They won against the Net Book Association because the legislation was a restriction of trade between the states, as it also restricted the sells in Ireland, and from other countries to the UK. This is prohibited by the EU.
The publishers simply gave up, because the sellers imported the books from the US.
> I encourage Germans to ignore the rule and hope the law sees sense.
A similar law in France was abolished in 1979. After seeing the detrimental results of the abolishment (FNAC, loss of diversity), the law was reintroduced in 1981.
Besides, there are more ways to compete than lowering by lowering price. And how many people aren't buying (more) books, because they are to expensive? Next to no one?
AFAIK, more people died in train accidents than in accidents with zeppelins at that time.
> Not to mention that even in the 1930s airplanes [...]
There were no scheduled transatlantic flights in the 30s, except those of the Zeppelins.
As the first person, Charles Lindbergh travelled in 1927 single handedly, non-stop from the US to Europe. And he was celebrated like Yuri Gagarin for doing so.
In 1939, Pan American started the first transatlantic passenger service.
KLM started its first scheduled transatlantic flight between Amsterdam and New York in 1946 with 3 stops taking a total 25 hours.
> By compressing more data per packet, do they just mean they are using a better compression algorithm, or larger packets?
More like larger packets. Instead of Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK), they'll use 8QDPSK (8ary Quadrature Differential Phase Shift Keying?) for transferring data. For compability the administration of the pico-net will still be handled by GFSK.
Instead of 1 Bit per symbol, they can transfer 8. The symbol rate and the channel width stays the same. Theoretically the transfer-rate could be 8 times the old one, but due to the higher susceptibility to errors, they increased the error correction, which leaves the 2-3Mbit/s.
A Turing Machine has a finite control (program ROM) and infinite long tape (memory) on which symbols of certain alphabet are stored.
A Universal Turing Machine is only Turing Machine with a fixed finite control. Namely one, which realises any finite control as it can be stored on the tape.
So, if you can realise any finite control, you have a Turing Machine. And the UTM is only a special program (finite control) for it.
> Because the last time there was a big spike in energy prices (the '73 oil shock) we had a serious bout of inflationary recession that took the best part of fifteen years to recover from?
Yes, you(the US) had a recession, from which took a decade to recover from. For Japan, it was very successful decade. Replacing all the bulky gasoline sucking cars with more efficient ones drove the economy.
But to reduce the recession on the oil price seems a bit simplified to me (For the above reason).
One point certainly was the reliance of the US economy on a) cheap b) energy. a) Was certainly a problem. But you also have to remember that at that time oil was not only expensive, but actually scarce (it even had to be rationed).
But that was only one point. I'd say even more critical was the psychological component. Yom Kippur War, the establishement of the OPEC, embargo. In general, a fairly unstable era.
Think of 9/11. As coldhearted as it may sound, what economical effect does the sudden death of 5000 people have for a nation? From a purely rational point of view, it should be next to none. Still, the psychological effect on the economy was immense.
> Saudi govt revenues went up by a factor of 10 from '73 to '74
Yes, but in the aftermath, the dependence on oil was greatly reduced and the oil price plummeted. Oil-producing nations depending on a high oil price like Mexico, Libya, Venezuela have been in dire situations, almost bancrupting.
But by controlled increase of the costs with taxes, you could probably have the positive effects (more energy efficient industry, less reliance on oil), while not having the downside (or at least reducing it). The money would not go to the oil-companies or OPEC, so it could either be used to reduce other taxes, support research on alternative energy sources, or even to reduce the deficit.
> Drowned in a gushing torrent of cash, Saudis either gorged themselves in the fleshpots of Europe or, revolted by the debauchery, [...]
Personally, I find it quite hard to believe that the extravagant life-style itself, of which the Sultans have been renowned for decades, if not centuries, is suddenly the reason for such extreme behaviour.
In my opinion, it is more likely the alienation of the religious people in those country from their own people. Many young people there are having parties, where men and women normally (according to Western standards) meet. They listen to Western music and do other things most Westerner consider normal. But now consider, how it affects a traditionally raised person? Don't you think, that this might frighten them much more?
Of course, they blame it on the corruptive influence of the Westerners and the Sheiks that sell the people out to them.
> Think the recession in 2000 was bad? Wait until you see what doubling the cost of electricity would do.
What makes you think that would result in a recession? Where does the money go? Doubling the costs of energy would require most companies to invest in improvement of energy efficiency or to bankrupt. Obsoleting a lot of technology does not necessarily mean the break-down of economy. Quite the contrary could be the case. There is no industry as thriving as the computer industry, which obsoletes its products roughly every 5 years. The record labels were in heaven after obsoletion of the vinyl records. And AFAIK, the automobile-industry is also not shedding tears about the increased oil prices over the last ten years. In some countries, old cars with bad mileage are unsellable and are replaced by brand new ones.
> So, unless you're looking to opt out of using electricity and other sources of power (I was camping this weekend -- it's fun, but it's no way to live), it's a necessary evil.
How about energy conservance? Even in a heavy industry nation like Germany, the energy consumption is half of the US (relatively to the GDP). In Japan, it is a fourth of the US. And I wouldn't say that living in either Germany or Japan is anything like camping.
> Nobody HAS to use GMail so what is the real problem here?
The real problem is not GMail alone, but what effect it will have on the while freemail market. The problem is, that GMail sets a new negative record in privacy matters. It lowers the barrier of what companies are allowed to do and what not. The law just set a lower limit of what they think is acceptable. Not only for GMail but also for others.
So, by prohibiting that feature, GMail cannot us it to gain an economical advantage over other companies, which would be forced to follow suit.
Or, to formulate it positively: It takes the economical drive out of this kind of privacy invasion.
> What's different about Google other than they explicitly tell you they're going to do it.
The difference is, that Google and other free email services have a commercial interest in it, while said third parties, with all probability, have not.
Creating the infrastructure to scan emails requires an investment, which has to pay off.
Those third parties are providing the bandwith for several parties. I assume that most companies wouldn't be very happy about having their connection tapped. So, not scanning any traffic is in their own commercial interest.
The legal implications by having the ability to scan emails and/or traffic are another reason they have no interest.
OTOH, Google (and others) can easily use that profiled data to generate revenue by targeting ads on pages they generate. Said third parties have no such mean.
Google and others are merely prohibited from profiling. They can still generate revenue from targeting ads by real-time data, like they do with their search-engine.
Question: How does "71% percent of spam servers are located in China" quoted in the article correlate with the whitepaper stating "Figure 1: North America and International Spam Messages Sent Daily" depicting 2005: North America 8.5 billion, International 11 billion?
Maybe it is in the subtle difference of spam messages sent, and servers used to send them.
> i know i'm gonna get flamed for this but actually, jar-jar is absolutely necessary to the story as it exists: nobody else is stupid enough to be palpatine's tool by suggesting giving palpatine emergency powers.
Crap. You don't have to be a complete moron to resign you powers to a dictator/perceived saviour. Well, actually you have. But let me elaborate. What I mean is, a lot of smart men in history have resigned their power to strong acting men (Germany, Japan, Great Britain, France...) in the hope that they will solve their problems. Of course that was a dumb move, but depicting those people as morons doesn't help:
a) the message, which should warn people doing the same
b) the story, as it just makes the bad guy less cunning and just dumbs down the plot
Finally, the critical point: Jar-Jar only suggested it, the chamber approved it. If it were such a far fetched, unthinkable idea for any intelligent person there to suggest, why would the members vote for it?
> People in the US laugh at you every time they see a protestor wearing a pepsi shirt or eating a mcdonalds.
I think this is the perfect picture showing the "You are either with us or against us","The world hates us"-attitude
Maybe they fail to remember that, very likely, the very same people demonstrating went to American embassies to express their condolences. Maybe those people fail to realise that those protestors are against a certain administration representing a certain policy. Maybe they are plain too dumb to understand that those demonstrators simply want to demonstrate their dissatifaction with the US administration policies but don't want the US economy to go down into a slump and see them be unemployed.
And what would the reaction of those American people be when the world would boycott their products? Wouldn't it even enstrengthen the "World hates us"-feeling?
> international law isn't binding and Germany has all the right in the world to choose not to recognise law outside of their domestic jurisdiction.
This would be quite sad, if this were the opinion of the American public.
International law is as binding as any contract without law enforcement. You may brake it, but that fact will make you untrustworthy for partners. And, as it happens, such distrust stays for generations and hard work against it.
In contrast to some nations, the members of the EU are accepting supranational authority and international law. International law is the foundation of the EU, so otherwise the whole concept of the union would be void.
Even before a nation is even considered to be admitted to the EU, it has submit itself to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
Member states have to be enact all directives in national in at most 5 years time. Otherwise, they have to answer to the European Court of Justice.
But since all directives have to be decided unanimously, Germany could block the motion.
Like a human relationship, it is about trust, giving and taking. If only Germany would vote against it, it could rekindle the fear that Germany wants to dominate Europe (See the long lasting effect of history). If only the largest nations vote against it, the small nations feel set back. This could make different directives in favour for the larger nations more difficult. And to preempt the question, yes, nations have voted for directives against their own advantage.
The question is, does the German goverment feel strong enough about the issue to block it against the vote of other nations?
> Still pretty sh*tty in terms of greenhouse gas emissions so it wouldn't help meet Kyoto targets
On the contrary. First, it would cut HC4-emission, which is an even more effective greenhouse gas and listed in the Kyoto protocol. Second, it could reduce CO2 emissions, as the energy is produced locally and cuts the transport losses.
Yeah, like anything tall kills birds. Not that this is not something we already know. The high mortality at the Altamont was due bad placement and technology.
According to the NWCC 0.01%-0.02% of the deaths due to collisions are due to winplants.
> How about geothermal? Iceland has had a lot of success with that.
Well, maybe because it is a small island directly placed above a contintental rift. I don't know for how many regions that would work.
But why not all of the above? And then scrap the methods, which have the worst impact. It's not like we need a silver bullet.
> the serious prospect of having a city nuked is likely to provoke a strong desire towards being able to defend themselves by a significant proportion of the population.
Well, certainly. But there are two question.
Does North Korea provide such a threat? Well, I may be alone. But I have a hard time to believe Kim Chong-Il and his cabal would launch a nuclear strike against Japan. Not because they are nice people, but because it would bring them no benefit, to say the least.
Would Japan going nuclear provide such a defense? A research in 1995 provided a clear answer. No. It would only agitate all Asian neighbours. It concludes, that living under the nuclear umbrella of the US is a sufficient deterrent. Hence, the strong emphasis of the current Japanese goverment on the U.S.-Japanese alliance.
> well, I still don't follow Europe's simultaneous "intense fear of the US" and "complete lack of desire to spend any money on defense"
You are probably referring to a poll in the Europe, which resulted in the US being rated as the highest threat to peace. Well, I'd assume is not like Europeans are fearing that the US is going to invade Europe, which would be outright ridiculous. It is more a concern about the US willingness and readiness to wage wars against others.
The lack of interest in raising military spending is fully in accordance with such a pacifistic stance.
> Japan has been living with a foreign-written constitution for a long, long time, and there's substantial support for throwing it out and becoming a real nation again.
Actually, accoring to a yearly poll by Asahi, Shinbun, this year is the first time there is more than 50percent support for a revision of the constitution. But a plurarity is for the inclusion of more rights. Only about 15percent are for a revision because it "was forced on Japan by the United States", less than 10 percent are against the pacifistic Article 9.
For your article from late 2001, I'll give you an article from the very same agency.
Then, how about looking at the various timescales? Yes, earth has been warmer in the past, and over the 2-4billion years of its existance, there are longer periods warmer. Imagine the universe is only 3K warm. Great. What does that mean for our situation at hand?
Now have a look at the very same link you provided, which is probably more of our concern, the time of human civilisation. As you can see, the climate has been actually colder in average (Hence the often cited "fear of the Ice Age" in the 70s). But not only that, judging from the previous curves, 2000 AD should be the peak of its curve.
But, a time-scale which has ticks every 10 millenia is also a bit out of scale. Strangely enough, most people are more concerned about the next decades up to a century, not millenia.
Have a look at the curve, which is probably more of our concern. Should that not be recent enough, here some more, including one from 2003.
> But how much, and is it even measurable compared to a massive volcanic eruption?
Let's start with the fact that vulcans contribute their CO2 regardless whether humans contribute or not. So anthrophogenic CO2 is added to their exhaust.
Now to the data. According to these geologists, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are roughly 150 times the estimated emissions of volcanos.
Or what about keeping the code blocks small and concise? See Linux kernel coding style Chapter 4. If you have to scroll some pages to find the corresponding closing tag, something has gone wrong.
But I've to admit, that I use code folding myself, which shows, I'm not a real programmer. But I also prefer Emacs to vi, which only confirms the fact I'm a quiche eater.
Yes, but it may prohibit unsigned software to access a secured partition of the OS, e.g. where the Super MP3 file lies. Otherwise the security measure of signing would be nearly useless.
> easily cracked with fast computers If'd be so easy, here is some easy money to earn. When they've cracked the 1k value in less than a year, one could begin to think to change the key... in a decade or so.
It's not like it will not come out that a certain cryptographic scheme is challengable. That is why one should use publicly known algorithms.
Slashdot Mirror
> A court case followed which the sellers won.
They won against the Net Book Association because the legislation was a restriction of trade between the states, as it also restricted the sells in Ireland, and from other countries to the UK. This is prohibited by the EU.
The publishers simply gave up, because the sellers imported the books from the US.
> I encourage Germans to ignore the rule and hope the law sees sense.
A similar law in France was abolished in 1979. After seeing the detrimental results of the abolishment (FNAC, loss of diversity), the law was reintroduced in 1981.
Besides, there are more ways to compete than lowering by lowering price. And how many people aren't buying (more) books, because they are to expensive? Next to no one?
AFAIK, more people died in train accidents than in accidents with zeppelins at that time.
> Not to mention that even in the 1930s airplanes [...]
There were no scheduled transatlantic flights in the 30s, except those of the Zeppelins.
As the first person, Charles Lindbergh travelled in 1927 single handedly, non-stop from the US to Europe. And he was celebrated like Yuri Gagarin for doing so.
In 1939, Pan American started the first transatlantic passenger service.
KLM started its first scheduled transatlantic flight between Amsterdam and New York in 1946 with 3 stops taking a total 25 hours.
> By compressing more data per packet, do they just mean they are using a better compression algorithm, or larger packets?
More like larger packets. Instead of Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK), they'll use 8QDPSK (8ary Quadrature Differential Phase Shift Keying?) for transferring data. For compability the administration of the pico-net will still be handled by GFSK.
Instead of 1 Bit per symbol, they can transfer 8. The symbol rate and the channel width stays the same.
Theoretically the transfer-rate could be 8 times the old one,
but due to the higher susceptibility to errors, they increased the error correction, which leaves the 2-3Mbit/s.
A Turing Machine has a finite control (program ROM) and infinite long tape (memory) on which symbols of certain alphabet are stored.
A Universal Turing Machine is only Turing Machine with a fixed finite control. Namely one, which realises any finite control as it can be stored on the tape.
So, if you can realise any finite control, you have a Turing Machine. And the UTM is only a special program (finite control) for it.
Good morning, sir. Your newspaper
> Because the last time there was a big spike in energy prices (the '73 oil shock) we had a serious bout of inflationary recession that took the best part of fifteen years to recover from?
Yes, you(the US) had a recession, from which took a decade to recover from. For Japan, it was very successful decade. Replacing all the bulky gasoline sucking cars with more efficient ones drove the economy.
But to reduce the recession on the oil price seems a bit simplified to me (For the above reason).
One point certainly was the reliance of the US economy on a) cheap b) energy.
a) Was certainly a problem. But you also have to remember that at that time oil was not only expensive, but actually scarce (it even had to be rationed).
But that was only one point. I'd say even more critical was the psychological component. Yom Kippur War, the establishement of the OPEC, embargo. In general, a fairly unstable era.
Think of 9/11. As coldhearted as it may sound, what economical effect does the sudden death of 5000 people have for a nation? From a purely rational point of view, it should be next to none. Still, the psychological effect on the economy was immense.
> Saudi govt revenues went up by a factor of 10 from '73 to '74
Yes, but in the aftermath, the dependence on oil was greatly reduced and the oil price plummeted. Oil-producing nations depending on a high oil price like Mexico, Libya, Venezuela have been in dire situations, almost bancrupting.
But by controlled increase of the costs with taxes, you could probably have the positive effects (more energy efficient industry, less reliance on oil), while not having the downside (or at least reducing it).
The money would not go to the oil-companies or OPEC, so it could either be used to reduce other taxes, support research on alternative energy sources, or even to reduce the deficit.
> Drowned in a gushing torrent of cash, Saudis either gorged themselves in the fleshpots of Europe or, revolted by the debauchery, [...]
Personally, I find it quite hard to believe that the extravagant life-style itself, of which the Sultans have been renowned for decades, if not centuries, is suddenly the reason for such extreme behaviour.
In my opinion, it is more likely the alienation of the religious people in those country from their own people. Many young people there are having parties, where men and women normally (according to Western standards) meet. They listen to Western music and do other things most Westerner consider normal. But now consider, how it affects a traditionally raised person? Don't you think, that this might frighten them much more?
Of course, they blame it on the corruptive influence of the Westerners and the Sheiks that sell the people out to them.
> Think the recession in 2000 was bad? Wait until you see what doubling the cost of electricity would do.
What makes you think that would result in a recession? Where does the money go?
Doubling the costs of energy would require most companies to invest in improvement of energy efficiency or to bankrupt.
Obsoleting a lot of technology does not necessarily mean the break-down of economy. Quite the contrary could be the case. There is no industry as thriving as the computer industry, which obsoletes its products roughly every 5 years. The record labels were in heaven after obsoletion of the vinyl records. And AFAIK, the automobile-industry is also not shedding tears about the increased oil prices over the last ten years. In some countries, old cars with bad mileage are unsellable and are replaced by brand new ones.
> So, unless you're looking to opt out of using electricity and other sources of power (I was camping this weekend -- it's fun, but it's no way to live), it's a necessary evil.
How about energy conservance? Even in a heavy industry nation like Germany, the energy consumption is half of the US (relatively to the GDP). In Japan, it is a fourth of the US. And I wouldn't say that living in either Germany or Japan is anything like camping.
> Nobody HAS to use GMail so what is the real problem here?
The real problem is not GMail alone, but what effect it will have on the while freemail market.
The problem is, that GMail sets a new negative record in privacy matters. It lowers the barrier of what companies are allowed to do and what not.
The law just set a lower limit of what they think is acceptable. Not only for GMail but also for others.
So, by prohibiting that feature, GMail cannot us it to gain an economical advantage over other companies, which would be forced to follow suit.
Or, to formulate it positively: It takes the economical drive out of this kind of privacy invasion.
> What's different about Google other than they explicitly tell you they're going to do it.
The difference is, that Google and other free email services have a commercial interest in it, while said third parties, with all probability, have not.
Creating the infrastructure to scan emails requires an investment, which has to pay off.
Those third parties are providing the bandwith for several parties. I assume that most companies wouldn't be very happy about having their connection tapped. So, not scanning any traffic is in their own commercial interest.
The legal implications by having the ability to scan emails and/or traffic are another reason they have no interest.
OTOH, Google (and others) can easily use that profiled data to generate revenue by targeting ads on pages they generate. Said third parties have no such mean.
Google and others are merely prohibited from profiling. They can still generate revenue from targeting ads by real-time data, like they do with their search-engine.
Every time you scroll the license, the counter is resetted to 240 seconds.
Still, the counter is somewhat questionable, as it puts the user under pressure, without haveing a positive effect I can think of.
How about reading the story?
They are talking about the Peoples Republic (of China), captial Beijing, "China is notorious for its Internet censorship efforts".
This doesn't sound like they are talking about Taiwan/Republic of China, (provisional) capital Taipei.
Sorry, should've wrote this before:
Thanks for the link.
Question: How does "71% percent of spam servers are located in China" quoted in the article correlate with the whitepaper stating "Figure 1: North America and International Spam Messages Sent Daily" depicting 2005: North America 8.5 billion, International 11 billion?
Maybe it is in the subtle difference of spam messages sent, and servers used to send them.
Crap. You don't have to be a complete moron to resign you powers to a dictator/perceived saviour. Well, actually you have. But let me elaborate. What I mean is, a lot of smart men in history have resigned their power to strong acting men (Germany, Japan, Great Britain, France...) in the hope that they will solve their problems.
Of course that was a dumb move, but depicting those people as morons doesn't help:
a) the message, which should warn people doing the same
b) the story, as it just makes the bad guy less cunning and just dumbs down the plot
Finally, the critical point: Jar-Jar only suggested it, the chamber approved it. If it were such a far fetched, unthinkable idea for any intelligent person there to suggest, why would the members vote for it?
Chinas military budget: $47 billion, GDP $6 trillion.
US militaries budget $399 billion, GDP $11 trillion.
Source
I'd consider a sub 1percent military budget quite moderate.
> People in the US laugh at you every time they see a protestor wearing a pepsi shirt or eating a mcdonalds.
I think this is the perfect picture showing the "You are either with us or against us","The world hates us"-attitude
Maybe they fail to remember that, very likely, the very same people demonstrating went to American embassies to express their condolences.
Maybe those people fail to realise that those protestors are against a certain administration representing a certain policy.
Maybe they are plain too dumb to understand that those demonstrators simply want to demonstrate their dissatifaction with the US administration policies but don't want the US economy to go down into a slump and see them be unemployed.
And what would the reaction of those American people be when the world would boycott their products? Wouldn't it even enstrengthen the "World hates us"-feeling?
> international law isn't binding and Germany has all the right in the world to choose not to recognise law outside of their domestic jurisdiction.
This would be quite sad, if this were the opinion of the American public.
International law is as binding as any contract without law enforcement. You may brake it, but that fact will make you untrustworthy for partners. And, as it happens, such distrust stays for generations and hard work against it.
In contrast to some nations, the members of the EU are accepting supranational authority and international law. International law is the foundation of the EU, so otherwise the whole concept of the union would be void.
Even before a nation is even considered to be admitted to the EU, it has submit itself to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
Member states have to be enact all directives in national in at most 5 years time. Otherwise, they have to answer to the
European Court of Justice.
But since all directives have to be decided unanimously, Germany could block the motion.
Like a human relationship, it is about trust, giving and taking. If only Germany would vote against it, it could rekindle the fear that Germany wants to dominate Europe (See the long lasting effect of history).
If only the largest nations vote against it, the small nations feel set back. This could make different directives in favour for the larger nations more difficult. And to preempt the question, yes, nations have voted for directives against their own advantage.
The question is, does the German goverment feel strong enough about the issue to block it against the vote of other nations?
> Still pretty sh*tty in terms of greenhouse gas emissions so it wouldn't help meet Kyoto targets
On the contrary. First, it would cut HC4-emission, which is an even more effective greenhouse gas and listed in the Kyoto protocol. Second, it could reduce CO2 emissions, as the energy is produced locally and cuts the transport losses.
> Wind turbines kill birds
Yeah, like anything tall kills birds.
Not that this is not something we already know. The high mortality at the Altamont was due bad placement and technology.
According to the NWCC 0.01%-0.02% of the deaths due to collisions are due to winplants.
> How about geothermal? Iceland has had a lot of success with that.
Well, maybe because it is a small island directly placed above a contintental rift. I don't know for how many regions that would work.
But why not all of the above? And then scrap the methods, which have the worst impact.
It's not like we need a silver bullet.
Well, certainly. But there are two question.
Does North Korea provide such a threat?
Well, I may be alone. But I have a hard time to believe Kim Chong-Il and his cabal would launch a nuclear strike against Japan. Not because they are nice people, but because it would bring them no benefit, to say the least.
Would Japan going nuclear provide such a defense?
A research in 1995 provided a clear answer. No. It would only agitate all Asian neighbours. It concludes, that living under the nuclear umbrella of the US is a sufficient deterrent. Hence, the strong emphasis of the current Japanese goverment on the U.S.-Japanese alliance.
> well, I still don't follow Europe's simultaneous "intense fear of the US" and "complete lack of desire to spend any money on defense"
You are probably referring to a poll in the Europe, which resulted in the US being rated as the highest threat to peace.
Well, I'd assume is not like Europeans are fearing that the US is going to invade Europe, which would be outright ridiculous. It is more a concern about the US willingness and readiness to wage wars against others.
The lack of interest in raising military spending is fully in accordance with such a pacifistic stance.
> Japan has been living with a foreign-written constitution for a long, long time, and there's substantial support for throwing it out and becoming a real nation again.
Actually, accoring to a yearly poll by Asahi, Shinbun, this year is the first time there is more than 50percent support for a revision of the constitution. But a plurarity is for the inclusion of more rights. Only about 15percent are for a revision because it "was forced on Japan by the United States", less than 10 percent are against the pacifistic Article 9.
Here a perspective on the consitution.
> As soon as North Korea finishes their nuke(s)
North Korea has already nukes.
> you'll see Japan go nuclear faster than you can say, "irrishaimase".
Vice Defense Minister Shingo Nishimura had to resign in 1999 after suggesting that Japan should go nuclear.
For your article from late 2001, I'll give you an article from the very same agency.
Then, how about looking at the various timescales?
Yes, earth has been warmer in the past, and over the 2-4billion years of its existance, there are longer periods warmer. Imagine the universe is only 3K warm. Great. What does that mean for our situation at hand?
Now have a look at the very same link you provided, which is probably more of our concern, the time of human civilisation. As you can see,
the climate has been actually colder in average (Hence the often cited "fear of the Ice Age" in the 70s). But not only that, judging from the previous curves, 2000 AD should be the peak of its curve.
But, a time-scale which has ticks every 10 millenia is also a bit out of scale. Strangely enough, most people are more concerned about the next decades up to a century, not millenia.
Have a look at the curve, which is probably more of our concern. Should that not be recent enough, here some more, including one from 2003.
> But how much, and is it even measurable compared to a massive volcanic eruption?
Let's start with the fact that vulcans contribute their CO2 regardless whether humans contribute or not. So anthrophogenic CO2 is added to their exhaust.
Now to the data. According to these geologists, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are roughly 150 times the estimated emissions of volcanos.
> Isn't that what "real" programmers would do?
Or what about keeping the code blocks small and concise? See Linux kernel coding style Chapter 4.
If you have to scroll some pages to find the corresponding closing tag, something has gone wrong.
But I've to admit, that I use code folding myself, which shows, I'm not a real programmer. But I also prefer Emacs to vi, which only confirms the fact I'm a quiche eater.
Yes, but it may prohibit unsigned software to access a secured partition of the OS, e.g. where the Super MP3 file lies.
Otherwise the security measure of signing would be nearly useless.
> easily cracked with fast computers
If'd be so easy, here is some easy money to earn. When they've cracked the 1k value in less than a year, one could begin to think to change the key... in a decade or so.
It's not like it will not come out that a certain cryptographic scheme is challengable. That is why one should use publicly known algorithms.
> They didn't have modern technology, either; they were all those "poor, less developed" folks you think wouldn't adapt.
Isn't that your personal assumption?
Usually the more developed/higher specialised species has died out first.