U.S. Passport Primer: A Guide to the New Passport RegulationsWritten by Larry Denton
Continued from page 1
You need to bring two identical 2-by-2 inch, full-face, front-view photographs, and a completed DS-11 application form (available from one of 6,000 facilities or at http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/passport_1738.html)
In addition, you will need a driver's license or government-issued ID card and proof of citizenship, which in most cases, is an original or certified birth certificate.
All children under age 14 must also apply for a passport in person, and both parents or legal guardians must appear together and sign child's form (if second parent submits a notarized letter of intent, one parent signature is adequate). Minors age 14 to 17 must also appear in person and for security reasons, parental consent may be required. And, unlike adults, children under 14 must apply for renewals in person.
For Americans 16 and older, a first passport costs $97 and is good for 10 years. Children under age of 16 require their own passport which cost $82 and are valid for five years. Renewals, which can be done by mail, are $67 for both adults and children.
One of most often asked questions, "When should I apply for a passport?" has a simple answer--several months before your planned trip. If you will need visas from foreign embassies to enter those countries, allow even more time. Don't wait to get a passport! Get it now, so you will be ready in case you may need or want to travel on short notice. The average time from application to passport arrival is six to eight weeks, and passport demand goes up during summer months, so plan accordingly.
When you receive your passport, remember to sign it in ink and print your name and address so it may be returned to you if it is ever lost.
Larry Denton is a retired history teacher having taught 33 years at Hobson High in Hobson, Montana. He is currently V.P. of Elfin Enterprises, Inc., an Internet business providing valuable information on a variety of timely topics. For an embassy full of advice, resources and suggestions about passports, visit http://www.PassportPlace.com
The Possibilities for Anarchy (II)Written by Angelique van Engelen
Continued from page 1
The philosophic sciences bring out issues that wider society has been dealing with intensely since 1970s in many ways. Both proponents of determinism and their opponents, 'pluralists', boast incessant streams of prominent examples. "One would think that it should be at least a clearly decidable question", according to Carl Hoefer in an article "Causal Determinism", which is due for publication in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in Summer of 2005. But further reading teaches you soon that to expect any outcome in battle between determinists and pluralists is not realistic. The debate, which to some extent has been ongoing for almost as long as humans have been around, was first highly topical for a brief moment at turn of previous century in more restricted area of mathematics. What's become known as 'Russell Paradox' knocked mathematical community off its feet. It gave rise to more experimental mathematics than any of generally lazy formula makers had expected, who thought they were making progress in denoting reality this way, had been reckoning with. The Russel paradox points out that until then, mathematicians had held false pretenses as to ramifications of their field. The paradox in simple terms amounts to following question about sets (a collection of objects that can be defined as a rule). He wondered whether it was possible to create a set out of sets defined as ‘not members’. Russell wondered if that particular set contains itself and this way formulated first paradox in mathematics. He argued that there are only two possible answers to question of whether a set made up of sets not part of themselves can actually be part of itself. If answer is yes, then set A does contain itself. But if set A contains itself, then, according to its definition, set A would not belong to set A, and thus it does not belong to itself. Since assumption that A contains itself leads to a contradiction, it must be wrong. If answer is no, then set A does not contain itself. But again, according to defining condition, if A does not belong to itself, then it would belong to set A. We have contradictory propositions that imply one another. The assumption of no yields yes, which yields no, and so on apparently. To still see this as a threat to foundation of mathematics would be a somewhat out of date response, because dilemma apparently has been fixed since. Ed Pegg at Math.com says Russell paradox was later fixed, via so called ‘Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms’. “So far, no errors have been found”, Pegg says.
It’s a cliche but this is probably one of first examples to show us that reality is not black and white. And rather than grey, it’s just bigger all time. That is one thing every scientist agrees on. Perhaps Russell Paradox only indicated an end to era of hunter gatherers in mathematic sciences, but it is interesting to see that Russell went on to deal with this issue by basically working on a new domain in sciences.
Rather than solving problem in maths, his resultant thoughts were better applied in another field of science and man is still credited in part for rise of computer science. In attempts to argue his way out of paradox, Russell invented a concept of a logical transformation as an operation that requires equivalent of a quantum of time. He designed a set of logical operations in which a particular problem would be expressed as a program of operations to follow. 'We then turn program on and let it run. Each logical inference is implemented in turn, and when process is completed, we get our answer', Hoefer describes essence of work as. A search for an ‘end theory’, some explanation for everything which incidentally will also decide determinist – pluralist issue is in some ways goal of everybody’s scientific work, but argument these days is more or less centered around alternative ways of discovering possibilities to obtain knowledge on this issue. Work on ‘earth’s genomics’ has hardly been anything more than making silly presuppositions, efforts to piece together a puzzle which ultimately might just appear to be an exercise trying to stack boxes on top of each other in an atmosphere which doesn’t allow for gravity. To say that only a sound system for anarchy could be found after we’ve actually figured out how nature really works would be defeatist. All good systems are in need of some real protestant work ethic, rather than dreams of utopic proportion that simply prove false. The vastness of universe is at once dizzying, awe inspiring and also offers a bounty of opportunities.
Angelique van Engelen is a freelance writer/researcher living in Amsterdam the Netherlands. She writes for www.contentclix.com and contributes to a writing ring http://clixyPlays.blogspot.com