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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
>Because you idiots don't think the consequences through.
Exactly. Wish I had mod points for you.
Social services are not provided just for, or even mainly for altruistic reasons. Social services are provided because society AS A WHOLE is better off when when these services are provided.
I do not understand how pets died. The news accounts say that 2 hours elapsed from the time the trash fire got out of control to the burning of the house.
Surely there was time to empty the house of animals and even significant amounts of property?
Let me preface this by saying I am 40 years old. I have been involved with computers since they came out. My first gaming system was an Atari 2600, and my first computer was a TI99/4A. I also hold a B.S. in Computer Science. I am not a Luddite.
And yet, I do not understand the hype around cell phones these days. I have a work-provided cell phone (Blackberry Bold), and my wife has a cheap phone off of her father's family plan for an extra $10 a month.
If it were not for my work-provided phone, I would not own a cell phone. Or rather, I would not pay for a wireless plan - I'd keep the cell phones in the cars to make 911 calls in an emergency, which all cell phones are required by law to be able to do regardless as to whether or not they are on a plan.
Using these phones for internet access is atrociously painful to me. They are agonizingly slow, and remind me of dial-up BBS days. The only time I will use them is when I am out and about and absolutely have to obtain directions or a phone number for something. But certainly any kind of "pleasure" web browsing I just wait until I get home to a real computer with true high-speed (cable) internet access.
The idea of paying $80 a month for a telephone is just astounding to me. Especially when you consider some people pay $70 a month for cable television on top of that. We canceled the TV service, but cable internet still costs about $50 a month, and Netflix is another $10 a month on top of that, and MagicJack is another $2 a month on top of that.
If you signed up for the usual suite of communications/entertainment streams out there you could easily crest $100 a month, possibly even $200 a month.
I've said the same thing. Of course, I always get poo-pooed. "Oh, but what about passengers in the car?" etc. etc.
Personally I think it would be just fine if cell phones stopped working if they sense they are moving at over 5 MPH. I could see special SIM cards for people who would need to be exempt from this requirement.
If you really, really need to talk to someone while you are on the road, pull over! It's still light-years more convenient that the old days of trying to find a pay phone.
I want a replacement for a paper notebook. I do lots of engineering studies, where a keyboard is not practical for input. I would like to be able to write with a stylus on a virtual notebook. Such a device as this would allow me to store all my notebooks as a single notebook. In addition, it should be able to store electronic versions of my textbooks (which I acquire either legitimately, illegitimately, or by scanning the text myself).
Other functionality, such as wireless capability, would be a nice option to have, but I do not want to buy such a device only on condition of a service agreement of any kind.
>It should be noted that in all the cases you cited, the fighters were armed with more than just normal guns that are >available to civilians. Afgans fighting against USSR were equipped by Stingers for example.
No doubt, great wars require more arms than just small arms. Yet in spite of this, the soldiers of all armies, even great and powerful ones, still carry small arms. One could thus conclude that small arms are an essential part of any warfighting effort.
>And each case you cited was a case of outside force attacking the country (USA in Iraq, USSR if Afganistan etc.). >What we are talking about is citizens rising up against corrupt government. That is not what happened in Afganistan, >but it IS what happened in the communist regimes in Europe.
And again, I don't see this as relevant. In each case I cited you had a party that viewed itself as being oppressed that successfully defended itself against a vastly superior force.
You brought up the viability of technologically inferior forces against technologically superior forces. My examples demonstrate that this viability is possible. Their motivation is not the point.
>If number of guns ensures free and corruption-free government, then number of guns should correlate with lower corruption and god governance. Is that the case? >(snip) >How can that be, if guns ensure freedom?
Let me be clear here: firearms don't guarantee anything. All firearms are are tools. They give people the option of armed resistance against violence and oppression.
>If they managed to do that in Stasi-controlled East-Germany, and in former USSR, it could be done just about everywhere.
It could be, and hopefully it can be. But why give up your tools in case it doesn't work out that way? Why limit your options?
>And as I showed, there is no correlation between gun-ownership and freedom.
My country is where it is today because of privately owned firearms.
If you want to take your chances with no firearms to back up your words, that is your choice and I respect that.
>Violent crime is dropping in most western countries, whether people are armed or not. This correlates to most >western countries populations aging. Less stupid young males, less violence.
And yet firearm and ammunition sales continue to skyrocket. More guns may not equal less crime, but it sure casts a lot of doubt on the "more guns = more crime" meme.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
My differential equations class is taught using an online text available for free. It was written by one of the faculty.
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.
>Because you idiots don't think the consequences through.
Exactly. Wish I had mod points for you.
Social services are not provided just for, or even mainly for altruistic reasons. Social services are provided because society AS A WHOLE is better off when when these services are provided.
I do not understand how pets died. The news accounts say that 2 hours elapsed from the time the trash fire got out of control to the burning of the house.
Surely there was time to empty the house of animals and even significant amounts of property?
>My 1400 minute family plan is $80/mo.
Let me preface this by saying I am 40 years old. I have been involved with computers since they came out. My first gaming system was an Atari 2600, and my first computer was a TI99/4A. I also hold a B.S. in Computer Science. I am not a Luddite.
And yet, I do not understand the hype around cell phones these days. I have a work-provided cell phone (Blackberry Bold), and my wife has a cheap phone off of her father's family plan for an extra $10 a month.
If it were not for my work-provided phone, I would not own a cell phone. Or rather, I would not pay for a wireless plan - I'd keep the cell phones in the cars to make 911 calls in an emergency, which all cell phones are required by law to be able to do regardless as to whether or not they are on a plan.
Using these phones for internet access is atrociously painful to me. They are agonizingly slow, and remind me of dial-up BBS days. The only time I will use them is when I am out and about and absolutely have to obtain directions or a phone number for something. But certainly any kind of "pleasure" web browsing I just wait until I get home to a real computer with true high-speed (cable) internet access.
The idea of paying $80 a month for a telephone is just astounding to me. Especially when you consider some people pay $70 a month for cable television on top of that. We canceled the TV service, but cable internet still costs about $50 a month, and Netflix is another $10 a month on top of that, and MagicJack is another $2 a month on top of that.
If you signed up for the usual suite of communications/entertainment streams out there you could easily crest $100 a month, possibly even $200 a month.
This is ridiculous to me.
I've said the same thing. Of course, I always get poo-pooed. "Oh, but what about passengers in the car?" etc. etc.
Personally I think it would be just fine if cell phones stopped working if they sense they are moving at over 5 MPH. I could see special SIM cards for people who would need to be exempt from this requirement.
If you really, really need to talk to someone while you are on the road, pull over! It's still light-years more convenient that the old days of trying to find a pay phone.
I see security as the good-guy equivalent to DRM.
If DRM is a no-win proposition, and fortunately it appears it is, then security is probably a no-win proposition also.
I didn't even know this was occurring. Guess it hasn't bothered me so far.
I read stuff like this and it just seems like security is a hopeless undertaking.
The chips don't provide location.
The chip can only be detected and read by a wand that passes in close proximity of the chip.
Most likely the dog ended up with new owners, who took the dog to a vet who scanned for the chip, and reported the finding to the chip company.
Be best the chip company could tell you is the last place the chip was scanned.
I chipped my dogs so that if they got lost or stolen I could find them again.
What this article tells me is that, as you note, it's worthless.
I want a replacement for a paper notebook. I do lots of engineering studies, where a keyboard is not practical for input. I would like to be able to write with a stylus on a virtual notebook. Such a device as this would allow me to store all my notebooks as a single notebook. In addition, it should be able to store electronic versions of my textbooks (which I acquire either legitimately, illegitimately, or by scanning the text myself).
Other functionality, such as wireless capability, would be a nice option to have, but I do not want to buy such a device only on condition of a service agreement of any kind.
Such a device should cost less than $500.
>It should be noted that in all the cases you cited, the fighters were armed with more than just normal guns that are
>available to civilians. Afgans fighting against USSR were equipped by Stingers for example.
No doubt, great wars require more arms than just small arms. Yet in spite of this, the soldiers of all armies, even great and powerful ones, still carry small arms. One could thus conclude that small arms are an essential part of any warfighting effort.
>And each case you cited was a case of outside force attacking the country (USA in Iraq, USSR if Afganistan etc.).
>What we are talking about is citizens rising up against corrupt government. That is not what happened in Afganistan,
>but it IS what happened in the communist regimes in Europe.
And again, I don't see this as relevant. In each case I cited you had a party that viewed itself as being oppressed that successfully defended itself against a vastly superior force.
You brought up the viability of technologically inferior forces against technologically superior forces. My examples demonstrate that this viability is possible. Their motivation is not the point.
>If number of guns ensures free and corruption-free government, then number of guns should correlate with lower corruption and god governance. Is that the case?
>(snip)
>How can that be, if guns ensure freedom?
Let me be clear here: firearms don't guarantee anything. All firearms are are tools. They give people the option of armed resistance against violence and oppression.
>If they managed to do that in Stasi-controlled East-Germany, and in former USSR, it could be done just about everywhere.
It could be, and hopefully it can be. But why give up your tools in case it doesn't work out that way? Why limit your options?
>And as I showed, there is no correlation between gun-ownership and freedom.
My country is where it is today because of privately owned firearms.
If you want to take your chances with no firearms to back up your words, that is your choice and I respect that.
>Violent crime is dropping in most western countries, whether people are armed or not. This correlates to most
>western countries populations aging. Less stupid young males, less violence.
And yet firearm and ammunition sales continue to skyrocket. More guns may not equal less crime, but it sure casts a lot of doubt on the "more guns = more crime" meme.