Conservation of momentum is more than "new physics". It's quite fundamental, thanks to Noether's Theorem: conservation of momentum is mathematically equivalent to "the laws of physics don't vary with spatial coordinates", that is, the X, Y, and Z axes can be "zeroed" anywhere, the choice of coordinates are arbitrary as long as their consistent. The universe would be a very strange place indeed if this weren't true, and furthermore we'd have noticed by now.

So, whatever's going on here, momentum is being conserved. Just how that's happening is the curious bit. It wasn't obvious until the early 1900s that light had momentum - maybe there's something else we're missing, or maybe this really is an actual "warp" drive that locally changes the metric of space (in a way different from GR) and momentum really isn't conserved. Somehow I doubt the latter is true.

Photons have momentum, but they don't have mass. You don't technically need mass, just conservation of momentum. The key is that the thrust produced that way is very small indeed, and that's apparently not the mechanism of this drive.

Just pop up a little lead umbrella so there's a shady spot.

It would cost me money to use 2FA

It'll cost you money to not use 2FA too. Pay now or pay later.

I get 2000 texts a month on my $30 plan - I use maybe 10 2FA messages in that time - hardly worth complaining about. Electricity costs money too!

But to the GP - password quality is part of good 2FA; one is not a replacement for the other.

More likely, someone could run a forklift into one of the massive Fluoride gas tanks and puncture it (the gas is used to surface polysilicon wafers), wiping out a couple of hundred people Union-Carbide-style.

That's a minimal risk and some precautions can be made. But the more relevant metric is that roofing jobs are among the most dangerous in the US. Solar installers on roofs will fall to their deaths (or severe injury), and that's a guarantee. There's no magic that keeps solar installers safer than roofing installers.

I'm guessing it will be about as deadly as coal, per megaWatt. Nothing nearly as safe as atomic power or hydro.

Sure, and had he appeared in person, your argument might make sense as the arrest of a fugitive might endanger others. But that's not what happened here: this was the city simply censoring content it disapproved of.

That's sort-of true. The government can regulate commerce in a way that it can't regulate speech. Obscenity laws, for example, can be constitutional if they prohibit selling specific content, as it's not the content that's illegal, it's the business practice. Even that is narrow, though, and can't apply to political speech. Clearly that's not what happened here -- the cops were just being dicks, are they usually are -- but you are more restricted when doing business than when simply speaking.

If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship. The exceptions in the US are few and narrow, and don't seem to apply here.

If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship.

There's commonly-used software to build rainbow tables to do dictionary attacks. Obviously, individual words are there, but so are words with "leet speak" substitutions, words with short non-aplha prefixes and suffixes, and simple word combinations (and dates, of course, since those are still popular).

Anything beyond that makes you pretty safe from an attacker who has a list of thousands of hashed passwords, and is looking for the low-hanging fruit. However, for an attacker who wants your password specifically, the "correct horse battery staple" approach is well-known now, and the vocabulary of most native speakers isn't that large, it's best to think of a word as having the entropy of 3 random lowercase letters, or 2.5 random characters.

Still, string 4+ words together, or mix in a foreign word or a proper noun (other than a major city or sports team), and it remains a good approach.

Why do you think that even matters? If it's down to a Bush/Clinton matchup, who WOULDN'T vote for the Trump candidate... hell, the result is in the name!

She also set a goal of installing half a billion new solar panels within her first term

Come on, even working four years straight there's no way she can install that many solar panels!

On the other hand, if she's doing that there's no way she has time to screw up the country like past presidents... OK, i'm in, as long as she keeps her promise to just install solar panels.

So in other words the original suggestion was as stupid as I made it sound in my sarcastic reply! Thanks for the confirmation!

Let me guess, that's a vague, hand-waving reference to the states that are disinclined to take on the new medicare mandates? Yeah, maybe they weren't charmed by the bald-faced lies that Obama told about that piece of legislation and his counter-constitutional, politically-driven, capricious execution of it? I know, how could anyone not like it, right? After all, if we want to keep our doctors and our previous insurance, we can, period. And our rates are going to go down an average of $2500 per family, right? Yeah. Lies. Exactly the sort of state-in-the-camera-and-lie stuff that DOES make people blame the government for mishandling their trust, their money, and their well being.

Because when you buy a television and are forced to pay a tax that finances, under penalty of winding up in court, someone else's programming choices ... that's different than buying a television and NOT being subject to that tax. How is this not clear?