Technically, as nature works, most of the psychologically oriented genes are generally setting a PREFERENCE. What we actually end up with is molded both by preference as well as social factors. Sexuality is only one of many traits that seem to function this way.
Also there's always that infamous "gay hater" test, where they put a rubber band on guys' penises (to measure erection) and then put them in a room with gay porn. Then took them out of the room, and questioned them on whether movie turned them on, and what they think of homosexuality. Results were just plain sad. Most people who scored high on getting an actual erection to gay porn typically denied having any reaction to the movie far stronger then those who didn't, and generally were anti-gay in a very forceful way. I.e. self-denial breeding massive wave of hatred to block their real preference - essentially a psychological self defence mechanism.
And lastly, as many psychological studies strongly suggest, vast majority of humanity (and for that matter, many mammals) are likely to be bi-sexual to at least some extent. Pure heterosexuality or homosexuality is more of an exception then a rule. It's just that in most attraction for other sex is sufficient to fill the sexual needs, therefore active, energy consuming pursuit of same sex is deemed unnecessary. Think of all the gay men who can still have sex with women and achieve an orgasm for a great example (and get children), as well as strong demand for transsexual male prostitutes for great examples of this.
The problem is that investing in that grind to make it be able to take the electricity which is barely worth the cost, and well below what a single nuke produces, you'll have to invest several nuke's worth of money into the grid. And don't forget that the reason why there is the power generation in the first place is because government subsidises it in rather unhealthy amount (i.e. barn with no cows just to get subsidy).
It's much cheaper and safer to simply build nuclear plants. We have largely eliminated SO2 from our pipes for example, because we now use extremely complicated large boilers that control burning process to be able to burn largely anything and still have zero sulfur out. A large amount of small, relatively inefficient boilers is basically going back to 80s, with heavy acid rain and other issues caused by it.
And that's just one of the many things that come out of boiler pipes when you burn things. There are many, many others. Almost none of them are easy to eliminate in small-scale burning you mention, but relatively easy to eliminate on large plant where it's feasible to have both fuel control and exhaust filtering.
What kind of confirmation are you looking for then? Since neither wikipedia nor people actually living in Israel are good enough for you, and I don't think issue is important enough to get you a knesset-signed statement.
Actually, let's try Godwin. Hitler hunted ETHNIC jews. Not ethnic semites or religious jews. Are 6 million dead jews good enough for you?
I think the argument has gone a bit off track here. I was talking about laptop IGPs being bad for even basic modern programs that use shaders, and low quality when you hook up to a desktop "high resolution" monitor and barely tolerable on modern LCD laptop's own screen (typically RAMDAC problems on VGA output handling high resolutions awfully). I concede that you're most likely correct with reasonable resolutions you've mentioned.
Notably the main reason why laptop's own native resolutions haven't really gone up is form factor. I had to mess around with aforementioned dell quite a bit because my father used to complain about headache (and I was an 18-year-old guy who liked to play with computers), and ended up essentially increasing all font sizes as well as changing them to bold which ended up helping. Essentially it makes no sense to make a 1600x1200 sub 17" screen (imho), or anything bigger then 1080p really, because you'll end up increasing font sizes to compensate anyway or have a huge headache from having your eyes read the small text. That said, 1280x1024 for a 19" sounds pretty horrible for productivity.
It is possible that modern IGPs on laptops have made significant leaps. Upon reading on sandy bridge features (which is what discussed in OP) I'm very much doubtful as they look extremely basic and the main advantage of mating them with a CPU on same die is in speed, rather then redeeming features. Most benchmarks seem to back it up so far.
My father had a pre-2000 (year) laptop with native resolution of 1600x1200. From work. with a (iirc) 14" or smaller screen. From business line of DELL's of all places. You must be looking at very cheap low end consumer crap which goes for lowest possible denominator.
And on the topic of shatter, no. I spent several hours trying to make the damn thing work, down to trying a couple of hacks. Nothing worked. 945GM's implementation of shaders is simply so horrendously bad, it doesn't work. Google was filled with that complaint back when I searched too. In a nutshell, intels' 945GM is a crappy chipset for anything with shaders.
Shatter's system requirements were on a level of a 2005 computer at best, which is my point. Specifically my older 2005 bought computer ran it fine on max settings with a barely passable graphics card.
As for high resolution, 1280x1024 hasn't been "high" for a decade at least. The high resolutions nowadays start at around 1900x1200 and go up from there. My 1680x1050 is average at best nowadays, and in games tends to be the lowest benchmarked resolution.
I actually can chip on this on a "this is not true" side. My father isn't a gamer by any stretch - the only games he likes to play are various arcanoid derivatives. Which meant that his work laptop served him just fine. Then came shatter, and he all but killed me with his "why won't my laptop run this?" questions. Try to explain to someone running the crappy intel 945GM that always ran the old 2d arcanoids that shatter just won't work on it.
So now, I'm probably giving them my current gaming computer as I upgrade, and I'm pretty sure he'll be telling tech support at work that his next laptop has better include 3d acceleration or else (he's in position to be able to tell them that). So the old saying applies here - you'll be satisfied with integrated, until in comes one killer application that it won't run, and then you aren't. Problem is, with so much software requiring decent 3d graphics on board (even aero does!) you're still best served by a half decent dedicated graphics card that powers itself down when 3d features aren't used or used sparingly.
Finally there's an issue of quality, and that goes beyond 3d. Most integrated chipsets have clear problems displaying higher resolutions, which is why high resolution laptops generally have a dedicated chipset rather then integrated solution.
For starters: I'm not american. I have had some connections with US school system and I didn't like it much. That said, we're talking about school systems in general.
Now I'm a finn. We consistently score in top3 of international tests of success of school system, and our school is specifically built around the concept of being as inclusive as possible. And most teachers and school administrators are beyond reputable and trustworthy - the profession of a teacher is VERY respected here, and at the same time both underpaid and requires at least a masters degree just to be a qualified teacher. As a result most teachers (and by extension school administrators who are teachers themselves) are indeed people who follow a calling to become one, and tend to be trustworthy. Trustworthy enough to raise hell in media if politicians ever tried to shove "indoctrination" beyond the generally accepted nationalist stuff into our curriculum.
And frankly, while it's true that many US schools are designed to raise a certain kind of child, if you find it undesireable it's your job as a parent to counteract the influence, which mind you is not hard. The biggest influence on child, even with all-inclusive school system is still his/her parents. While it's school's job to also provide child with sufficient skills to become critical of his parents' beliefs as well (great example is that around here, somali refugee girls tend to get rebellious around teenage because they get taught about their rights in societal rules and rights class at school at that age), parent still often has the last word in what set of rules and behavioural pattern the child will end up adopting in the end.
Therefore I still argue that you sound like rather typical parent, both largely ignorant of both importance of his/her personal involvement, and trying to accuse anyone but yourself "in case my child grows up to not be what I expect him to be". Absolutely nothing stops your from teaching your child through example to be critical of certain aspects of generally accepted school curriculum - religious parents do it all the time. At the same time all-inclusive leave-no-child-behind style curriculum saves a lot of kids who lack parental guidance due to, well, not being born to the kind of parents that give any. So give your school administrator a benefit of the doubt, find out in which aspects he will fail you and reinforce those aspects in your child yourself.
Lastly, if you view my post history, you will likely find that I enjoy participating in political talk, and my opinions are quite far from you would call "indoctrinated". Yet I'm a product of a school system that is all-inclusive.
If you disagree with school's teaching that badly, you should take your child out of the school in question and put him in one that meets your needs. School's job of "raising a responsible, productive adult" absolutely does NOT include "indoctrinating him into a way of thinking". School's job, or mission as most educators refer to it is to provide a reasonable balanced view of the world and skills necessary for survival and getting into advanced education or a job.
What you're referring to is ideological brainwashing, and is usually imposed upon school systems by political system in power in select countries. It has nothing to do with school's access to child beyond school hours, and everything to do with actual curriculum. Your knee jerk reaction didn't just miss the barn wall, it actually hit the entirely wrong barn.
Would a lengthy wikipedia article suffice, or do you need me to state that, yet again, I have relatives in the country, i.e. source that has first hand information?
The relevance is in the fact that if you follow the UK example for reasons given, you'll be focusing on fly on the wall, and ignoring the massive elephant in the room. School's job is far beyond "teaching kids while in school", its mission is to educate and adapt children to become productive adults. In many cases this requires influence outside school doors, which is usually attained via less visible, and acceptable ways such as school-sponsored after-school clubs, parent-teacher meetings, homework, fixed schedules, etc.
The issue is actually widely recognised by educators in UK and across Europe. As in people who actually have expertise in subject. Ignorant but well-meaning people may have differing beliefs, and as anyone who has been professional in any field knows, there's nothing as damaging as an ignorant but well-meaning bystander.
No worries, most people, I believe, understand that the US government does not represent all it's people. Those who do really need to get a clue.
You missed the point by a mile. As a non-american, my business with them is how they handle the data, not how they choose to rule their masses. Their local issues about who controls what when I'm concerned about privacy of my banking are as irrelevant to me as who controls, say, Libya. It's an internal matter for the country, which is none of my business in this regard. On the other hand, banking privacy is my business, and it's directly impacted by US regime, whatever it represents and whoever it is led by.
If you honestly believe that the person handling money isn't being monitored by both people and systems specifically designed to be monitoring people like that and their surroundings, you have no clue how modern retail works.
You're not going to be installing that stuff in retail, unless you want your crime career to be a very short one and have an honorable mention on one of those "dumbest criminal of all times" websites. Your real targets will be same as credit card skimmers, unmanned gas stations and such, where risk of getting caught is actually realistically small to make operation profitable.
Since most users of the busy metro system don't have NFC equipped phones, there's no reason for NFC to be installed.
Chicken and egg.
In fact, I'd wager my current(non-NFC) equipped phone, that most users of *any* busy metro system don't even know what NFC is.
You owe me your phone, through you probably could argue that most users are just average people who don't know the name "NFC" and just know they can pay for their rail ticket with a wave of a phone. Worlds busiest rail transit in Japan already supports it, and it's currently breaking through where I live. Quote below taken from wikipedia:
NFC vendors in Japan are closely related to mass-transit networks, like the Mobile Suica used on the JR East rail network. Osaifu-Keitai system, used for Mobile Suica and many others including Edy and nanaco, has become the de-facto standard method for mobile payments in Japan. Its core technology, Mobile FeliCa IC, is partially owned by Sony, NTT DoCoMo and JR East. Mobile FeliCa utilize Sony's FeliCa technology, which itself is the de-facto standard for contactless smart cards in the country.
Other NFC vendors mostly in Europe use contactless payment over mobile phones to pay for on- and off-street parking in specially demarcated areas. Parking wardens may enforce the parkings by license plate, transponder tags or barcode stickers. First conceptualized in the 1990s, the technology has seen commercial use in this century in both Scandinavia and Estonia. End users benefit from the convenience of being able to pay for parking from the comfort of their car with their mobile phone, and parking operators are not obliged to invest in either existing or new street-based parking infrastructures. Parking wardens maintain order in these systems by license plate, transponder tags or barcode stickers or they read a digital display with their eyes in the same way as they read a pay and display receipt.
The real reason it's not broken through fully yet is not in the technology - that has been ready for a while. The real problem is that current credit/debit payment processors (read: banks and financial institutions) do not want to give up a piece of this very lucrative pie to mobile operators and phone vendors, and are stonewalling this process asking for more money.
Once again, you're most likely talking about RFID which is designed to be read from about a meter or more away.
You're not going to read a modern NFC chip from "wall near checkout" easily for several reasons, one of them being problem installing such a device undetected, and other being a massive amount of electronic interference in area such as checkout, where the theft scanner alone will turn your extremely sensitive hardware's input into a shitload of noise. There are several other smaller issues at hand as well.
But even if successful, the problem you're talking about is no different then modern card stealer - if a person can actually install hardware on NFC station and not be detected, then it brings nothing new to the table. In fact, your device would be easier to spot due to size issues - the card stealing devices tend to be extremely small and unnoticeable nowadays, while your device will have severe size problems due to mandated antenna size constraint.
The point here is speed and cost. It's much easier to swipe a phone and click "yes", then move on then stop, type on a device and then move on. It's only a few seconds per customer, but when you're talking a busy metro, that adds up very quickly. And it obviously costs a hell lot more to install an informational display to every NFC payment point, rather then just a reader and a "swipe phone here" sticker.
Okay, go educate people in israel then. I have several relatives there, and they always call themselves "jewish" when asked about ethnicity. I'm sure they will be very interested in the fact that not only have they been doing it wrong, but even governmental paperwork in Israel and abroad accepts their false term.
To do something like that, you'll have to have military grade electronic kit, with a directed antenna being a size of a car at least. Rather noticeable, easily traceable, and still need to be close enough.
You're most likely thinking RFID operating on lower frequencies which are designed to be read from several meters away. NFC operates on frequencies which become jambled to hell even at a couple of meters and are designed to be read at approx 15-20cm reliably.
This is not a problem. It's fairly simple to hook up NFC system to phone's UI and force activation of the system prior to chip powering up.
Finally, you'd going to have to be within about 10-15cm of the target to copy the card. I.e. hugging the person and hoping that his clothes don't cause too much interference as they often do. Not suspicious at all!
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, as nature works, most of the psychologically oriented genes are generally setting a PREFERENCE. What we actually end up with is molded both by preference as well as social factors. Sexuality is only one of many traits that seem to function this way.
Also there's always that infamous "gay hater" test, where they put a rubber band on guys' penises (to measure erection) and then put them in a room with gay porn. Then took them out of the room, and questioned them on whether movie turned them on, and what they think of homosexuality.
Results were just plain sad. Most people who scored high on getting an actual erection to gay porn typically denied having any reaction to the movie far stronger then those who didn't, and generally were anti-gay in a very forceful way. I.e. self-denial breeding massive wave of hatred to block their real preference - essentially a psychological self defence mechanism.
And lastly, as many psychological studies strongly suggest, vast majority of humanity (and for that matter, many mammals) are likely to be bi-sexual to at least some extent. Pure heterosexuality or homosexuality is more of an exception then a rule. It's just that in most attraction for other sex is sufficient to fill the sexual needs, therefore active, energy consuming pursuit of same sex is deemed unnecessary. Think of all the gay men who can still have sex with women and achieve an orgasm for a great example (and get children), as well as strong demand for transsexual male prostitutes for great examples of this.
The problem is that investing in that grind to make it be able to take the electricity which is barely worth the cost, and well below what a single nuke produces, you'll have to invest several nuke's worth of money into the grid. And don't forget that the reason why there is the power generation in the first place is because government subsidises it in rather unhealthy amount (i.e. barn with no cows just to get subsidy).
It's much cheaper and safer to simply build nuclear plants. We have largely eliminated SO2 from our pipes for example, because we now use extremely complicated large boilers that control burning process to be able to burn largely anything and still have zero sulfur out. A large amount of small, relatively inefficient boilers is basically going back to 80s, with heavy acid rain and other issues caused by it.
And that's just one of the many things that come out of boiler pipes when you burn things. There are many, many others. Almost none of them are easy to eliminate in small-scale burning you mention, but relatively easy to eliminate on large plant where it's feasible to have both fuel control and exhaust filtering.
What kind of confirmation are you looking for then? Since neither wikipedia nor people actually living in Israel are good enough for you, and I don't think issue is important enough to get you a knesset-signed statement.
Actually, let's try Godwin. Hitler hunted ETHNIC jews. Not ethnic semites or religious jews. Are 6 million dead jews good enough for you?
I think the argument has gone a bit off track here. I was talking about laptop IGPs being bad for even basic modern programs that use shaders, and low quality when you hook up to a desktop "high resolution" monitor and barely tolerable on modern LCD laptop's own screen (typically RAMDAC problems on VGA output handling high resolutions awfully). I concede that you're most likely correct with reasonable resolutions you've mentioned.
Notably the main reason why laptop's own native resolutions haven't really gone up is form factor. I had to mess around with aforementioned dell quite a bit because my father used to complain about headache (and I was an 18-year-old guy who liked to play with computers), and ended up essentially increasing all font sizes as well as changing them to bold which ended up helping. Essentially it makes no sense to make a 1600x1200 sub 17" screen (imho), or anything bigger then 1080p really, because you'll end up increasing font sizes to compensate anyway or have a huge headache from having your eyes read the small text. That said, 1280x1024 for a 19" sounds pretty horrible for productivity.
It is possible that modern IGPs on laptops have made significant leaps. Upon reading on sandy bridge features (which is what discussed in OP) I'm very much doubtful as they look extremely basic and the main advantage of mating them with a CPU on same die is in speed, rather then redeeming features. Most benchmarks seem to back it up so far.
My father had a pre-2000 (year) laptop with native resolution of 1600x1200. From work. with a (iirc) 14" or smaller screen. From business line of DELL's of all places. You must be looking at very cheap low end consumer crap which goes for lowest possible denominator.
And on the topic of shatter, no. I spent several hours trying to make the damn thing work, down to trying a couple of hacks. Nothing worked. 945GM's implementation of shaders is simply so horrendously bad, it doesn't work. Google was filled with that complaint back when I searched too. In a nutshell, intels' 945GM is a crappy chipset for anything with shaders.
Shatter's system requirements were on a level of a 2005 computer at best, which is my point. Specifically my older 2005 bought computer ran it fine on max settings with a barely passable graphics card.
As for high resolution, 1280x1024 hasn't been "high" for a decade at least. The high resolutions nowadays start at around 1900x1200 and go up from there. My 1680x1050 is average at best nowadays, and in games tends to be the lowest benchmarked resolution.
I actually can chip on this on a "this is not true" side. My father isn't a gamer by any stretch - the only games he likes to play are various arcanoid derivatives. Which meant that his work laptop served him just fine.
Then came shatter, and he all but killed me with his "why won't my laptop run this?" questions. Try to explain to someone running the crappy intel 945GM that always ran the old 2d arcanoids that shatter just won't work on it.
So now, I'm probably giving them my current gaming computer as I upgrade, and I'm pretty sure he'll be telling tech support at work that his next laptop has better include 3d acceleration or else (he's in position to be able to tell them that). So the old saying applies here - you'll be satisfied with integrated, until in comes one killer application that it won't run, and then you aren't. Problem is, with so much software requiring decent 3d graphics on board (even aero does!) you're still best served by a half decent dedicated graphics card that powers itself down when 3d features aren't used or used sparingly.
Finally there's an issue of quality, and that goes beyond 3d. Most integrated chipsets have clear problems displaying higher resolutions, which is why high resolution laptops generally have a dedicated chipset rather then integrated solution.
For starters: I'm not american. I have had some connections with US school system and I didn't like it much. That said, we're talking about school systems in general.
Now I'm a finn. We consistently score in top3 of international tests of success of school system, and our school is specifically built around the concept of being as inclusive as possible. And most teachers and school administrators are beyond reputable and trustworthy - the profession of a teacher is VERY respected here, and at the same time both underpaid and requires at least a masters degree just to be a qualified teacher. As a result most teachers (and by extension school administrators who are teachers themselves) are indeed people who follow a calling to become one, and tend to be trustworthy. Trustworthy enough to raise hell in media if politicians ever tried to shove "indoctrination" beyond the generally accepted nationalist stuff into our curriculum.
And frankly, while it's true that many US schools are designed to raise a certain kind of child, if you find it undesireable it's your job as a parent to counteract the influence, which mind you is not hard. The biggest influence on child, even with all-inclusive school system is still his/her parents. While it's school's job to also provide child with sufficient skills to become critical of his parents' beliefs as well (great example is that around here, somali refugee girls tend to get rebellious around teenage because they get taught about their rights in societal rules and rights class at school at that age), parent still often has the last word in what set of rules and behavioural pattern the child will end up adopting in the end.
Therefore I still argue that you sound like rather typical parent, both largely ignorant of both importance of his/her personal involvement, and trying to accuse anyone but yourself "in case my child grows up to not be what I expect him to be". Absolutely nothing stops your from teaching your child through example to be critical of certain aspects of generally accepted school curriculum - religious parents do it all the time. At the same time all-inclusive leave-no-child-behind style curriculum saves a lot of kids who lack parental guidance due to, well, not being born to the kind of parents that give any. So give your school administrator a benefit of the doubt, find out in which aspects he will fail you and reinforce those aspects in your child yourself.
Lastly, if you view my post history, you will likely find that I enjoy participating in political talk, and my opinions are quite far from you would call "indoctrinated". Yet I'm a product of a school system that is all-inclusive.
If you disagree with school's teaching that badly, you should take your child out of the school in question and put him in one that meets your needs. School's job of "raising a responsible, productive adult" absolutely does NOT include "indoctrinating him into a way of thinking". School's job, or mission as most educators refer to it is to provide a reasonable balanced view of the world and skills necessary for survival and getting into advanced education or a job.
What you're referring to is ideological brainwashing, and is usually imposed upon school systems by political system in power in select countries. It has nothing to do with school's access to child beyond school hours, and everything to do with actual curriculum. Your knee jerk reaction didn't just miss the barn wall, it actually hit the entirely wrong barn.
Would a lengthy wikipedia article suffice, or do you need me to state that, yet again, I have relatives in the country, i.e. source that has first hand information?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
Yes, that would be how a jewish person who believes in allah identifies him/herself. Same as jewish christians.
I think you'd have a promising career as news producer!
The relevance is in the fact that if you follow the UK example for reasons given, you'll be focusing on fly on the wall, and ignoring the massive elephant in the room. School's job is far beyond "teaching kids while in school", its mission is to educate and adapt children to become productive adults. In many cases this requires influence outside school doors, which is usually attained via less visible, and acceptable ways such as school-sponsored after-school clubs, parent-teacher meetings, homework, fixed schedules, etc.
The issue is actually widely recognised by educators in UK and across Europe. As in people who actually have expertise in subject. Ignorant but well-meaning people may have differing beliefs, and as anyone who has been professional in any field knows, there's nothing as damaging as an ignorant but well-meaning bystander.
So, basically we should focus on fly on a wall and completely ignore the elephant in the room?
It's worth noting that it in fact has not worked all that well. UK ranks #1 in Western Europe in youth crime.
No worries, most people, I believe, understand that the US government does not represent all it's people. Those who do really need to get a clue.
You missed the point by a mile. As a non-american, my business with them is how they handle the data, not how they choose to rule their masses. Their local issues about who controls what when I'm concerned about privacy of my banking are as irrelevant to me as who controls, say, Libya. It's an internal matter for the country, which is none of my business in this regard. On the other hand, banking privacy is my business, and it's directly impacted by US regime, whatever it represents and whoever it is led by.
If you honestly believe that the person handling money isn't being monitored by both people and systems specifically designed to be monitoring people like that and their surroundings, you have no clue how modern retail works.
You're not going to be installing that stuff in retail, unless you want your crime career to be a very short one and have an honorable mention on one of those "dumbest criminal of all times" websites. Your real targets will be same as credit card skimmers, unmanned gas stations and such, where risk of getting caught is actually realistically small to make operation profitable.
Since most users of the busy metro system don't have NFC equipped phones, there's no reason for NFC to be installed.
Chicken and egg.
In fact, I'd wager my current(non-NFC) equipped phone, that most users of *any* busy metro system don't even know what NFC is.
You owe me your phone, through you probably could argue that most users are just average people who don't know the name "NFC" and just know they can pay for their rail ticket with a wave of a phone. Worlds busiest rail transit in Japan already supports it, and it's currently breaking through where I live. Quote below taken from wikipedia:
NFC vendors in Japan are closely related to mass-transit networks, like the Mobile Suica used on the JR East rail network. Osaifu-Keitai system, used for Mobile Suica and many others including Edy and nanaco, has become the de-facto standard method for mobile payments in Japan. Its core technology, Mobile FeliCa IC, is partially owned by Sony, NTT DoCoMo and JR East. Mobile FeliCa utilize Sony's FeliCa technology, which itself is the de-facto standard for contactless smart cards in the country.
Other NFC vendors mostly in Europe use contactless payment over mobile phones to pay for on- and off-street parking in specially demarcated areas. Parking wardens may enforce the parkings by license plate, transponder tags or barcode stickers. First conceptualized in the 1990s, the technology has seen commercial use in this century in both Scandinavia and Estonia. End users benefit from the convenience of being able to pay for parking from the comfort of their car with their mobile phone, and parking operators are not obliged to invest in either existing or new street-based parking infrastructures. Parking wardens maintain order in these systems by license plate, transponder tags or barcode stickers or they read a digital display with their eyes in the same way as they read a pay and display receipt.
The real reason it's not broken through fully yet is not in the technology - that has been ready for a while. The real problem is that current credit/debit payment processors (read: banks and financial institutions) do not want to give up a piece of this very lucrative pie to mobile operators and phone vendors, and are stonewalling this process asking for more money.
Once again, you're most likely talking about RFID which is designed to be read from about a meter or more away.
You're not going to read a modern NFC chip from "wall near checkout" easily for several reasons, one of them being problem installing such a device undetected, and other being a massive amount of electronic interference in area such as checkout, where the theft scanner alone will turn your extremely sensitive hardware's input into a shitload of noise. There are several other smaller issues at hand as well.
But even if successful, the problem you're talking about is no different then modern card stealer - if a person can actually install hardware on NFC station and not be detected, then it brings nothing new to the table. In fact, your device would be easier to spot due to size issues - the card stealing devices tend to be extremely small and unnoticeable nowadays, while your device will have severe size problems due to mandated antenna size constraint.
The point here is speed and cost. It's much easier to swipe a phone and click "yes", then move on then stop, type on a device and then move on. It's only a few seconds per customer, but when you're talking a busy metro, that adds up very quickly. And it obviously costs a hell lot more to install an informational display to every NFC payment point, rather then just a reader and a "swipe phone here" sticker.
Okay, go educate people in israel then. I have several relatives there, and they always call themselves "jewish" when asked about ethnicity. I'm sure they will be very interested in the fact that not only have they been doing it wrong, but even governmental paperwork in Israel and abroad accepts their false term.
To do something like that, you'll have to have military grade electronic kit, with a directed antenna being a size of a car at least. Rather noticeable, easily traceable, and still need to be close enough.
You're most likely thinking RFID operating on lower frequencies which are designed to be read from several meters away. NFC operates on frequencies which become jambled to hell even at a couple of meters and are designed to be read at approx 15-20cm reliably.
Credit cards don't have informational displays, or UI to allow for confirmation of the payment.
This is not a problem. It's fairly simple to hook up NFC system to phone's UI and force activation of the system prior to chip powering up.
Finally, you'd going to have to be within about 10-15cm of the target to copy the card. I.e. hugging the person and hoping that his clothes don't cause too much interference as they often do. Not suspicious at all!
"Jewish" as in ethnicity. Don't be daft on purpose so obviously.