Currently the situation is this: Most biometric scanners are not used to improve security, but to increase throughput for check points, so less human work is necessary. If biometrics improve, so will sink the number of humans working at checkpoints, thus allowing more manipulating of the scanner. To me it looks as if there is something like an accepted level of error, and this one seems to be quite independent from the used technology. So from a security point of view, even sophisticated biometrics with much better recognition wont improve security at all, because it is just used to lower security costs by slashing jobs.
So your privacy gets invaded without giving you heightened security in return. Thats the real big gotcha here.
Biometrics have a limited recognition rate, that means: a considerable amount of false positives (wrongly identified) or false negatives (wrongly refused). Often all you can do is having a compromise, either admitting the false positives to have less false negatives, or having lots of people wrongly refused by the system, so the human operators have to manually sort out the remainings.
Due to the limited recognition rate, you can often easily fool a biometric scanner. Face recognition systems are often fooled by holding a picture of the right person before the lense. Same often works for iris scanners. Finger print scanners can be fooled by fake fingerprints made from wax (stearine). Hand scanner sometimes are easiest. Cut out a cardboard with the right hand profile.
Most of those biometric scanners thus should never run unattended, to minimize manipulation as stated above. And if you have humans watch the scanners, you could as easily have those humans perform the checks themselves, probably getting better recognition rates.
Biometric scanners may give you additional security, if you use all the common methods like picture ids, signature and similar too, because now an attacker has not only to disguise himself accordingly, but has to fake the biometric data too. But without a central database for crosschecking the data, its rather meaningless. If he can fake a picture ID with his face and a false name, he can also fake the biometric data to fit his own data. As a stand alone tool the biometric scanners are not really ready.
Bernstein probably read Mandelbrots essays about exactly the same topic and draw its conclusions about that. It was Mandelbrot, who in 1963 suggested that all statistical analysis done so far yielded just one result: Markets are unpredictable by looking at historical data. He coined the term 'scale invariant' to describe the fact, that without a numbered scale you can't tell what period a random example of stock market data describes. (Mandelbrot (1963): The variation of certain speculative prices. Mandelbrot (1963): New methods in statistical economics.)
So I guess, Mandelbrot knew already 40 years ago what Bernstein wrote;)
IMHO the _only_ reason to have a firewall on a network is to add another layer of security. Every system has a point where it fails, and to rely on only a single system of protection is risky.
There are multiple points where a host based protection system can fail. Missing patches, errors in configuration, not secure setups out of the box (to load the latest patches you have to be online), you name it.
There are also multiple points where a firewall based security policy can fail. Stateful inspection protects the system only against access to unwanted services. Attacking a purposedly active service can not be prevented by a stateful inspection firewall. And also firewalls can be misconfigured. I had a case some times ago, where the firewall module didn't load, and the base system was set up to go to routing mode without firewall module. It's not that easy to detect, because the active services are reachable, and in this case the host was well setup, so all unwanted services were unreachable.
The application firewalls, which draw their security from implementing a more secure and hardened version of the protocol(s), have other drawbacks (lower bandwith, limited scope) and are not universally deployable, and also for them the old rule is valid: They can be misconfigured.
And there is always the risk of not handling your system properly. What use are extensive logfiles of services and firewalls, if they get deleted unread, because the log file system went full?
So as a conclusion: Don't rely on a single way to protect your systems. Every method has their merits and their limitations. And you have to choose and to put them into a working policy whose scoop should always go beyond the purely technical aspects of security.
To be fair, this was enacted by the Brazil justice, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. When the justice learned that brazil citizens were subject to fingerprinting and getting their image taken when entering the U.S. as tourists, he ordered that the same applies to U.S. citizens who enter Brazil as tourists. Basicly the current situation is that whatever a state demands from brazil citizens before entering, the same demands are valid for citizens of this state before entering Brazil.
As a matter of fact: I have read 'adult' books as a 12 year old child (adult meaning targeted at an adult public, not because of the adultery committed herein), and I enjoy reading childrens books up until today. Having children surely helps there.
The only type of books I never really got a hang of were books written for people being in puberty, so for instance all those 'first love' stories or the books about boy's gangs enduring adventures and learning useful lessons for life, with the exception of Erich Kaestner's books. Don't know if they ever got translated in english though.
No, I think there have been always stories around that were enjoyed by both children and adults. The Faust saga, which most only know as quite heavy weight play by J.W.Goethe (ok... three plays by J.W.Goethe), was in fact a traditional play for finger pupates, with children as the obvious target audience, and whose origin lie in the 16th century.
The same can be said about all those knight sagas which rose around the Round Table (the celtic-english side) and the paladins of Charlesmagne (the french side). They have everything: a clearly structured set of persons, great love, long, enduring adventures, melodram, fantastic sets of places and spirits, moral conflicts etc.pp.
And lots of nursery tales are in fact quite erotic, with lots of symbols, often missinterpreted, but genuinely sexual in their meaning. Charles Perrault's Cinderella is quite prominent, where the shoe of glass (french: verre) is just an error and in fact meant a shoe of fur (french: vair). And this is again just an euphemism for the female genital, so slipping in the shoe of fur meant having sex in 16th century french;) And that the youngest daughter had the smallest shoe just means that the youngest daughter was still virgin.
The fact, that relabelled barcodes are quite good to spot even for an untrained eye.
Reprogrammed RFID-Chips are not to spot without the proper equipment. And if you use the self checkout lane, there is no one to spot anything except the machine which is programmed to look solely at the RFID chips.
A way to prevent some misuses would be to ask the customer to scan at least the bar code too, so the check out machine can do a match between the RFID information and the bar code information. But THEN your argument holds true that the fraudulent customer could also relabel the good before going to the check out. A label scanner is not able to difference between a printed on bar code and a bar code that got stuck on by someone.
But if I were Intel and I saw that other offerings scale better, and if I knew that the main problem is the shared CPU bus architecture and the limited memory bandwith, I would consider designing a new CPU bus.
And if I have two processor lines for multi processor systems, I would think about upgrading both CPU bus architectures, if both suffer the same problem. And then I would be thinking: Hey! I have to design a new bus system anyway, and I have two processor lines to serve, why not make this bus system able to serve both CPU types? Thus I only need one line of chipsets, I can offer upgrades by replacing the one processor line with the other, I am thus offering smooth migration paths for customers who might think about changing their hardware for better performance and thus could be looking to a different company, by allowing them to keep part of their hardware and just replace the processors.
It was stated in the article that between 1958 and 1984 AT&T had to license all its non-telephonic stuff to whoever asked at fairly reasonable conditions. While it was not true free software, many companies and universities at the time were able to get hold of the license, the documentation and the source code and started to modify it and develop their own versions.
University of California in Berkeley contributed many tools to UNIX and even started to recode UNIX from scratch, following the original UNIX just within the specification limits in 1977, but based everything on its own code.
When in 1984 AT&T was freed from the anti trust provisions given in 1958, AT&T tried to get the control back over UNIX, which lead to the founding of the GNU organisation and to a legal battle with UCB. The legal battle finally ended with a draw, so the BSD line of UNIX was cleared from copyright infringment accusions, and the BSD tools are still with the AT&T-based UNIX versions.
So UNIX was in the beginning something quite indifferent between proprietary and free software, basicly a proprietary system which was handled like a free and open source one. This was the fallacy of the system: After 12 years of free work on UNIX suddenly AT&T changed the licensing and the way the licenses were enforced. The GNU Project tied to make sure that no one contributing to GNU could pull an AT&T again by requiring all code contributed to GNU should be licensed via GPL.
You are just supporting my point. The spitting was not so much about nationality as about Not-Being-Jan-Ullrich-Of-T-Mobile. Not that Jan Ullrich himself is to blame, it was more the way german media was stylizing this year's Tour as the big battle between Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong. So when this battle was not happening as expected until the last week, some people felt they should get crazy against anyone who seem to do better than Mr Ullrich in the Tour.
Yeah, he has a post box there, for all those americans that can't remember his norwegian home town Mo i Rana or his finnish place Laponia near Rovaniemi.
No. Evolution is not an event, evolution is an ongoing process. And you can sit down and watch the process. So we see around us living creatures actually evolving into modified versions of itself, very fast with bacteria and quite slowly with higher life forms.
You can't scientificly prove a single event, that's true. But luckily neither Evolution or the Big Bang are single events. So you can create experiments to check if conclusions you draw from your description of the processes hold true. I agree with you that simply describing how the past has happened doesn't get us a valid scientific theory. But you could reason that it has to have happened in a certain way because of a hypothesis you present. This hypothesis, if it's of any worth, does not simply describe the past, it is also able to predict future events which are quite unlikely to happen if the hypothesis would be wrong.
That's the main problem with Creationism from a scientific point of view: It stops with describing the past and doesn't offer any clues for the future. With Evolution theory you have both: A quite good description of the past and measurable predictions for the future, like the occurance of new variants of the species if the environment changes. You could even use it to predict events in the past of which no information is available right now, and find ways to gather those information.
There is the classical example with the prediction of the interjaw bone, which is common with the humanoid apes (chimpanzee, gorilla...) but was never found with humans. Evolution theory predicted that this bone has to exist at least in a rudimentary way, because humans and humanoid apes should have a common ancestor. Johann Wolfgang Goethe finally found a human skull (from a dead 12year old child) which had the said bone. On the other hand closer inspection of the skulls of humanoid apes found that about 12% of the apes didn't have the interjaw bone. So the quite improbable predictions: "Humans can have an interjaw bone" proved to be true and the True/False distinction "Apes have it" - "Humans don't" was no qualitative distinction anymore, but merely a quantitative difference.
Evolution is too broad and is compatible with any state of the world (through scientific guesses based on circumstancial evidence, which is what evolution amounts to at this point). Evolution is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be verified through use of the scientific method.
That's simply wrong. You can very easily verify predictions about organisms from the evolution theory: Take the adaption of micro organisms to new antibiotics as an example. The outcome (new tribes of micro organisms will appear which are resistant against antibiotics, and their occurance will be more intensively if you use antibiotics in small doses which don't kill everything at once) can be easily controlled. There are enough model organisms like bacteria or algae, which reproduce fast enough to allow the set up of a changing environment and measure the genetic adaption by mutation and genetic drift.
There are some attempts to explain certain behaviours of humans and animals with bioevolution and especially with genetics. I agree that those theories are not that easily to check, because it's not easy to create an experimental setup which could used to disprove those theories. Humans and most large animals evolve too slowly in their genetic disposition, so an experiment would run too long to yield usabe answers in the next future. Additionally the human behaviour can be strongly influenced by environmental changes, without causing the underlying genetics to change (upbringing, education, experience). And last but not least: Human behaviour is pretty wide, so any two different humans confronted with a sufficiently complex environment will pretty surely act differently, and both may deal successfully with the situation, so from an evolutionary point of view both are fit for survival.
If Sysco destoryed all their grain storage and stocks? This would be their right, as they own it.
No, they can't. They have contracts to serve. If they leased the grain silos to someone, then they have to keep the silos in good condition, repair any damages and make sure, they are fully functional. If they fail to provide the services they leased out, they have to pay hefty contractual fines. They don't have the "This silo comes without any warranty whatsoever" EULAs.
You were right:) I just got the wrong key on the numberblock:) 5 and 8 are pretty close.
Centrifuges are quite simple things, basicly large dishes powered for instance by an electro engine. They have some facilities to get the stuff in the center out of the dish parted from the stuff at the rim. You even could use spoons, which are not really high tech. Even the gold miner's bowls from the pioneer's days in the mid 19th century are basic centrifuges. Of course with them you don't get much productivity.
No, the real challenge is to get hold of Uranium ore (Germany has much ore, Central Africa is another place, India has its own ressources...) and the financial and organisatorial effort to sustain the Uranium enrichment. The german group around Heisenberg in Haigerloch in World War II needed one year of processing to create enough 235U for their experiments.
There is still another way: If you take slightly enriched Uranium with still pretty high 238U, you can start a controlled chain reaction by shielding it with cobalt or another neutron reflecting metal, moderate it with water or anthracid and putting in neutron radiation. Part of the 235U will split and send out alpha radiation, which, if caught by a 238U core, will turn it into 241Pu (Plutonium) (and a proton). If the 235U level has sunk beyond a certain level and the chain reaction stops, you can separate Uranium and Plutonium via chemical means, and you get weapongrade Plutonium. This seems to be the process North Corea is using in its nuclear weapons program. Big advantage: You need much less Uranium ore than with pure centrifugation.
1. Obtaining the materials. Uranium is very difficult and expensive to refine. The US has done their best to keep their process for refining out of foreign hands, but someone with a large enough industrial infrastructure could figure it out. One reason why third world countries have to steal U235 is because they lack the necessary infrastructure.
Obtaining the materials is easy. I for instance just drive over to Gera-Leumnitz (it's on the Autobahn between me and my parents) and dig in the hills there. If someone wants to see an Uranium mine from close, I may direct you;) You have a nice view on the Koenigstein mine near Dresden, if you go to the Koenigstein Fortress.
And the process itself is not that difficult. It's just very, very slow. Take any industry grade centrifuge (one to process dairy milk will do), coat it with something which doesn't get solved in Hydrofluorid (HF) (like porcellain, gold), solve the Uranium in HF to get UF6 (Uraniumhexafluorid) and start centrifuging. Because the weight difference between 235U and 238U is quite small (1%), it takes a very long time to enrich 238U, but it can be done. Everything else is patience.
YOU don't need to buy this monitor. But for instance computer tomographic pictures come in a resolution of 3840x2400 pixel. So if you wonder why this display has exactly this specification: Now you know. IBM's T220/T221 with the same resolution and the same panel was marketed to exactly this target group: medical picture analysis.
I am German, and I never got fined for having less than a meter between my car and the next one. I can't also remember such a regulation from my driving lessons.
What may happen is that if the car parking next to you can't get out of its parking space, then you could get a fine for blocking it.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently the situation is this: Most biometric scanners are not used to improve security, but to increase throughput for check points, so less human work is necessary. If biometrics improve, so will sink the number of humans working at checkpoints, thus allowing more manipulating of the scanner. To me it looks as if there is something like an accepted level of error, and this one seems to be quite independent from the used technology. So from a security point of view, even sophisticated biometrics with much better recognition wont improve security at all, because it is just used to lower security costs by slashing jobs.
So your privacy gets invaded without giving you heightened security in return. Thats the real big gotcha here.
Biometrics have a limited recognition rate, that means: a considerable amount of false positives (wrongly identified) or false negatives (wrongly refused). Often all you can do is having a compromise, either admitting the false positives to have less false negatives, or having lots of people wrongly refused by the system, so the human operators have to manually sort out the remainings.
Due to the limited recognition rate, you can often easily fool a biometric scanner. Face recognition systems are often fooled by holding a picture of the right person before the lense. Same often works for iris scanners. Finger print scanners can be fooled by fake fingerprints made from wax (stearine). Hand scanner sometimes are easiest. Cut out a cardboard with the right hand profile.
Most of those biometric scanners thus should never run unattended, to minimize manipulation as stated above. And if you have humans watch the scanners, you could as easily have those humans perform the checks themselves, probably getting better recognition rates.
Biometric scanners may give you additional security, if you use all the common methods like picture ids, signature and similar too, because now an attacker has not only to disguise himself accordingly, but has to fake the biometric data too. But without a central database for crosschecking the data, its rather meaningless. If he can fake a picture ID with his face and a false name, he can also fake the biometric data to fit his own data. As a stand alone tool the biometric scanners are not really ready.
Bernstein probably read Mandelbrots essays about exactly the same topic and draw its conclusions about that. It was Mandelbrot, who in 1963 suggested that all statistical analysis done so far yielded just one result: Markets are unpredictable by looking at historical data. He coined the term 'scale invariant' to describe the fact, that without a numbered scale you can't tell what period a random example of stock market data describes.
;)
(Mandelbrot (1963): The variation of certain speculative prices. Mandelbrot (1963): New methods in statistical economics.)
So I guess, Mandelbrot knew already 40 years ago what Bernstein wrote
IMHO the _only_ reason to have a firewall on a network is to add another layer of security. Every system has a point where it fails, and to rely on only a single system of protection is risky.
There are multiple points where a host based protection system can fail. Missing patches, errors in configuration, not secure setups out of the box (to load the latest patches you have to be online), you name it.
There are also multiple points where a firewall based security policy can fail. Stateful inspection protects the system only against access to unwanted services. Attacking a purposedly active service can not be prevented by a stateful inspection firewall. And also firewalls can be misconfigured. I had a case some times ago, where the firewall module didn't load, and the base system was set up to go to routing mode without firewall module. It's not that easy to detect, because the active services are reachable, and in this case the host was well setup, so all unwanted services were unreachable.
The application firewalls, which draw their security from implementing a more secure and hardened version of the protocol(s), have other drawbacks (lower bandwith, limited scope) and are not universally deployable, and also for them the old rule is valid: They can be misconfigured.
And there is always the risk of not handling your system properly. What use are extensive logfiles of services and firewalls, if they get deleted unread, because the log file system went full?
So as a conclusion: Don't rely on a single way to protect your systems. Every method has their merits and their limitations. And you have to choose and to put them into a working policy whose scoop should always go beyond the purely technical aspects of security.
To be fair, this was enacted by the Brazil justice, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. When the justice learned that brazil citizens were subject to fingerprinting and getting their image taken when entering the U.S. as tourists, he ordered that the same applies to U.S. citizens who enter Brazil as tourists. Basicly the current situation is that whatever a state demands from brazil citizens before entering, the same demands are valid for citizens of this state before entering Brazil.
As a matter of fact: I have read 'adult' books as a 12 year old child (adult meaning targeted at an adult public, not because of the adultery committed herein), and I enjoy reading childrens books up until today. Having children surely helps there.
;) And that the youngest daughter had the smallest shoe just means that the youngest daughter was still virgin.
The only type of books I never really got a hang of were books written for people being in puberty, so for instance all those 'first love' stories or the books about boy's gangs enduring adventures and learning useful lessons for life, with the exception of Erich Kaestner's books. Don't know if they ever got translated in english though.
No, I think there have been always stories around that were enjoyed by both children and adults. The Faust saga, which most only know as quite heavy weight play by J.W.Goethe (ok... three plays by J.W.Goethe), was in fact a traditional play for finger pupates, with children as the obvious target audience, and whose origin lie in the 16th century.
The same can be said about all those knight sagas which rose around the Round Table (the celtic-english side) and the paladins of Charlesmagne (the french side). They have everything: a clearly structured set of persons, great love, long, enduring adventures, melodram, fantastic sets of places and spirits, moral conflicts etc.pp.
And lots of nursery tales are in fact quite erotic, with lots of symbols, often missinterpreted, but genuinely sexual in their meaning. Charles Perrault's Cinderella is quite prominent, where the shoe of glass (french: verre) is just an error and in fact meant a shoe of fur (french: vair). And this is again just an euphemism for the female genital, so slipping in the shoe of fur meant having sex in 16th century french
The fact, that relabelled barcodes are quite good to spot even for an untrained eye.
Reprogrammed RFID-Chips are not to spot without the proper equipment. And if you use the self checkout lane, there is no one to spot anything except the machine which is programmed to look solely at the RFID chips.
A way to prevent some misuses would be to ask the customer to scan at least the bar code too, so the check out machine can do a match between the RFID information and the bar code information. But THEN your argument holds true that the fraudulent customer could also relabel the good before going to the check out. A label scanner is not able to difference between a printed on bar code and a bar code that got stuck on by someone.
But if I were Intel and I saw that other offerings scale better, and if I knew that the main problem is the shared CPU bus architecture and the limited memory bandwith, I would consider designing a new CPU bus.
And if I have two processor lines for multi processor systems, I would think about upgrading both CPU bus architectures, if both suffer the same problem. And then I would be thinking: Hey! I have to design a new bus system anyway, and I have two processor lines to serve, why not make this bus system able to serve both CPU types? Thus I only need one line of chipsets, I can offer upgrades by replacing the one processor line with the other, I am thus offering smooth migration paths for customers who might think about changing their hardware for better performance and thus could be looking to a different company, by allowing them to keep part of their hardware and just replace the processors.
After some consideration, the idea makes sense.
It was stated in the article that between 1958 and 1984 AT&T had to license all its non-telephonic stuff to whoever asked at fairly reasonable conditions. While it was not true free software, many companies and universities at the time were able to get hold of the license, the documentation and the source code and started to modify it and develop their own versions.
University of California in Berkeley contributed many tools to UNIX and even started to recode UNIX from scratch, following the original UNIX just within the specification limits in 1977, but based everything on its own code.
When in 1984 AT&T was freed from the anti trust provisions given in 1958, AT&T tried to get the control back over UNIX, which lead to the founding of the GNU organisation and to a legal battle with UCB. The legal battle finally ended with a draw, so the BSD line of UNIX was cleared from copyright infringment accusions, and the BSD tools are still with the AT&T-based UNIX versions.
So UNIX was in the beginning something quite indifferent between proprietary and free software, basicly a proprietary system which was handled like a free and open source one. This was the fallacy of the system: After 12 years of free work on UNIX suddenly AT&T changed the licensing and the way the licenses were enforced. The GNU Project tied to make sure that no one contributing to GNU could pull an AT&T again by requiring all code contributed to GNU should be licensed via GPL.
You are just supporting my point. The spitting was not so much about nationality as about Not-Being-Jan-Ullrich-Of-T-Mobile. Not that Jan Ullrich himself is to blame, it was more the way german media was stylizing this year's Tour as the big battle between Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong. So when this battle was not happening as expected until the last week, some people felt they should get crazy against anyone who seem to do better than Mr Ullrich in the Tour.
Oh... the german fans were also spitting on Jens Voigt, who is german too... So I would say the antipathies are quite evenly distributed.
Yeah, he has a post box there, for all those americans that can't remember his norwegian home town Mo i Rana or his finnish place Laponia near Rovaniemi.
That's simply wrong. Here is a picture of a red St. Nicholas from 1847, long before Coca Cola was even founded. You may also check out Snopes.com.
From the interview, it is supposed to be more a Gameboy than a PDA. So it actually holds this promise :)
That's the cheap way.
No. Evolution is not an event, evolution is an ongoing process. And you can sit down and watch the process. So we see around us living creatures actually evolving into modified versions of itself, very fast with bacteria and quite slowly with higher life forms.
You can't scientificly prove a single event, that's true. But luckily neither Evolution or the Big Bang are single events. So you can create experiments to check if conclusions you draw from your description of the processes hold true. I agree with you that simply describing how the past has happened doesn't get us a valid scientific theory. But you could reason that it has to have happened in a certain way because of a hypothesis you present. This hypothesis, if it's of any worth, does not simply describe the past, it is also able to predict future events which are quite unlikely to happen if the hypothesis would be wrong.
That's the main problem with Creationism from a scientific point of view: It stops with describing the past and doesn't offer any clues for the future. With Evolution theory you have both: A quite good description of the past and measurable predictions for the future, like the occurance of new variants of the species if the environment changes. You could even use it to predict events in the past of which no information is available right now, and find ways to gather those information.
There is the classical example with the prediction of the interjaw bone, which is common with the humanoid apes (chimpanzee, gorilla...) but was never found with humans. Evolution theory predicted that this bone has to exist at least in a rudimentary way, because humans and humanoid apes should have a common ancestor. Johann Wolfgang Goethe finally found a human skull (from a dead 12year old child) which had the said bone. On the other hand closer inspection of the skulls of humanoid apes found that about 12% of the apes didn't have the interjaw bone. So the quite improbable predictions: "Humans can have an interjaw bone" proved to be true and the True/False distinction "Apes have it" - "Humans don't" was no qualitative distinction anymore, but merely a quantitative difference.
That's simply wrong. You can very easily verify predictions about organisms from the evolution theory: Take the adaption of micro organisms to new antibiotics as an example. The outcome (new tribes of micro organisms will appear which are resistant against antibiotics, and their occurance will be more intensively if you use antibiotics in small doses which don't kill everything at once) can be easily controlled. There are enough model organisms like bacteria or algae, which reproduce fast enough to allow the set up of a changing environment and measure the genetic adaption by mutation and genetic drift.
There are some attempts to explain certain behaviours of humans and animals with bioevolution and especially with genetics. I agree that those theories are not that easily to check, because it's not easy to create an experimental setup which could used to disprove those theories. Humans and most large animals evolve too slowly in their genetic disposition, so an experiment would run too long to yield usabe answers in the next future. Additionally the human behaviour can be strongly influenced by environmental changes, without causing the underlying genetics to change (upbringing, education, experience). And last but not least: Human behaviour is pretty wide, so any two different humans confronted with a sufficiently complex environment will pretty surely act differently, and both may deal successfully with the situation, so from an evolutionary point of view both are fit for survival.
No, they can't. They have contracts to serve. If they leased the grain silos to someone, then they have to keep the silos in good condition, repair any damages and make sure, they are fully functional. If they fail to provide the services they leased out, they have to pay hefty contractual fines. They don't have the "This silo comes without any warranty whatsoever" EULAs.
It was the Minister, who voted in favour of software patents. The Parliament told him: You voted wrongly. Two different things.
You were right :) I just got the wrong key on the numberblock :) 5 and 8 are pretty close.
Centrifuges are quite simple things, basicly large dishes powered for instance by an electro engine. They have some facilities to get the stuff in the center out of the dish parted from the stuff at the rim. You even could use spoons, which are not really high tech. Even the gold miner's bowls from the pioneer's days in the mid 19th century are basic centrifuges. Of course with them you don't get much productivity.
No, the real challenge is to get hold of Uranium ore (Germany has much ore, Central Africa is another place, India has its own ressources...) and the financial and organisatorial effort to sustain the Uranium enrichment. The german group around Heisenberg in Haigerloch in World War II needed one year of processing to create enough 235U for their experiments.
There is still another way: If you take slightly enriched Uranium with still pretty high 238U, you can start a controlled chain reaction by shielding it with cobalt or another neutron reflecting metal, moderate it with water or anthracid and putting in neutron radiation. Part of the 235U will split and send out alpha radiation, which, if caught by a 238U core, will turn it into 241Pu (Plutonium) (and a proton). If the 235U level has sunk beyond a certain level and the chain reaction stops, you can separate Uranium and Plutonium via chemical means, and you get weapongrade Plutonium. This seems to be the process North Corea is using in its nuclear weapons program. Big advantage: You need much less Uranium ore than with pure centrifugation.
Obtaining the materials is easy. I for instance just drive over to Gera-Leumnitz (it's on the Autobahn between me and my parents) and dig in the hills there. If someone wants to see an Uranium mine from close, I may direct you
And the process itself is not that difficult. It's just very, very slow. Take any industry grade centrifuge (one to process dairy milk will do), coat it with something which doesn't get solved in Hydrofluorid (HF) (like porcellain, gold), solve the Uranium in HF to get UF6 (Uraniumhexafluorid) and start centrifuging. Because the weight difference between 235U and 238U is quite small (1%), it takes a very long time to enrich 238U, but it can be done. Everything else is patience.
The Fab30 does 200mm-wafers, the Fab36 was build for a 300mm process.
YOU don't need to buy this monitor. But for instance computer tomographic pictures come in a resolution of 3840x2400 pixel. So if you wonder why this display has exactly this specification: Now you know. IBM's T220/T221 with the same resolution and the same panel was marketed to exactly this target group: medical picture analysis.
I am German, and I never got fined for having less than a meter between my car and the next one. I can't also remember such a regulation from my driving lessons.
What may happen is that if the car parking next to you can't get out of its parking space, then you could get a fine for blocking it.
It probably was 7.91 to the power of 10111 in the beginning ;)