So, it can't collide with itself, meaning that it has no way of getting hotter[...]
Wouldn't gravitational interactions count as "colliding", at least for the purpose of exchanging energy? And the fact that it can't radiate away energy has more to do with it not interacting electromagnetically than its ability to collide with itself, hasn't it?
Assume for the sake of argument that this is the only hardness assumption RSA depends on. (If the summary isn't misleading it apparently also depends on the hardness of discrete log, but I don't know how.)
The hardness of RSA ONLY hinges on the hardness of discrete log, as the discrete log is the inverse function of RSA encryption. The dependence on the hardness of factorization follows from this.
The neat thing about RSA is that the discrete log becomes very easy if you know the factorization of the divisor, so figuring out a way to factor large numbers puts you on (nearly?) equal footing with the person constructing the keys.
When were the USA "home of the free"? I am assuming all dates before 1865 is ruled out. I also assume any date since 1918 is ruled out, due tovarious acts. This leaves a pretty small window, especially considering how far back it is. I am also sure I am missing some horrible cases in the intervening years, given the typical American reaction to threats. And given that reaction, "home of the brave" is not really faring any better.
Imagine the effects on Microsoft if they were doing industrial espionage on companies for NSA. No semi-large foreign company would dare to buy any Microsoft product again - it would mean they would massively handicap themselves in regards to their American competitors and customers. Now extrapolate to the entire US computer industry.
While spying on the American population seems to not make anybody angry enough, cutting off all large foreign customers for the computer industry would make a splash.
Not that I disagree with your points, but this being/., I am going to have to nitpick:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon, as it lacks the "hydro" part. Thus, it cannot be cracked. What can be done is using it to create water gas, which can be converted to hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Considering that by far the best way for genes to spread is for humans find the organism tasty, you could argue that, evolutionary, the cow does want to be eaten.
Or, to put if differently, the survival strategy of any farmed organisms is to be eaten, so that humans will make sure that a lot of its children survive long enough to be eaten.
If you had read the rest of the GPP, you would have discovered that it went on to detail that neither of these two countries has any relation to terrorism. So no, he is not saying that they should only pay attention to identical suspects, he is saying that relations to those to countries is not a predictor for terrorism, as you implied it was in the GGPP. Nice straw man, though. And so easy to knock down.
However, it is neither plants that won't seed, as you concede, nor is it the action of companies, and AFAICT, no law suits have been made on the basis of CPA order 81, so it isn't "selling plants that won't seed to the third world and suing if they do somehow manage to get any seed".
How else would you describe applying the Diffie Hellman* key exchange method to elliptic curve** cryptography? As opposed to marketing terms, scientific jargon is a way to describe the properties of what is being described, not a way to make it sound sexy.
*Named after the people who invented it the second time, as is traditional with cryptographic algorithms.
**The name came because a certain class of integrals arose in connection with the problem of giving the arc length of an ellipse.
It is not ultimately any current taxi drivers fault their industry is regulated
They could stop lobbying for more regulation, that would make what you say far more convincing.
and the regulation is there mostly to protect consumers.
The regulation is often there to limit competition to ensure higher prices for the established players. The excuse is consumer protection, and the original intent might have been consumer protection, but in the cases I am familiar with, the effect is always to make it extremely expensive or impossible to expand the number of cabs on the street, which makes no sense in light of consumer protection, but makes perfect sense as a way to drive up prices.
Seriously? What's wrong with using nitrogen fixing plants to fill the soil with nitrogen?
Clover coil sickness, for one thing. Clover disease if you feed to much of it to your livestock. Inefficient use of land leading to more land needed to feed a given population.
Not that it is a no-go, but it is not a panacea either.
Would the manipulating the light pressure be enough?
I assume that the shade cannot simply absorb or reflect the light, as the light pressure would push it towards Venus, so some kind of backwards spreading would be needed. Could changing the angular distribution of this be enough to correct for the pertubations, or is a solar sail far to weak for this to work? What if the pertubations were predictable?
There are often several cultivars of each crop (I am not aware of the situation with corn, so I am speaking generally), which can have different properties, so that can help somewhat, depending on how different they are.
As for high fructose wheat syrup, it is normally just called glucose fructose syrup, and it is used extensively in Europe. The difference is due to farming subsidies, where the US subsidizes corn, leading to corn syrup being cheap, while the EU subsidizes wheat, leading to wheat syrup being cheap. AFAIK, both are overall more expensive than cane sugar, so, absent farming subsidies, everybody would use cane sugar, leading to more efficient global farming. But no, the politicians must have their pork barrels, and farmers are good at protesting *sigh*.
Let me start by saying that we should not only rely on one cultivar, to avoid the kind of situations you outline, regardless of whether the loss is due to disease or to discovering that they are toxic.
Natural toxins tend to degrade in the environment
As a researcher that has a past in investigating the fate of natural products from common cultivars, allow me to say that no, not all of them do. Not to the degree that we demand new pesticides do, anyway. Or they do, but the degrade into something even worse. Or they leach into the ground water before they are degraded.
Do you have a place where I can read more about that? All I can find is a Nature News article where somebody speculates that they might do it. And, of course, an over-the-top, inflammatory slashdot article about the article.
Exactly what are these differences? Except for more control over the process with GMO, and a wider selection of genes, I don't see only technical differences that is not relevant for the final product.
Onions, apples, oranges, cows, pigs, etc. in their natural form is proven to be part of who we are. We wouldn't be here otherwise, so I know what I'm getting when I'm buying such products.
Firstly, non of the things you mentioned are anything like their "natural" form. They have been shaped by selective breeding for millennia, and continue to be so, so even if you had proof that they were what you needed, say, 200 years ago, that says very little about the cultivars you can buy today.
Secondly, all that has been proven is that these things aren't sure to kill you before you get children. Bracken is considered edible in many cultures, yet is carcinogenic. This leads to a higher incidence of certain cancers in these cultures, but not enough to make them die out, so it keeps being on the menu.
All in all, "we have always eaten X" is a very bad argument for continuing to do so.
Part of the problem is that it can become irrevocable. For example, engineer corn to express an insecticide that is 'harmless' to humans. Skip forward a decade and we discover it causes cancer ( a common enough late discovery) but, OOOPS, all the corn has it now. We can starve or get cancer.
Or get an old cultivar from a seed bank. It will take a few years to get enough seeds, but it won't be much more difficult than that. I believe that this is especially true for corn, where no wild form exists in most of the world.
What we can't so is take the genes out of the environment. If we figure out that it leaches to the ground water, there really is nothing we can do about it. However, this also goes for all the much worse natural insecticides out there, so I am not sure how likely this is to be a bigger problem than nature already is.
A lot of this stuff is basically self-certified. The manufacturer does the research, devises the tests and administers them to show that it is safe for human consumption. The regulators don't have the resources to do big, long term trials and besides which the GMO companies are not willing to wait decades for the results.
How is this different from any other new cultivar? Yet I don't see the same uproar regarding any other new cultivars.
That all changes when they start to piss off foreign countries. Especially if the leaders there can not afford to be seen as bowing too much to American pressure, which I imagine is the case with Russia and parts of Latin America.
Slashdot Mirror
So, it can't collide with itself, meaning that it has no way of getting hotter[...]
Wouldn't gravitational interactions count as "colliding", at least for the purpose of exchanging energy? And the fact that it can't radiate away energy has more to do with it not interacting electromagnetically than its ability to collide with itself, hasn't it?
Assume for the sake of argument that this is the only hardness assumption RSA depends on. (If the summary isn't misleading it apparently also depends on the hardness of discrete log, but I don't know how.)
The hardness of RSA ONLY hinges on the hardness of discrete log, as the discrete log is the inverse function of RSA encryption. The dependence on the hardness of factorization follows from this.
The neat thing about RSA is that the discrete log becomes very easy if you know the factorization of the divisor, so figuring out a way to factor large numbers puts you on (nearly?) equal footing with the person constructing the keys.
Exactly, thank you.
When were the USA "home of the free"? I am assuming all dates before 1865 is ruled out. I also assume any date since 1918 is ruled out, due to various acts. This leaves a pretty small window, especially considering how far back it is. I am also sure I am missing some horrible cases in the intervening years, given the typical American reaction to threats. And given that reaction, "home of the brave" is not really faring any better.
Imagine the effects on Microsoft if they were doing industrial espionage on companies for NSA. No semi-large foreign company would dare to buy any Microsoft product again - it would mean they would massively handicap themselves in regards to their American competitors and customers. Now extrapolate to the entire US computer industry.
While spying on the American population seems to not make anybody angry enough, cutting off all large foreign customers for the computer industry would make a splash.
Not that I disagree with your points, but this being /., I am going to have to nitpick:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon, as it lacks the "hydro" part. Thus, it cannot be cracked. What can be done is using it to create water gas, which can be converted to hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Considering that by far the best way for genes to spread is for humans find the organism tasty, you could argue that, evolutionary, the cow does want to be eaten.
Or, to put if differently, the survival strategy of any farmed organisms is to be eaten, so that humans will make sure that a lot of its children survive long enough to be eaten.
If you had read the rest of the GPP, you would have discovered that it went on to detail that neither of these two countries has any relation to terrorism. So no, he is not saying that they should only pay attention to identical suspects, he is saying that relations to those to countries is not a predictor for terrorism, as you implied it was in the GGPP. Nice straw man, though. And so easy to knock down.
30 minutes for a shower ring? Unless you want it with exceedingly fine layers, my estimate would be closer to 10 minutes.
That doesn't seem to be a problem.
Actually, I think all of those are covers, not cases, but that is also what TFS mentioned.
That's interesting, thank you.
However, it is neither plants that won't seed, as you concede, nor is it the action of companies, and AFAICT, no law suits have been made on the basis of CPA order 81, so it isn't "selling plants that won't seed to the third world and suing if they do somehow manage to get any seed".
How else would you describe applying the Diffie Hellman* key exchange method to elliptic curve** cryptography? As opposed to marketing terms, scientific jargon is a way to describe the properties of what is being described, not a way to make it sound sexy.
*Named after the people who invented it the second time, as is traditional with cryptographic algorithms.
**The name came because a certain class of integrals arose in connection with the problem of giving the arc length of an ellipse.
It is not ultimately any current taxi drivers fault their industry is regulated
They could stop lobbying for more regulation, that would make what you say far more convincing.
and the regulation is there mostly to protect consumers.
The regulation is often there to limit competition to ensure higher prices for the established players. The excuse is consumer protection, and the original intent might have been consumer protection, but in the cases I am familiar with, the effect is always to make it extremely expensive or impossible to expand the number of cabs on the street, which makes no sense in light of consumer protection, but makes perfect sense as a way to drive up prices.
Seriously? What's wrong with using nitrogen fixing plants to fill the soil with nitrogen?
Clover coil sickness, for one thing.
Clover disease if you feed to much of it to your livestock.
Inefficient use of land leading to more land needed to feed a given population.
Not that it is a no-go, but it is not a panacea either.
Would the manipulating the light pressure be enough?
I assume that the shade cannot simply absorb or reflect the light, as the light pressure would push it towards Venus, so some kind of backwards spreading would be needed. Could changing the angular distribution of this be enough to correct for the pertubations, or is a solar sail far to weak for this to work? What if the pertubations were predictable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_reseller , I suppose. I had to look that up, so I agree with your sentiment about acronyms.
There are often several cultivars of each crop (I am not aware of the situation with corn, so I am speaking generally), which can have different properties, so that can help somewhat, depending on how different they are.
As for high fructose wheat syrup, it is normally just called glucose fructose syrup, and it is used extensively in Europe. The difference is due to farming subsidies, where the US subsidizes corn, leading to corn syrup being cheap, while the EU subsidizes wheat, leading to wheat syrup being cheap. AFAIK, both are overall more expensive than cane sugar, so, absent farming subsidies, everybody would use cane sugar, leading to more efficient global farming. But no, the politicians must have their pork barrels, and farmers are good at protesting *sigh*.
Natural toxins tend to degrade in the environment
As a researcher that has a past in investigating the fate of natural products from common cultivars, allow me to say that no, not all of them do. Not to the degree that we demand new pesticides do, anyway. Or they do, but the degrade into something even worse. Or they leach into the ground water before they are degraded.
selling plants that won't seed to the third world
Do you have a place where I can read more about that? All I can find is a Nature News article where somebody speculates that they might do it. And, of course, an over-the-top, inflammatory slashdot article about the article.
Exactly what are these differences? Except for more control over the process with GMO, and a wider selection of genes, I don't see only technical differences that is not relevant for the final product.
Onions, apples, oranges, cows, pigs, etc. in their natural form is proven to be part of who we are. We wouldn't be here otherwise, so I know what I'm getting when I'm buying such products.
Firstly, non of the things you mentioned are anything like their "natural" form. They have been shaped by selective breeding for millennia, and continue to be so, so even if you had proof that they were what you needed, say, 200 years ago, that says very little about the cultivars you can buy today.
Secondly, all that has been proven is that these things aren't sure to kill you before you get children. Bracken is considered edible in many cultures, yet is carcinogenic. This leads to a higher incidence of certain cancers in these cultures, but not enough to make them die out, so it keeps being on the menu.
All in all, "we have always eaten X" is a very bad argument for continuing to do so.
Part of the problem is that it can become irrevocable. For example, engineer corn to express an insecticide that is 'harmless' to humans. Skip forward a decade and we discover it causes cancer ( a common enough late discovery) but, OOOPS, all the corn has it now. We can starve or get cancer.
Or get an old cultivar from a seed bank. It will take a few years to get enough seeds, but it won't be much more difficult than that. I believe that this is especially true for corn, where no wild form exists in most of the world.
What we can't so is take the genes out of the environment. If we figure out that it leaches to the ground water, there really is nothing we can do about it. However, this also goes for all the much worse natural insecticides out there, so I am not sure how likely this is to be a bigger problem than nature already is.
A lot of this stuff is basically self-certified. The manufacturer does the research, devises the tests and administers them to show that it is safe for human consumption. The regulators don't have the resources to do big, long term trials and besides which the GMO companies are not willing to wait decades for the results.
How is this different from any other new cultivar? Yet I don't see the same uproar regarding any other new cultivars.
That all changes when they start to piss off foreign countries. Especially if the leaders there can not afford to be seen as bowing too much to American pressure, which I imagine is the case with Russia and parts of Latin America.
As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, there seems to be a blanket exception on everything a country deems to be national security. However, using this in bad faith could be the start if the end of the WTO.