But you don't obtain a velocity without having accelerated.

Physics 101 indeed.

Do you only engage in communications that are "well supported arguments"?

You must be a blast at parties.

Simply make all cell phones stop functioning if they detect that they are moving faster than a certain speed. Many phones already contain accelerometers that could be used for this. If not, GPS or cellular triangulation could work, also.

I support the idea of disabling cell phones from working once they detect they are moving at, say, greater than 5 MPH. Certain SIM cards could be provided for people who had a demonstrated need to be exempt from this.

It's really not a big hardship if you need to use the phone or send a text to simply pull over.

But this will never happen, and here is why: Lobbyists for the cellular companies will kill it. I would wager that a huge number of cell phone minutes are consumed while people use their phone while driving. Cut that off and suddenly you take a huge bite out of cell phone profits.

I was very excited about the Chevy Volt, but at $40K that's too expensive for me.

The Nisan Leaf sounds nice, too, but I'm scared to buy a car that can only go 100 miles on a charge.

When I saw the picture the first thing it looked like to me were those giant gets you sometimes see shooting away from black holes. I assumed that this was from the black hole in the center of our galaxy. The article says it might be, but might also be from star formation.

Unless it's raining. Or it's cold out. Or it's hot out.

Every time I read one of these negative kinds of responses to these new, super-small, super-efficient vehicle alternatives about how unsafe they are going to be, I can't help but think that the poster is missing the point.

Yes, compared to vehicles commonly available today, these will probably be structurally inferior.

But these vehicles are for the future. In the future, probably the near future, many people are going to be choosing between going to work on foot or a bicycle, because they won't be able to afford to drive any of the vehicles commonly available today.

Compared to going on foot or a bicycle, these kinds of cars are just fine.

I have long thought that such a device like a "space shade" could be a useful non-lethal weapon.

Some country not cooperating with you? Plunge them into darkness. Crops wither. Threat of famine.

I agree. My home PC is mostly an entertainment system, and that means gaming.

I'm not going to dual-boot just for the satisfaction of running my email, web browser, and open office in Linux.

FTA:

"Then they stuck a needle in the oil to make the Mach cone. Just outside the spot where the jet of oil hit the plate, the water parted around the needle at an angle of about 18 degrees. As the physicists move the needle outward, the angle smoothly increased to about 45 degrees, then rapidly opened up to reach 90 degrees near the ridge of the jump.

That implies that the speed of the waves inside the ring is equal to the speed of the waves outside the ring, "and hence constitutes a clear proof that the jump indeed represents a white hole horizon for surface waves," the team wrote. "The fact that the circular jump represents a white hole horizon illustrates that the concept of horizons is not limited to relativity.""

First of all, in the first paragraph it says "...the water parted...". No, as the article said earlier on, they used silicone oil, not water.

Secondly, the fact that the angle of the mach cone was less than 90 degrees inside the hydraulic jump implies that the speed of the waves inside the ring is GREATER than the speed of the waves outside the ring.

The fact that it goes to 90 degrees indicates, as the article also said earlier, that the speed of the interior waves is equal to the speed of the exterior waves AT THE HYDRAULIC JUMP.

The whole point of the experiment was to show that the waves are traveling faster inside the jump than outside.

>Until you can, somehow, make it contractually their problem.

You might, I suppose, make end users responsible for any security compromises the company deems them responsible for causing.

But I believe the system should be set up so that users can't cause those problems to begin with.

Want strong passwords? Enable a scheme that forces users to have passwords of a certain length, with a certain number of numbers and non-text characters, disallow repeating-pattern passwords and password reuse.

Want to prevent attachments from causing problems? Screen them at the server.

Want to prevent users from finding malware on the web? Put tools in place to limit their internet access.

In short, don't put a mission-critical piece of equipment on every employee's desk whereby if they don't use it right it can seriously compromise your business.

Nearly every business has some sort of process or equipment that must be used exactly right, every time, by highly-trained (and usually highly compensated) people, and yes, if they screw up the consequences for the company and that employee are dire.

But to expect this level of alertness for every computer user in the company is silly and unrealistic. Especially for staff positions, where they have neither the training nor financial motivation to really care.

>How about my garden hose?

I think your garden hose analogy is quite appropriate.

You are correct, that I should be able to walk onto your property and turn on your water and use your garden hose.

But what if you set up a sprinkler in your yard, and some of your water sprays over into my yard?

Should I be able to set out a bowl and collect the water that you are spraying into my yard? I think so.

Your hypothetical unsecured wireless router is broadcasting beyond the boundaries of your property, and by the protocol it is using, is announcing itself to the world as being available for anyone to use. Why shouldn't anyone be able to use it?

Users are careless with their workplace computers because it's not their data and they don't care what happens to it.