US health care system fucking sucks.

    1. Re:The price of health care by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily disagree with that. There needs to be some radical changes to fix the issues with health care.

      Claiming that health care is an "inherent right" isn't going to fix anything, though. That leads to claiming that food and shelter and clothing, etc. etc. are all rights, but then who provides all that?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  212. Re:He's a WITCH! WITCH!!! WITCHHHH!!! by oleg_stormforge · · Score: 1

    It also should be noted that an explosion took place here in Danvers in Nov. 2006 that was in a small ink and paint factory bordering neighborhood houses. The explosion happened so early in the morning that shards of glass etc. passed over people sleeping instead of into people standing getting ready for the day. The cause of the explosion was due to improper storage of VOC's. One can read the findings of the investigation at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/danfindg.htm As such, local police / firefighters are being more "vigilant" for violations / improper permitting.
    From above findings:
    In order to prevent future incidents like the Danvers explosion, smaller companies that produce or use hazardous materials will now be targeted for scrutiny under a new program that pairs fire and hazardous waste inspectors on the lookout for mishandling of dangerous chemicals.

    Long story short, I can see the side of the authorities here. More importantly it looks like from the article that no citations / fines or more importantly criminal charged have currently been leveled... Time will tell if there continues to be a "measured" response.

  213. Re:The actual law.. SORT OF by swillden · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I hadn't realized long guns were handled differently. Still, handgun carry needs to be liberalized as well.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  214. BS Apologetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how often corrupt judges and lawyers argue to the contrary, you cannot harass a person or confiscate his property because someone feels it is "likely" he violated some law, but can't prove it. This is a complete reversal of the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty." To support such nonsense is rather to support a doctrine of "you're guilty, period." It turns innocent people into bandits and the law into a tool of oppression and abuse, which is, by the way, completely contrary to the purposes of just law in the first place.

    Besides, regulations aren't even real laws, they're bureaucratic edicts. To the extent that regulations come out of Federal agencies, they are unconstitutional since power is given only to the legislature. I'm sure they're unconstitutional by most state constitutions as well. For the legislature to allow or encourage such things is an unforgivable abandonment of their basic duties. If you're big on democracy but also in favor of bureaucratic regulations, you have some cognitive dissonance going on.

  215. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you who don't know, they are removing the chemicals from his basement because there was a fire in his house. They have ruled out foul play. I live in Marlborough, have for 26 years. And by the way, our local government is that of a city, with an elected mayor and elected council, not a town. They are removing the chemicals from his basement, and he is cooperating fully, to make sure that there is no risk or dangerous chemicals. Fremont St is on a hill above downtown Marlborough. They are not pressing any charges, even though he has violated State regulations and local zoning laws. THIS WAS NOT A RAID.

  216. While we are at it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burn the witch!!

  217. Read the regulations? Anyone? by kismet666 · · Score: 1

    Its not that hard: http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/Res/familyhsng/MarlboroughMA_CityClerks/MarlboroughMA_ZoningOrds/article5. The practice of storing chemicals and conducting scientific research does not appear to be covered by the city's zoning laws. The only zoning violation he *might* be guilty of is using more than 25% of his home's floorspace for business purposes. That hardly justifies confiscating and destroying everything. There may be other laws about the handling and storage of chemicals in the state, but those are not mentioned in the article. I think the city is wrong, they could have simply asked the guy what the chemicals are and what he has been doing with them. As for spelling the city's name, my recollection is that both forms are used in Massachussettes, the long form on maps, city documents, and so on, the short form on highway signs and many news articles.

  218. testing by lbane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    testing

  219. Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...grounds for a lawsuit against the Marlboro police to me.

  220. in other words by alizard · · Score: 1

    "Is someone checking a barometer for a science fair project on weather banned? Is someone doing computer security research banned?"

    the answer would appear to be yes in both cases based on your cite. I hope you live in MA, you seem to be comfortable with that kind of nanny-state protection... you also now know that high-tech isn't leaving your state because they don't like you, it's because of overregulation. There's a reason why garage startups are far more likely to happen outside your state.

    1. Re:in other words by winomonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My state? You mean Alaska, where I don't need a conceal/carry permit for my firearm, where law enforcement is supposed to get court approval to monitor my property from an adjacent lot, and where it is legal to carry a quarter pound of marijuana (can't grow, sell, or buy, but can magically have it appear in a pocket)? Yeah, major nanny state. You have me pegged ...

      And regarding your two questions, I don't think that people are interpreting the laws in such a manner. Maybe if you can provide a citation of such an act, as was requested of me (which I then did), I would be more thoroughly impressed? Under the strictest interpretation of the zoning laws, there may be issues. However, as it is written in the laws, there should be a chance to petition for the ability to perform such acts if it is not a threat to the public. If you can please explain to me how flammable / dangerous chemicals (which were discovered due to a fire in his house) are in a similar risk category as programming a microcontroller, that would be great.

      To look at this another way, there are codes and regulations for how natural gas lines are hooked up to a house, etc. These safety measures help make sure that the general public is safe. If my neighbor does not build his house to code, it catches fire and damages mine in the act, I think that I would be upset. Similarly, if his fire had spread and come into contact with accelerents and burned down his neighbor's house, I also think that the person would have been upset due to a lack of compliance with zoning laws.

      Excuse me while I get back to work. Here in Alaska. Thanks.

  221. while my post was based on speculation by alizard · · Score: 1

    a reply to one of my posts here indicates the speculation is correct. If you've got a good idea and want to work on it at home... you'll have to get it approved by the local authorities or risk shutdown.

  222. Re:Ah, I love the smell of flamebait in the aftern by KZigurs · · Score: 1

    Ah. BTW the guy is an ex-chemist not some random 15 year old kid with dads CC. Also there are 1500 ITEMS cited, not 1500 different chemicals in the article.
    In any basic hobby you will easily find that in 2m radius of you in our "lab" you will easily list 500+ items related to your hobby. Just look at that pile of cables stashed away in the corner. 200 separate items at least! 1500 is NOT THAT excessive in chemistry where you are talking about having 30+ items just for a basic distilling process.

  223. Your ideas.... by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

    Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to invest in your company...

    --
    Huh?
  224. Re:Ah, I love the smell of flamebait in the aftern by Chyeld · · Score: 1

    I'd feel safer with a 15 year old with daddy's CC playing hobbist chemist in their basement than I would be with a 60 (yes, that's an age out of my hiney) year old retired chemist playing reseach chemist in his. The number of items may or may not be relevant to the idea that he was doing something 'wrong'. But they were enough for me to feel that the firemen who reported the incident weren't abusing their authority when they called in the DOE. And the fact that this is someone who willingly admitted to the folk who showed up that he was in fact doing research and development pretty much blows away the "it's just a hobby" arguement.

    The issue isn't "chemisty bad, don't play with beakers" the issue is "don't set up an industrial scale lab in a residential area".

  225. "I trust the firefighters and the elected official by alizard · · Score: 1
    If you trust your government to know what's best for us, this says a lot more about your gullibility than it does about any points made or not made in the article, other than:

    None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.

    If you'd read TFA, you wouldn't have needed to be told this. Your claimed MSc degree hasn't saved you from making a public fool of yourself.

  226. Hydrogen at high school: me too... by advid.net · · Score: 1
    posting late...

    I've read your journal entry and I'm quite the same kind of nerd at scholl...

    When I was 16 I discovered how to make hydrogen from caustic soda, water and aluminium foil (I've never seen this in chemistry books).
    I've made a mini hydrogen production unit with plastic bottles (PET) , plastic tubes and pots. I used it to inflate baloons with hydrogen which fly away (they can lift up a Lego man). The danger here is: hot caustic soda, hydrogen and a reaction that accelerate (need proper cooling).

    Later when I was 18 I brought the device at the boarding school to inflate a baloon. A condom was used, it work as well, that was a nice idea because it was the world AIDS day...
    I got no trouble, because I was in a educated and liberal environment.
    Maybe dangerous but not as much as the student filling used bullet cases with gunpowder to make new bullets for a friend (at the boarding school too, for a few days).