Go rant

[Justin Johansson]

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> It should be "should be", for the same reason and in the same way that the 
> "waterfall" development model *should be* taught: Presenting it up front as 
> conceptually-easy-but-generally-a-bad-thing-to-do will help people identify 
> it and therefore avoid it. Not teaching about it increases the chances that 
> they'll either rediscover it or come across a usage of it without actually 
> noticing that there's a problem. It would be like selling sodium without 
> including a warning that it explodes upon contact with water (Or something 
> like that, anyway, I never actually took chemistry...).

Pity, Nick; chemistry was really good fun.

Citing potassium would be even better.  An accident with pot (K) actually happened to someone I knew at high school and the result was rather ugly.

Better still would be to cite rubidium -> caesium -> francium.  These elements, all in the the alkali metals group, have an extreme affinity for oxidation i.e. explosion when in contact with, well, oxidants :-)

Francium is rather rare though and a the skull-and-crossbone radioactive warning would be more apt for selling this particular alkai metal.

Cheers, Justin