I know it's/. and it's not common that people actually read the article, but it is not required. The law creates the basis for a voluntary database, as a test, and in two years the subject will be checked again. At this stage only citizens that wish to get documents containing biometric data will have to join the database, and the ministry of interior will still provide the standard documents as well. I definitely won't join the database, as it will definitely leak (just like anything else from our ministry of interior, and I hope it will become public in the next 2 years, as it will probably mean they will drop the idea (and the DB). The whole thing is fairly stupid, the people pushing for it claiming they do it to make documents forgery harder (well, they say "impossible"), but then a simple signed card with the biometric data and formal identity will do, no need for a centralized database...
As an Israeli, I must say using Israel as an example for anything involving concealed weapons is ridiculous. There is no significant amount of concealed weapons in Israel, and in general you need a license for any weapon (although many people carry weapons, including large number of soldiers). The main reason for the change of tactics of terrorists here is viewed as a result of struggles between Palestinians (Hammas vs. Fatah) and more separation, making it harder to reach Israeli cities from Palestinians. You should also note that the preferred method used by terrorists wasn't shooting in the mall but exploding bombs in the entrance (as in the entrance you're searched for weapons).
This is simply not true. The pig is not kosher because it is not a ruminant, and it will be considerably harder to fix this, so pigs are not going to become kosher soon. What you are referring to is probably a story about bypassing a law in Israel. Since 1962 the Israeli law forbids raising pigs, except for places with non Jewish-Muslim majority, or for research purposes, or in public zoos. There is a story about a kibbutz raising pigs on wooden floors and claiming it's legal, but I believe this never happened.
A factor to the efficiency of solar power in California, what you compared to space-based. It has no implication (almost) on the space-based, but it is another problem with ground-based solar power.
What's more, there is another factor of 0.8 to efficiency in California as it is around 35-North latitude, therefore you'll only get cos(35) effective area. In orbit, it is relatively easy to make sure the panels will always be directed right at the sun.
You must distinguish binding from non-binding decision by the UN. Almost all desicision, including those of the general assembley are non-binding, and as such have little, if any, meaning. Binding desicions are made by the security council, and the US have veto there. The US might not like what people say in the UN, but it is one of the main tools it uses to get cooperation with its foreign poilcies.
The only way left to continue the desired cycle and free up credit would be to take resources from the rich, and give it to folks who would actually spend those resources in the process of just living day to day, which would open up the credit markets again, increase demand for products, and so on.
The main economic reason for having a government (although regulation is also important). This is the simplest solution to one of the most fundamental problems of Capitalism. I must admit I never understood why US-citizens oppose (or so it seems) this idea.
Because you don't pay for energy alone, but it is all you gain from. It seems as materials and work are the main costs, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.
EULA's should be illegal. It is possible there are illegal even today (although it depends on the country your in, of course). Once you've bought the product, the supplier have no authority for adding new restrictions. It might be different if you'll sign the EULA before buying the product. Of course, IANAL.
Why are you sure FTL communication is even possible? It might not be so. We want FTL communication and transportation to be possible, it might allow us to build a "galactic civilization" used all the time in SF stories, but this is wishful thinking. According to what we know now, no FTL transportation is possible, and the only way for FTL communication is equivalent to Time-Machine (information only). If this is truly the case, every technological race that will, eventually, start colonizing other worlds will have to use normal communication (in light speed) between those colonies. There is no reason for this not work, the world worked fine in somewhat similar conditions 2,000 years ago.
But what I want to point out is that there are probably many other explanations. The universe is so complex, we should never assume something is true because we can think on no other option.
3. Civilazations tend to destroy temselves within several hundred years from the invention of radio communication. 4. There are better ways to communicate, some form of communication that we can't detect at the moment ("sub-space" crap, telepathy, you name it). 5. Other life forms communication is so alien we won't be able to detect it and believe it is a natural effect. 6. Space is both huge and pretty old. The process takes time and we are the first in the area (let's say, 100 light-years in every direction). No one is sending signals in this area (except for us, of course) and those further away are to far for us to get their signals.
It might have some meaning when you consider extra-terrestrials. If they exist there is no reason for them to have technologies similar to ours. They might have similar science, but since science is only an approximation (and therefore, invented) of nature, they might prefer other approximations. However, since mathematics is discovered, we will share mathematics (the part we have both discovered, of course), and this might be used for communication (if such thing will ever be possible).
Do not mix science and mathematics, those are to distinct fields. For the objects described in mathematics there is no meaning to the "Things in themselves", they exist only as mathematical concepts. (unlike objects of the world described, in science, with the language of math).
In my opinion, math is discovered, since there is no margin for change in it.
Science is invented because it is only an approximation, so Newton invented his laws and Einstein invented similar laws later. Both are accepted because they are close to the way the nature actually behave. Other mechanisms would have been acceptable as well, as long as they are close to the "truth". In math, only the actual truth is accepted.
Well, I see it as related to Communism. There is no private ownership of the production tools (that is, code), and everything is released to the public. It is not the same as what you had in USSR for two reasons: 1) Software, unlike most valuables, can be reproduced at practically no cost, there is no need for coupons... 2) The USSR economy was to Communism what MS practice is to Capitalism.
Of course, it is possible that as I'm a Communist and you're a Capitalist, I see free software as Communism and you see at as Capitalism...
Every physical computer is finite, if it is a quantum or regular one, O() notation is used only in theory. All practical problems are of finite size, however, and the O() notation is a good estimation for the size of problem a given computer can solve. If a 1K q-bits quantum computer is capable of solving problems a 1TB regular computer can, due to the fact it needs only as many q-bits as the input size, not 2^(input size), it is good enough for me.
Integer factorization isn't NP-complete. It is known to be NP, of course, and isn't known to be P, but it is not known to be NP-hard. It means that, unlike NP-complete problems, solving it in polynomial time won't give you a general algorithm for solving any NP problem in polynomial time (so, it doesn't mean P=NP). Integer factorization might be in P or out of it (as long as P!=NP, of course), and this is as correct for quantum computers as it is for normal ones.
And I never heard of any way quantum computing will help breaking those "elliptic curves" based encryptions, and I'm not sure what can it do to the D-Log problem. To me it seems we'll just have to change our encryptions mechanisms.
What is the action you believe a nation should take when attacked? Ignore the invasion, just try to keep business as usual? War is not a good thing, but you need only one opportunist to start one. The best evidence is the number of wars between democracies, which is very low (one? only the 1812 war, as far as I remember).
I'm an Israeli, so will you tell me how could my government avoid war in 1948 (and 1973, even 1967)?
In most of the western countries, being religious will only harm a candidate campaign, so it's not an issue. Yet, it is important. Blair said, lately, he hid the fact that he goes to church regularly, for political reason (and now, after he left the politic world, he can expose this fact).
Besides, what do you expect from a country putting "in god we trust" on their bills? I'm isrealy, the country has religious institutions, religious parties hold about fifth of the parliament, a government once fell (the parliament reelected) because some airplanes landed after sabbath started (it was 30 years ago), and yet personal belief is never discussed in politics. But in the USA, it seems as if personal belief is extremely important, perhaps because almost everyone there is religious to some extent. I assume that most isrealy politicians are atheists or at least religion will not be part of their decision making (except the publicly religious, about fifth of the parliament), and so nothing more should be said, in the USA, everyone are religious and it might interest you to what extent. It seems like it's been a major part in the current president's foreign policy.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's /. and it's not common that people actually read the article, but it is not required. The law creates the basis for a voluntary database, as a test, and in two years the subject will be checked again. At this stage only citizens that wish to get documents containing biometric data will have to join the database, and the ministry of interior will still provide the standard documents as well.
I definitely won't join the database, as it will definitely leak (just like anything else from our ministry of interior, and I hope it will become public in the next 2 years, as it will probably mean they will drop the idea (and the DB). The whole thing is fairly stupid, the people pushing for it claiming they do it to make documents forgery harder (well, they say "impossible"), but then a simple signed card with the biometric data and formal identity will do, no need for a centralized database...
As an Israeli, I must say using Israel as an example for anything involving concealed weapons is ridiculous. There is no significant amount of concealed weapons in Israel, and in general you need a license for any weapon (although many people carry weapons, including large number of soldiers). The main reason for the change of tactics of terrorists here is viewed as a result of struggles between Palestinians (Hammas vs. Fatah) and more separation, making it harder to reach Israeli cities from Palestinians.
You should also note that the preferred method used by terrorists wasn't shooting in the mall but exploding bombs in the entrance (as in the entrance you're searched for weapons).
It happened in Mexico, but does it mean they can't be sued in the US? Although not directly related, I immediately remembered this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths.
This is simply not true. The pig is not kosher because it is not a ruminant, and it will be considerably harder to fix this, so pigs are not going to become kosher soon.
What you are referring to is probably a story about bypassing a law in Israel. Since 1962 the Israeli law forbids raising pigs, except for places with non Jewish-Muslim majority, or for research purposes, or in public zoos. There is a story about a kibbutz raising pigs on wooden floors and claiming it's legal, but I believe this never happened.
A factor to the efficiency of solar power in California, what you compared to space-based. It has no implication (almost) on the space-based, but it is another problem with ground-based solar power.
What's more, there is another factor of 0.8 to efficiency in California as it is around 35-North latitude, therefore you'll only get cos(35) effective area. In orbit, it is relatively easy to make sure the panels will always be directed right at the sun.
You must distinguish binding from non-binding decision by the UN. Almost all desicision, including those of the general assembley are non-binding, and as such have little, if any, meaning. Binding desicions are made by the security council, and the US have veto there.
The US might not like what people say in the UN, but it is one of the main tools it uses to get cooperation with its foreign poilcies.
It turns out that the OUs [Orangutans]... are the more cunning of the two -- she likened them to engineers.
Engineers might not be the best description, but they do make great librarians.
The only way left to continue the desired cycle and free up credit would be to take resources from the rich, and give it to folks who would actually spend those resources in the process of just living day to day, which would open up the credit markets again, increase demand for products, and so on.
The main economic reason for having a government (although regulation is also important). This is the simplest solution to one of the most fundamental problems of Capitalism. I must admit I never understood why US-citizens oppose (or so it seems) this idea.
Because you don't pay for energy alone, but it is all you gain from. It seems as materials and work are the main costs, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Would you prefer: "The right of the Jewish nation for a state in their homeland"?
If someone would manage to cool something to 0 K I would be truly amazed.
It is theoretically impossible, as far as we understand physics today.
EULA's should be illegal. It is possible there are illegal even today (although it depends on the country your in, of course). Once you've bought the product, the supplier have no authority for adding new restrictions. It might be different if you'll sign the EULA before buying the product. Of course, IANAL.
Why are you sure FTL communication is even possible? It might not be so. We want FTL communication and transportation to be possible, it might allow us to build a "galactic civilization" used all the time in SF stories, but this is wishful thinking.
According to what we know now, no FTL transportation is possible, and the only way for FTL communication is equivalent to Time-Machine (information only). If this is truly the case, every technological race that will, eventually, start colonizing other worlds will have to use normal communication (in light speed) between those colonies. There is no reason for this not work, the world worked fine in somewhat similar conditions 2,000 years ago.
But what I want to point out is that there are probably many other explanations. The universe is so complex, we should never assume something is true because we can think on no other option.
I can think of several other options:
3. Civilazations tend to destroy temselves within several hundred years from the invention of radio communication.
4. There are better ways to communicate, some form of communication that we can't detect at the moment ("sub-space" crap, telepathy, you name it).
5. Other life forms communication is so alien we won't be able to detect it and believe it is a natural effect.
6. Space is both huge and pretty old. The process takes time and we are the first in the area (let's say, 100 light-years in every direction). No one is sending signals in this area (except for us, of course) and those further away are to far for us to get their signals.
And that's without "The Conspiracy".
It might have some meaning when you consider extra-terrestrials. If they exist there is no reason for them to have technologies similar to ours. They might have similar science, but since science is only an approximation (and therefore, invented) of nature, they might prefer other approximations. However, since mathematics is discovered, we will share mathematics (the part we have both discovered, of course), and this might be used for communication (if such thing will ever be possible).
Do not mix science and mathematics, those are to distinct fields. For the objects described in mathematics there is no meaning to the "Things in themselves", they exist only as mathematical concepts. (unlike objects of the world described, in science, with the language of math).
In my opinion, math is discovered, since there is no margin for change in it.
Science is invented because it is only an approximation, so Newton invented his laws and Einstein invented similar laws later. Both are accepted because they are close to the way the nature actually behave. Other mechanisms would have been acceptable as well, as long as they are close to the "truth". In math, only the actual truth is accepted.
Give them some minimized version of MS-Office and claim SCO is an independent organization.
Well, I see it as related to Communism. There is no private ownership of the production tools (that is, code), and everything is released to the public. It is not the same as what you had in USSR for two reasons:
1) Software, unlike most valuables, can be reproduced at practically no cost, there is no need for coupons...
2) The USSR economy was to Communism what MS practice is to Capitalism.
Of course, it is possible that as I'm a Communist and you're a Capitalist, I see free software as Communism and you see at as Capitalism...
Every physical computer is finite, if it is a quantum or regular one, O() notation is used only in theory. All practical problems are of finite size, however, and the O() notation is a good estimation for the size of problem a given computer can solve. If a 1K q-bits quantum computer is capable of solving problems a 1TB regular computer can, due to the fact it needs only as many q-bits as the input size, not 2^(input size), it is good enough for me.
Integer factorization isn't NP-complete. It is known to be NP, of course, and isn't known to be P, but it is not known to be NP-hard. It means that, unlike NP-complete problems, solving it in polynomial time won't give you a general algorithm for solving any NP problem in polynomial time (so, it doesn't mean P=NP). Integer factorization might be in P or out of it (as long as P!=NP, of course), and this is as correct for quantum computers as it is for normal ones.
And I never heard of any way quantum computing will help breaking those "elliptic curves" based encryptions, and I'm not sure what can it do to the D-Log problem.
To me it seems we'll just have to change our encryptions mechanisms.
What is the action you believe a nation should take when attacked? Ignore the invasion, just try to keep business as usual? War is not a good thing, but you need only one opportunist to start one. The best evidence is the number of wars between democracies, which is very low (one? only the 1812 war, as far as I remember).
I'm an Israeli, so will you tell me how could my government avoid war in 1948 (and 1973, even 1967)?
In most of the western countries, being religious will only harm a candidate campaign, so it's not an issue. Yet, it is important. Blair said, lately, he hid the fact that he goes to church regularly, for political reason (and now, after he left the politic world, he can expose this fact).
Besides, what do you expect from a country putting "in god we trust" on their bills? I'm isrealy, the country has religious institutions, religious parties hold about fifth of the parliament, a government once fell (the parliament reelected) because some airplanes landed after sabbath started (it was 30 years ago), and yet personal belief is never discussed in politics. But in the USA, it seems as if personal belief is extremely important, perhaps because almost everyone there is religious to some extent. I assume that most isrealy politicians are atheists or at least religion will not be part of their decision making (except the publicly religious, about fifth of the parliament), and so nothing more should be said, in the USA, everyone are religious and it might interest you to what extent. It seems like it's been a major part in the current president's foreign policy.