Bomb

Napalm bomb

About the best fire bomb is napalm. It has a thick consistancy, like jam and is best for use on vehilces or buildings
- Pour some gas into an old bowl, or some kind of container.
- use about 30% soap, The soap is either soap flakes or shredded bar soap. Detergents won’t do.
The gasoline must be heated in order for the soap to melt
- make sure the gasoline is heated enough to cook the soap.
- Get some styrofoam and put it in the gas, until the gas won’t eat anymore. You should have a sticky syrup.
- Put it on the end of something (don’t touch it!!). The unused stuff lasts a long time.

Pipe bomb

Pipe bombs are are an issue that has been over discussed on the internet without the involvement of any effective solid information on how to make a pipe bomb. The information out there is usually very shallow and does not show any real insight into the subject. This article was written with the backing of special forces improvised munitions knowledge.
First a word of warning. Explosives are extremely dangerous devices, forget what you’ve seen in the movies, if you venture into improvised explosives manufacture the chances are that you will lose your hands and other parts of your body no matter how good you think you are. Life is not a thing to waste on a pipe bomb. Having said that this article is for information purposes only and should not be attempted.
Introduction to Pipe Bombs
Pipe bombs are used as an alternative or to aid the use of conventional explosives. The components of a pipe bomb are very easily available and assembled. Additionally they can be used as a casing for high explosives such as TNT so as to improve the capability of the explosive device. Roughly speaking an explosive filler is placed inside a closed metal pipe and is detonated by fuse running into the pipe, the pressure of the explosive material when ignited builds up very rapidly and the pipe ruptures with great force causing damage. The main components of a pipe bomb assembly are the fuse, pipe assembly and the explosive chemicals used.
The explosive material
The first step to improvising a pipe bomb is to choose an appropriate explosive material as the filler. For simpler purposes match heads or gunpowder can be used though they burn rather slowly and great a lesser rupturing velocity of the pipe than other materials. Permanganate with sugar half half or similarly Chlorate with sugar are easily available materials with the chlorate having a higher explosive effect than the permanganate. Aluminium is a potent fuel and when combined with Carbon Tetrachloride or Permanganate can produce more dangerous explosive filler. These are all of the lesser explosives which however are easier to acquire. A more complicated scenario would involve the use of TNT of plastic explosives as filler which also increases the risk factors involved. The lesser powders are usually ground fine to accelerate their burning rate.
The Fuse
Military detonation cord is best to use as a fuse otherwise cannon or fireworks fuses can be used instead. To make a completely improvised fuse a tape sticky side up can be placed on a surface and sprinkled with ground gunpowder, the powder will stick to the tape and so is a fuse although less reliable than others. It is important to know where to place the fuse in the assembled pipe which is discussed later in the assembly section. Electrical detonation can also be facilitated.
Assembly of the pipe bomb
This consists of a pipe body threaded at both ends and capped on both ends with steel or brass caps containing the filler. The threading should be of the coarse type as fine threading does not resist the buildup of pressure as coarse threading does. For additional resistance a metal strip can be wrapped from one end cap to another so as to prevent the caps from flying off the pipe during the explosion. It is highly advised that an inner soft lining of plastic is used in the pipe to prevent any possible accidents with friction as when the pipe bomb is moved from place to place. The fuse is best placed through a tiny hole drilled on one end through a cap when both sides of the pipe are closed. However if high explosves are used as filler one end is usually left open with the fuse placed in the open end, if the fuse is placed erroneously in the capped end in this case the explosive material will be blasted out of the pipe prematurely. A thick metal pipe would create better fragmentation destruction than a thinly walled one. During the assembly process the important fact to consider is that explosive filler is usually sensitive to friction, so it is important to fill the pipe carefully and avoid having powder between the screw cap and screw threads as the friction could set them off.

Moltov coctail bomb

A Molotov cocktail (or petrol bomb) is a crude incendiary weapon which consists of a glass bottle semi-filled with flammable liquid, usually gasoline (petrol) or alcohol (generally methanol or ethanol), the mouth of the bottle is stoppered with a cork or other type of airtight bung (rubber, glass, or plastic), and a cloth rag fixed securely around the mouth. The weapon is used by first soaking the rag in a flammable liquid immediately prior to using it, lighting the rag and throwing the bottle at the target. The bottle shatters on impact, spilling the flammable liquid over the target which is then ignited by the burning rag.
Sometimes, if available, self-inflammatory materials (such as white phosphorus), could also be used to guarantee the bottle’s explosion as it hits the target surface. Tar, palm oil or other thickening agents are often added to the composition in order to make the burning fluid stick to the target rather than run off.
A full bottle will not ignite quickly when it breaks on impact (but has a longer burning potential). For a device to explode rapidly on impact the bottle is only one half to two-thirds full of mixture.

Soda bomb

Easily made by simply filling up a 600 ml bottle of 1 half brake fluid (or ethanol) and another half chlorine, put the lid on, shake it for 1 second or less than throw the bottle, and it will pressure the bottle to the extent where it lets of a huge explosion. DO NOT shake longer than 1 second, or it will explode in your hands.

Debate on Resolutions to amend Rules 44 and 45(2), and Rule 45(1) respectively - Margaret Ng

Debate on Resolutions to amend Rules 44 and 45(2), and Rule 45(1) respectively
LEGCO 2011-05-11

Mr. President

The amendments proposed in this Resolution and the next may appear to be small, but are in fact fundamental. They go to the root of the principles which underlie the Rules of Procedure and the way this Council functions.

Let me state from the start that I consider our ability to maintain order and decorum in all our proceedings to be essential to our proper functioning, and to our credibility in the community as the legislature of the Hong Kong SAR.

Like other honourable members and members of the community, I am concerned about the repeated challenges to the rules of orderly conduct. I am even more deeply disturbed by the occasions on which the President’s orders were met with defiance and resistance and had to be effected by unseemly force. It is not that I am worried about setting a bad example for the children. More seriously, it is a matter of logic and obligation. For if the President cannot guarantee safe passage within our own House, how can we reasonably require any official or member of the public to appear before this Council?

Likewise, I am also aware that in the circumstance of repeated breach of conduct with apparent immunity, public pressure has increased for members to “tighten up” the rules to deter such conduct.

The problem is certainly clear. However, are these amendments of the Rules the right answer? I do not think so. First of all, we should distinguish the rules from their enforcement. The most notorious occasions of disorderly conduct took place within Council sittings. The amendments proposed today do not concern Council sittings: the President already has the powers under the present Rules. The question is how the Rules may be applied and enforced more effectively and expeditiously. This is being dealt with vigorously in the LegCo Commission. The amendments proposed to extend the same powers to the Chairman of any committee, and it is not clear to me that doing so in any way addresses the public’s concern.

Some members of the public have suggested that new rules should be made to punish a disorderly member by banning him from the Council for a period of weeks, with salary reduced or withheld. Our research shows that the House of Commons indeed has such powers, but they are not exercised at the order of the Speaker, but upon a motion moved by another member and passed by the House.

The apparently quaint procedure of the House of Commons illustrates a fundamental principle: authority is not used on an equal. Rules to give one member power over another member are justified only on the basis of necessity to facilitate debate. We must ask ourselves, before we cast our vote today, whether this requirement is satisfied by the proposed amendments.

As I have said earlier, the proposed amendments appear to be small: a few words are deleted from Rule 44, 45(1) and 45(2): 3 in English and 5 in Chinese. But the effect is to remove the difference between the powers of the President in Council, the Chairman in a Committee of the whole House or Chairman of any Standing or Select Committee on one side, and on the other side, the powers of Chairman of any other committee such as a panel, a subcommittee and a bills committee. Under existing rules, the power to order a member whose conduct is disorderly to withdraw immediately is exercised by the former, but not by the latter.

I may add that the three amendments are inter-related. Reading backwards, Rule 45(2) allows the Chairman to order a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw; rule 45(1) makes a member who persists in irrelevant and tedious repetition and who refuses to stop speaking upon the Chairman’s direction guilty of grossly disorderly conduct, and Rule 44 makes the Chairman’s decision on whether a member is in breach of Rule 45(1) or (2) final and unchallengable. These are draconian powers. It is right and fitting that they should be restricted.

So why are they given to one group of committees and not to another group? I submit that this is not arbitrary but a matter both of principle and good sense.

LegCo’s Rules of Procedure originated from the House of Common’s Standing Orders, which makes a similar distinction. Powers under Standing Order No.42 (which is similar to our Rule 45(1)) and Standing Order No.43 (which is similar to our Rule 45(2)) are exercised only by the Speaker and the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House or a Standing Committee but by no other Chairman. The distinction is stated at the head of Chapter 27 of Erskine May: committees are divided into those which proceed by debate, and those which proceed by taking evidence, deliberation and report. These powers only apply in Committees which proceed by debate. Or put it another way, committees which deal with formal questions (motion or bills), debate upon them and then resolve them, by voting if necessary, as opposed to committees which hear proposals, deliberate on them by discussion, and where appropriate report to the House Committee but make no binding decision. The report, if appropriate, can then be debated in a sitting of the Council.

According to the research reported to us, no Parliament in the world empowers a Chairman of a deliberative committee with the powers which we are now considering under these proposed amendments.

It is clear to me that the draconian powers under Rules 44 and 45 are exercised by a Chairman of a decision-making committee in enforcing the rules of debate and are necessary and appropriate for that purpose. The Speaker or the President, in maintaining order and decorum in a formal sitting of the House, is additionally upholding the dignity of the Court of Parliament.

Such considerations do not apply to deliberative committees and subcommittees.

Mr. President, the differentiation is not just in name; nor is it just slavish borrowing from a jurisdiction now foreign. It underlines the two complementary halves of our function and the way we discharge them: we debate in opposition, vote on party lines, but we investigate and deliberate in cooperation and across party lines, accommodating each other’s line of exploration. In making our reports we are conscious of power in unity, and that has been illustrated time and again in such reports as on the West Kowloon Cultural Development and most of our Select Committees of Inquiry. While the debates attract more attention, the real work, in my opinion, is more often achieved in the committee room. (By the way, the House of Commons uses “Select Committee” to refer to what we call a “policy panel”, and in the House of Commons, part of the legislative procedure is carried out in Standing Committees.)

In short, we take evidence and deliberate, and then we debate and decide. To disregard the distinction, as these amendments do almost more by thoughtlessness, is to confess our failure to cooperate and to commit this House to total debate. There is already an increasing impatience not to give time to a genuine exchange of views in order to forge maximum consensus, and to go immediately to debate from entrenched positions, and the ultimate vote count. I can’t tell you how remote this is from the true spirit of democracy.

I am reminded of the trial in Alice in Wonderland. As soon as the accusation was read out, the King said to the jury “Consider your verdict”. “Not yet, not yet,” the Rabbit hastily interrupted. “There is a great deal to come before that!”

Mr. President, is there? As far as this Council is concerned?

Let us, for a moment, leave principle and constitutional function and duty aside. Even on considering the practicalities alone these amendments should be opposed. They are neither necessary nor efficacious. Not necessary, because adjourning a committee meeting for a few minutes would be ample to deal with any problem of disorderly conduct. Not efficacious, because I see little likelihood of the Chairman’s order for the member to withdraw being meekly obeyed, and the commotion to get staff assistance to forcibly evict the member from a committee room will be more conducive to farce than to dignity.

Indeed, I believe that the threat of such an order from the Chair will be most likely to be provocative, and contribute to lasting ill feelings between members. It is not in such an environment that we can expect to foster the habit and norm of cooperation and consensus.

Since such additional powers are neither efficacious nor necessary, I do not see any justification for their adoption. Rules do not make good conduct. Only respect for the Rules and the institution can do so.

Finally, I would like to make this point: our Rules of Procedure will fall apart, not just when a few members choose persistently to throw things at officials, but when unbridled contempt are permitted to be expressed by members towards one another, when members are permitted to resort constantly to verbal abuse and personal attack.

I do not see how rational debate can take place in such a linguistic environment. And we do need rational debate if we were to discharge our duty, which includes ensuring the development of principled and reasoned long-term public policies for the good of Hong Kong. As a member who has long served this Council, I am greatly saddened to see this happening.

Although rationality may not be any longer relevant, let it be recorded that these are the reasons why I oppose the motion. I may add that I do so with full exemption from Civic Party, because rules of procedure are above politics. 

法政隨筆 - 原則與規則 - 吳靄儀

法政隨筆 - 原則與規則
明報 2011-05-16

香港人很重視遵守規則，但甚少關心規則背後的原則，往往出現了本末倒置的問題。不幸政府官員和立法會不少議員也有這個毛病，在官員來說，只見規則，不問原則，名為為保障公平，實則為免招致批評，結果就是官僚主義日深，勞民傷財而做不到有利市民的政策目標。在立法會來說，對議事規則甚至法案只知其然，不知其所以然，不耐煩思考法例的解釋與議會程序的基本原則與精神，結果在法例的通過與修改，議事規則的運作、應用和修改都變成政治掛帥，任意為之，無助於建立良好的制度和慣例，反而將原有的典章制度弄得支離破碎。眼見破壞程度日益嚴重，我深感愛莫能助。

例如上星期立法會動議修改《議事規則》，讓所有委員會與大會會議一視同仁，其主席有權驅逐他裁定行為極不檢的議員立即離場，如果該名議員不合作，則可令工作人員強制執行。議案獲大比數通過，而我這個議事規則委員會副主席則投票反對。為什麼我要反對？不是因為我「縱容」眾矢之的的幾位議員，或支持他們的犯規行為，而是因為這項修改有違議會運作的原則和精神。《議事規則》有關命令行為不檢的議員立即離席的規則，原是只有立法會主席在主持立法會正式會議時所行使的權力，亦引伸到其他藉辯論及投票通過有約束力議決的全體委員會和財務委員會，但不屬於審議性質的事務委員會或小組委員會。這個分野，來自議員的平等地位及委員會以不同性質，是有其原則基礎的。全世界議會同類的委員會，都沒有由其主席驅逐議員離場的規則。我們輕率地修改，因為絕大部分議員不覺得委員會與大會的會議有什麼分別，也沒有興趣探討，最意的只是「市民要我們『做』，收緊議事規則。」

中國官場文化風氣所漸， 「主席」變成一個身分，代表某些高於別人的權力和地位，但「立法會主席」是一個公職（ 「office」），權責附於其位而非其人，而「委員會主席」只是委員會成員之一，受其他委員所托而在開會時或開會前後，按照他所理解的委員會成員的共識，處理有關委員會運作的事務。議會程序是一門學問，我們不求深博，但總要略識之無。 

12 Maga Pixels

a response

That milky way picture is really cool. I just seen you posted it, and i re-posted it because i think it is cool. I don't know you, but i'm friendly with absolutely everyone. Can i ask you a personal question? Here goes... Do you think that you could explain Life, Atmosphere and space, energy, and how all these things and others i have not mentioned, all interact or Tie into one-another To create the real universe that we live in. Not in full detail of course, just in a nut shell so i can gain a little better understanding of all the elements and how they work with eachother. This may sound like a weird or unusual request, but I'm really trying to figure some things out. If you have no clue what i'm talking about, then never mind this message and have a nice day. I'm just trying to figure out what you might have a good idea about, due to the feild of study you are in. Very impressive I must say, do you have any idea how this disaster in Japan is going to affect the world? Should we be doing anything to help it that the experts aren't already doing, or will things work out ok? Thank you for your time, and sorry to ask such a complicated question, but i would love to understand more about what i can do to make a small change, to help others that come after us all here now. Thank you! Jason

****************************

as a physicist (i think i can say so) , we can explain alot, but only on surface. and many thing is not with in science domain, for example life, love, hate.... well, nevertheless, we try to formulate it with a lot mathematic models. OK, may be you mean life is in biological sense. in this sense, life is a system for me. we can create digital life, so that they follow simple rules but having complicated behavior. we all follow simple rules, we eat, sleep, have desire, motive, etc... and each other interact then create the society. similar thing happen in non-living things, water. water molecule follow simple rules, but water have complicated feature, it can be ice, be vapor, while single water molecule cannot be ice or water. my point is, if you look a big picture, we are just part of it. if you even look at a bigger picture, say a galaxy, we are nothing. however, if you look at a single household, everyone matter!

since your question is very general. and life is a very abstract concept, it can include many things. so, i dun know what to say. anyway, the underlaying structure of the universe is a very huge and harmonic, every part is related to each others. we can arrange them according to the complicity : mathematics -> physics -> chem -> biology -> psychology-> social science -> economy -> art ... or by size: nuclear -> atom -> molecule -> protein -> DNA -> man -> city -> planet -> solar system -> galaxy..... , or by energy, by time scale, etc... however, different veiwpoint is describing our universe.

so, as human capacity is limited, we so far dont have a simple theory. but just little pieces.

at the end, i think we can still trust nuclear power. since the japan nuclear incident is mainly a political problem, and if we spend more time and money on it, it only get better and better. think about car, if we so scary on car accident at the very beginning, do we have safe and fast car to drive? and nuclear power has so many advantage then the others. the only and only 1 problem is the nuclear waste. but compare to other waste by energy ( in fact, making solar panel use alot toxic material , large scale wind power will use up a lot of land, which mean, wild animal lost land, etc.). but the nuclear waste just need to store in very deep or just send back to the earth core ( although this technology not present yet ). in additional, people very concern on the accident of nuclear plant, i also worry on plane accident too! no one can live when a plane blow up in the mid-air! i think i make my point clear.

自由

自由就是認識自己活在囚牢裏，認識自己每天在任由社會與權威擺佈，


食醫生與營養師叫你食的食物，
買海報雜誌叫你買的東西，
穿電視電影裏出現的衣服，
做老師家長牧師叫你做的事，
講書本裏教你講的說話。