You have my sympathy. I hope medical science advances before the deer kicks its way out of your chest.
More seriously, another fact that is being overlooked is the relative maturity of the two fields. As you say, medicine is one of the oldest sciences (though it didn't really get on a scientific footing until quite recently- engineering and architecture were already old by the time we stopped looking for imaginary "humors"). Computer technology has made incredible progress in the last fifty years because- it didn't exist 60 years ago. The gains that are made in the early days of a science, particularly a science that benefits from a mature scientific establishment around it, are always going to be huge. Look at the difference that medicine made in the early days; the discovery of germ theory and various anti-pathogen compounds (antibiotics, anti-malarials, etc.) literally changed the settlement patterns and population scale of the world around us. Life expectancy in the developed world rose in a generation or so from "most of you will die as infants" to "most of you will live until some of your major organs wear out". We demolished many childhood diseases and put an end (though perhaps only temporarily) to the era of plague-driven population boom and bust cycles in urban environments.
So what's happened since then? We got into the hard stuff. Things like cancer, where the biological circuitry that drives your own cells turns against you- and it can happen in a million different ways. Antibiotic resistant diseases. Degenerative disorders that can progress for years without external signs. And we're continuing to make progress; more sophisticated transplants, gene therapy, implanted technologies, etc. But it's slow, because, frankly, we've reached a more complex plain of problems. We smashed all the easy ones pretty quickly.
Computers and electronics are still in the early phase. They benefited from the fact that a number of allied fields (electrodynamics, manufacturing, materials science) were already much more mature when they got their start. The question is, will they continue to grow apace once they hit the regime where there's a whole lot more to it than 'refine, repeat' in order to keep squeezing out those Moore's law boosts? We're already seeing some indications that the game may be changing; as chips sizes approach quantum mechanical limits, computer tech is going to move into a new problem regime where things are going to get much, much more complicated. I would be very surprised if at that point electronics doesn't move into a more settled, mature phase of development, and away from the rapid growth that marked the 20th century.
... and the other question that immediately presents itself: when the partners involved in this deal lose interest after a couple years of lackluster sales, what will become of that nice device that you paid for- probably paid a lot for, given the "built in" subscription cost? Will you be able to load music onto it from other sources, or will it be bricked once the associated service is shut down?
You're thinking of translation in terms of human methodologies- learn the language-specific grammar and vocabulary of individual words- rather than as a mapping problem: map a sentence (which is often the smallest unit of language you care about) in one language into a sentence in another language. Machine learning applications have already made significant progress in this area, and with growing data sets and refinements in the algorithms, their ability to statistically "predict" what a sentence in one language should be mapped to in another language is growing quite a bit over time.
Peter Norvig, the AI researcher who supervised the creation the software for the Mars rover, is overseeing people doing this sort of work at Google. There are no individual human translators involved in their translation system; instead, you take the English language version of a web page, and compare it with the non-English language pages. Make a map- using contextual and structural clues in the document- to map from one language to the other. Repeat a gazillion times using the largest data set you can find (hint: Google's page cache- Norvig's stated reason for moving from NASA to Google was "they have all the data"), and statistically weight the mappings as you scan more and more data.
Is it perfect? Nope. But in quite a few cases, it's good enough. And it gets a little bit better every time someone, somewhere in the world, translates a web page into another language. While real-time speech translation a la Star Trek may be way out, I would expect to see significant strides made in the translation of text using these methods in the next couple decades.
No, because they're gibberish. All of this talk about Ashoka "evangelizing by the sword" is hot air that members of the Hindu nationalist movement started spewing in the 20th century. Historians can't prove, based on the epigraphical evidence, that Ashoka was actually Buddhist per se- his edicts speak in broad terms about the concept of Dharma generally, occasionally about Buddhism specifically, and mention providing support for a number of the religious groups that were active in India at the time, Buddhism being one of them. Buddhists mythologized Ashoka into being the model Buddhist king, but there's no historical evidence that the genteel Buddhist lay patron depicted in the Buddhist chronicles was a historical reality. There's even less evidence that Ashoka was some sort of a religious zealot who forced conversions on his subjects. In fact, we know from inscriptions that many of the kings in his dynasty were much bigger supporters of the Jain movement rather than Buddhism- how would there be such a movement around to support if Ashoka had been busy slaughtering and converting his non-Buddhist subjects?
The "exploitive conversions" thing is just silly- how exactly are we expected to judge the self-esteem of people described in brief, 2000 year old stanzas? Such a "strategy" is certainly never spelled out in any Buddhist or non-Buddhist source, which means that this idea originates with someone looking selectively at conversion tales recorded in the Buddhist canon and saying "oh, there's a pattern." There's no evidence for most of these conversions 1) that the specific individuals mentioned ever existed, except for a few kings, or 2) that the stories in question are representative of conversion patterns, rather than being specific examples selected to prove a point- not everyone who converted to Buddhism during the life of the Buddha had their conversion recorded in the sutras, only those whose conversion was marked by a specific novel teaching, or, presumably, those whose conversion was regarded as being an important "coup" by the assemblers of the early texts. If anything, a lot of scholars believe now that Buddhism spread primarily by becoming a religion that was popular with an early psuedo-middle class merchants and traders. These conversions are not particularly well represented in the Canon- likely because most of them occurred after the Buddha's era, and because the conversion of merchants was not regarded as being as positive an example as the conversion of kings and other notable figures.
In the case of the "fuzzy" boundary between Buddhism and Hinduism- that's quite a sinister interpretation to put on a process of religious assimilation and borrowing that's been going on- in both directions- for thousands of years. Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka shared temples and deities for many years before the current troubles- was that an attempt by one side or the other to "corrupt" or convert the other? Were the Indo-Greek images of the Buddha that came out of Gandhara an attempt to "trick" Buddhists into worshiping the Greek pantheon, or to trick Greeks into worshiping the Buddha? Hinduism and Buddhism have borrowed from each other and from local traditions as long as recorded history of them has existed- how otherwise to explain the proliferation of names and aspects of both Hindu and Buddhist deities, or the incorporation of local spirit practices into Buddhist rituals? The re-interpretation of stories and deities happens in every tradition, and its rarely ever a conscious effort at some sort of conversion or persuasion. By the Muslim invasion of India, Buddhism was likely already in decline- its popular strains having merged and blended with Hinduism, leaving a monastic institution that was likely out of touch with the common people. By the time the Mughals sacked the last of the great Buddhist universities and monasteries in India, there wasn't enough of a popular base among the regular people to restore them. Buddhism and Hinduism had blended back into each other- consider the be
Those are mostly monks because the gov't is scared to bash a bunch of monks protesting. Despite being isolated from most of the world even the most hard handed regime is scared of pictures of monks getting beaten:)
I imagine that they are more worried about what assaulting monks would do within the country, rather than outside. Within Theravada countries- Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc.- support for the Buddhist monastic institution is one of the traditional duties of government. As a result, it's also one of the most important ways that you can legitimize your power if you take over in a show of force. If you're taking care of Buddhism- building monasteries, sponsoring the ordination of young men, donating conspicuously to monks and temples- then you're fulfilling the role of a legitimate government. It's more important than making the trains run on time, and certainly more important than supporting human rights that have rarely been offered significant protection by any prior government.
In Cambodia, the Vietnamese-backed post-Khmer Rouge government started to face questions from locals about its legitimacy. It's response? Import Vietnamese-educated Khmer monks and re-establish the Cambodian sangha. Every government in SE Asia that has stepped away from its traditional role as protector and promoter of Buddhism has eventually reversed their decision in the face of unrest (except the Khmer Rouge, who were batshit insane). After a coup, there's almost always a conspicuous show of piety on the part of the new ruling party in order to help shore up their legitimacy.
Striking or shedding the blood of a monk- particularly if it's a senior monk, who might be popularly regarded as having achieved enlightenment- is one of the worst crimes imaginable in a Buddhist society. In scriptures, it's put on a level with murdering your own mother and father, or shedding the blood of the Buddha himself. It's certainly possible that Burmese police and grunts might refuse orders to fire on or otherwise attack monks. But just as importantly, ordering the killing of Buddhist monks means that the government is repudiating its duty to protect and promote the Sangha. Even if no pictures ever made it out to the West, knowledge of such attacks would spread inside Burma, and it will kick one of the legs out from under the ruling junta, which, despite previous abuses, has tried to position itself as a protector of Buddhism in order to justify its rule.
The Dali Lama ran close to a fascist regime in Nepal before the Chinese moved in, and instituted an almost fully fascist one.
Actually, the Dalai Lama was the nominal head of a medieval regime in Tibet. Though regents ruled in his place for most of his life prior to exile.
Critics are right to point out that Tibet was no land of milk and honey before the Chinese invasion. It also wasn't nearly as brutal and repressive as the Chinese would have you believe- for one thing, there wasn't enough centralization or technology in pre-invasion Tibet to have anything approaching a fascist state. There's also no compelling reason to believe that the "backwards-ness" of Tibet had much at all to do with its religious leadership; it's a resource-poor region (in terms of providing farming subsistence and a food surplus, necessary for a more complex society), land-locked, and communications with potential trade partners are disrupted by the ruggedness of the terrain and climate. For that matter, many more repressive religiously-backed regimes in the West made it out of the middle ages just fine- they just didn't do so at the point of a Chinese bayonet, and at the cost of 15% of their population.
Buddhism has its warts, as does any world-wide religion. Racist/chauvinists in Sri Lanka, war crime apologists in Japan, crooked monastic landlords in Tibet... What it also has is a strong history of non-violent resistance. The same technique employed by the monks in Burma- refusing to accept alms from government officials- is recorded in Buddhist scriptures that date back to the 3rd century AD. While acts of violence are certainly identifiable within Buddhist history and are sometimes condoned by local Buddhist leaders (there's never been any period of violence given universal sanction by international Buddhist leadership, Buddhism at the supra-national level being an entirely ad-hoc, voluntary arrangement), there is also an undeniable trend in the 20th Century of Buddhists- lay and monastic- acting as leaders in non-violent struggles for independence. Thich Nhat Hanh and Thich Quang Duc in Vietnam, the Dalai Lama and others in the Tibetan movement, the Burmese monks, the early Sri Lankan monks who opposed Western evangelism through writing and debate, the peace and reconciliation marches lead by Maha Goshananda in Cambodia...
If Buddhism is lately more associated with peace than other religions in the West, there is certainly a certain amount of starry-eyed idealism in that assessment. But, on balance, there's a grain of truth to it as well.
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m
on
Green Cars You Can't Buy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The US has one of the nastiest diesel supplies in the world- regulations on diesel here haven't kept pace with those on regular gasoline. As a result, our diesel supply has a much higher rates of contamination with sulfur and other impurities than diesel in the rest of the developed world. The poor quality of diesel fuel here results in higher emissions, and can play hell with some of the components of those nifty Eurodiesel engines. This, combined with the low quality of some of the consumer diesel autos sold in the 60-70's in the states have resulted in diesel's bad rap- you can't even buy new diesel autos legally in CA anymore. When some non-third world regulations on the diesel supply go into effect here in the states (which I think is in the works- a modest improvement, at least), then diesel may start to have a chance again.
Your absolutely correct on the pragmatics of the issue. This is clearly the best strategy for the Chinese government to take if they intend to keep control of Tibet. What most people would argue is that the moral issue here is the self-determination of a nation of people. The Tibetan people are culturally and linguistically distinct, and existed as an independent nation. Many Tibetans clearly wish to regain their independence, or at least to obtain assurances that their culture and traditions will be respected by the government.
The Dalai Lama has actually struck a much more conciliatory position than you ascribe to him in the years since his exile. First of all, his (or a future Dalai Lama) ruling the country in the fashion of the old kingdom is a non-starter- he himself was involved in organizing a government-in-exile independent of him and elected by Tibetan expats to represent the country. He has repeatedly stated in the last several years that his is not interested in seperating Tibet from China- let China manage the external affairs of the country, similar to the way Hong Kong now operates, while allowing Tibetans the same sort of local autonomy that China has been allowing to other 'Special' zones within the country. You'll notice that nearly ten years ago, the ICT and other organizations changed their slogan from 'Free Tibet' to 'Save Tibet'- indicating that preserving Tibetan language and culture is given a much higher priority than political independence, even if that means making permanent accommodations to China.
Finally, to say that only aristocrats and crooked monks lament the effect of China's invasion is a gross over-generalization. Yes, those groups had the most to loose. But there are plenty of ordinary Tibetans who are none too happy with the loss of their language, their religious institutions, and their national identity as a free nation.
Were conditions in Tibet before the Chinese invasion bad? Of course. It was a dirt-poor nation essentially stuck in the middle ages. The current (and immediately previous) Dalai Lama were interested in modernizing, and changing some of those conditions. Chinese investment has made material improvements in the lives of some, but those improvements tend to be concentrated in the hands of party loyalists. Much of Tibet's natural resources have been used to fuel growth in the rest of China; during the Great Leap Forward, Tibetans were allowed to starve while their agricultural output was sent back to the Chinese mainland, a pattern of exploitation of ethnic minorities that has been repeated many times by the PRC central government.
The number of Tibetans in Tibet has dropped by about 1/6th since the Chinese invasion, in the form of emigration to India and Nepal and deaths, due to starvation, executions, and military action. Forcible sterilizations have been carried out among ethnic Tibetans. The Tibetan language and traditional cultural expressions have been banned or strongly restricted. The sorts of cruel punishments carried out by medieval justice are still present, just updated in the form of electrocutions, torture, and beatings for individuals suspected of being linked with the independence movement, or showing reverence for the Dalai Lama. I think a lot of Tibetans would take their old medieval landlords over that- though even the medieval landlords themselves are now arguing for a democratic government.
I was wondering if someone might point that one out;)
Well, at least the Turkish government didn't try to take away the Turkish language. I mean, other than abandoning the old alphabet and replacing it with the new, incomprehensible one...
It's slightly more complex than that. The government of China has no interest in telling random Buddhists on the street that they can't reincarnate. What China wants to do is control certain institutions of Tibetan Buddhism (most notably, the Dalai Lama) where succession is through successive reincarnation.
The Dalai Lama dies. Afterwards, some monks read a prophecy he wrote- or some other instructions- and go off and find a kid who was born a while after he died. The kid is (eventually) recognized as the new Dalai Lama, according to various "tests" and supernatural means. The new kid moves into a big monastery/palace, where he is given a dual education in being a ruler and being a senior monk. Once the kid reaches their age of majority (15-16 or so), they take on their new full role as ruler and religious leader. They've been reared from their toddler-hood to believe that they are responsible for the well-being of the Tibetan people, and in the traditions of Tibetan culture and belief. A similar scenario applies for the senior-most positions of many of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, without the associated temporal power (though some of them were historically huge feudal landlords).
All of this contributes to these reincarnated leaders being a source of stability and continuity in Tibetan culture. The fact that these senior leaders won't roll over and toe the (Communist) party line has stuck in the craw of the Chinese ever since they invaded. They want collaborators, not independent religious leaders encouraging the formation of governments-in-exile. As long as new reincarnated teachers are selected and raised by loyal Tibetan Buddhists, that isn't going to be likely to happen. They want a new Dalai Lama who will stand in front of the Jokhang and tell Tibetans across the world that it is their duty as good Buddhists to stop all this clap-trap about preserving Tibetan culture and independence, and become good Chinese citizens. Start speaking Mandarin instead of Tibetan, and start saying 'thank you, it is a pleasure to serve the party' when a PRC official redirects all of your local food production to feed your 'brothers' in Beijing, as the PRC did during the Great Leap Forward.
I'm sure what they really want to control is recognition of a new incarnation. When a living tulku (reincarnated master/teacher) is nearing death, they traditionally make some sort of prophecy or predictions by which their next incarnation will be recognized. These are typically vague in the fashion of predictions everywhere ('a house with a pitched roof in the direction of the setting sun', not 'Tenzin Thompson, 1242 Yak Lane, Lhasa'), and once the current incarnation is dead a search is begun, typically by senior monks, either students of the previous teacher or otherwise ranking members of his/her sect. The 'search committee' finds some kids, and potentially administers tests to them (often in the form of having them select belongings of the deceased tulku from a collection of random odds and ends), and take likely looking candidates to visit people who knew the previous tulku, or who have a traditional duty/privilege in recognizing the new incarnation.
It's that last bit where it gets tricky. By custom, certain high monastic officials may have the final say in who is/isn't a new incarnation. Everyone doesn't always agree- look at the current case of the Karmapa. Having recognition from a high-ranking monastic (like the Dalai Lama) may help cement the claim. In any case, there are sometimes multiple claimants, and it takes a few years (or a generation) to sort things out.
China wants to give itself the final say in who is the reincarnation, and perhaps control over the selection committee that finds the candidate children. It did something similar with the Panchen Lama, but would like to extend the practice to all Tibetan tulku- most importantly, the selection of the next Dalai Lama. They would pick a child who would inevitably be spirited away to be raised by party officials and state-approved monks, who would teach them the ritual roles of the Dalai Lama along with a meaty helping of state propaganda. The PRC might even pick a Han Chinese child living in Tibet; Han immigration is a big issue in Tibet, with a lot of external rights groups agreeing that the PRC is essentially attempting to 'choke out' Tibetan culture by settling non-Tibetans in the region as fast as possible (ethnic Tibetans are now, I believe, a minority in most of Tibet- certainly in the larger towns and cities).
The biggest outcome of all this will be to 'muddy the water' regarding who is the real tulku. Tibetans will be presented with a state-approved figure, and expected to treat them as the real deal. Rival claimants will appear among the Tibetan diaspora. It is essentially an attempt to drive a wedge between the Tibetan people and their religion, and to splinter the exile and remaining resident Tibetan communities.
Of course, the Turkish government is not an occupying power hell-bent on destroying the language and culture of the Turkish people. The Chinese government, on the other hand, is only interested in Tibetan culture to the extent that it can be used to encourage the tourist trade. This is just the latest in a long series of moves by the PRC to attempt to squash Tibetan religion and culture; previous steps have included destroying monasteries and religious schools, forcing monks to renounce their vows, forbidding pictures of the Dalai Lama, language restrictions, etc.
This is also essentially the next round in the ongoing battle of what will happen to the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism once the current Dalai Lama dies. China wants the next DL to be a hand-picked puppet of the state who will lend legitimacy to Chinese rule in Tibet. At the very least, they would like to create a long-standing controversy over who the 'real' Dalai Lama is, as they've done with the Panchen Lama, in order to cast a shadow on a very visible and popular rallying point for the Tibetan preservation and independence movement.
It tells you absolutely zero about VMWare's ethics, and even less about the legal status of their product. They made a vague, far reaching marketing prediction that casts their product in a positive light. What on earth could that possibly tell you, other than that their marketing department consists of the same sort of people that work at every other tech company in the world?
I have a funny feeling that this is not nearly as aimed at 'tech savvy' people as you think. It would be a much more likely seller in smaller and rural communities where broadband penetration- and even the cable company- are not a significant presence. A 'tech savvy' person in a wired, urban area already has a lot of other viewing options: Netflix, local DVD rental shops, TiVO, digital cable, broadband media content (streaming video, audio downloads, pirated movies), etc. This sort of a product would more be in competition with satelite TV in low-density populations, where everyone has a POTS line and very few people have broadband. While some urbanites are ditching their land lines for cell-only, POTS is still ubiquitous and plenty of people outside of major urban centers continue to use it for their only Internet access.
If the product is a success with the target market, it will be dead simple to bring out an Ethernet or wireless capable version that can run over broadband, but there's no reason to be wading into already thickly infested waters for a product launch.
How do you know that that is why the government filed for the patent? It could instead be a defensive measure; the DOE doesn't want a private organization to build off of its research and then file their own patent, preventing a wider field from employing the technology. The DOE can file a patent to prevent this sort of abuse, and then decline to charge any licensing fee for companies or individuals that want to employ the technology. Doing it this way avoids future court battles over who gets to profit from the results of government research. It's all in how the patent is used. I imagine that there is some official government policy on how these things are done; I doubt that this is the first time that a government body has taken out a patent on new technology.
Oh sure, there are still uses for undergraduate libraries- but holding course packs for Core courses is the sort of thing that the new UT-style UG library could do without having to have a seperate collection of circulating books. I know a lot of people really like Lamont, but I always found- even for non-major courses- that it ended up being just one more stop on a long circuit around the campus libraries. Most of the books I wanted were usually in the Div library or Widener, but there was inevitably one or two that were in Lamont- meaning an extra stop, an extra line to stand in, yadda yadda yadda. So while some sort of undergraduate library or general academic building with language labs and the like might be useful, it's not clear that in a seperate circulating collection is necesary for undergraduates.
Plus, what was the deal with the climate control in Lamont? Like a sauna it was!
What they are talking about is not removing the books from the UT library system. What they are talking about is, basically, converting a single undergraduate library into a student center, because undergrad libraries are no longer necesary in most places.
See, back in the Bad Old Days, undergrads were sort of like roaches. You wanted them out of sight, and you certainly didn't want them anywhere important. So they weren't permitted in the stacks at university libraries. Instead, you filled out a form and gave it to a librarian, and they brought you the book you requested. Fill out the form wrong and get the wrong book? Fill out another form. All this to prevent those scalliwag undergrads from mussing the stacks.
In the 50's, Harvard had what was (at the time) a revolutionary idea: don't just keep undergrads out of the stacks- quarantine them! They built Lamont library, the nations first undergraduate library. The shelves were filled with the sort of intro-level books on topics that undergrads were likely to research for their classes. There was a recreational reading collection, and rooms for group study. The undergrads got to browse the books and had a place to gather. The grad school and departmental libraries didn't have to interact with undergrads. Everyone was happy.
Since those heady days, things have changed a bit. Many university systems have replaced cantankerous old librarians and card catalogues with computer-indexed search systems, and English majors employed part-time to damage the bar code scanner. Many schools have open stacks now, and have opened all their libraries to undergraduates. Furthermore, the growth of collections means that more and more a dedicated undergraduate library can't house all the books that an undergrad might need. Now you have your collection divided between the grab-bag of books in the undergrad collection, the in-depth books in the departmental or grad school collection, and the overflow books available by request from the warehouse featured in "Raiders of the Lost Arc".
In such a situation, some schools (apparently such as UT) have found that the undergrad library is more of a bother than a help as a library. Undergrads still go there to study, but increasingly the books that they want are in other parts of the library system; for books that might be useful to both undergraduates and grad students and faculty, you either have to duplicate efforts or force grads and faculty to wander over to the undergrad library. So there's a logical solution: convert the undergrad library to what it really is- a student center for undergrads, oriented somewhat around studying and writing papers- and move the books back into the general library system, which everyone is already using anyway.
This has little or nothing to do with "taking the books out of libraries" as near as I can tell. UT will still have its giant collection of real books that you can check out and read when the power goes out, or on a plane for 12 hours, or in the bathroom without your eyes bleeding and falling out of your head. They will continue to buy new books as they are published, and maintain the old collection. No need to push the bibliophile panic button just yet.
I'm not convinced that the people who include EULA's in their products even read them. There is clearly a lot of cutting and pasting that goes on. I find lots of bizarre threats about infringement and exclusivity attached to unsupported free products. One Eula had changed the warranty section to read: "by agreeing to this license, you are granted a warranty for a period of zero (0) days.", rather than just change the language to indicate that their was no warranty.
Best one I've seen so far: reading the EULA for a RPG dice rolling program, I find this:
Section 3.a.i: This software is a guitar utility. This is a learning tool.
A dice roller that teaches you to play the guitar? Now that's a feature!
There was a great article a few months back on taking a scientific, harm-management approach to accidental and unlawful gun deaths. Check it out here. Basically, the book being discussed advocates making simple, sensible changes to gun designs (such as making it impossible to fire the gun by pulling the trigger with the clip removed- the unknown 'one in the hole' being a source of many accidental shootings among children), and collecting more information on the circumstances of accidental or illegal shootings. While the author of the book seems to support strong gun laws, he's much more in favor of making intelligent design choices that neither impinge on people's 2nd Amendment Rights nor ignore the real dangers and real facts of gun ownership (such as the relative improbability of using a gun in a real self-defense situation, verses the chances of an accidental shooting). Smarter choices by consumers, manufacturors, and local governments can please gun control advocates by reducing gunn deaths, and serve gun owners by blunting the impetus for sweeping federal legislation, or uselessly overreaching local laws.
The NJ law seems like technological overkill. If they are looking to avoid accidental shootings by children, there are simpler, more reliable technologies available. Considering that the linked article looks suspiciously like a press release, I suspect that a smart lobbyist has gotten hold of someone's ear in the state capitol.
You're thinking of Jeet Kun Do. Jujitsu is the grappling art that (in various forms) forms the root of most forms of native mainland Japanese martial arts (but not the Okinawan ones, like karate, which have their roots in Chinese Kung Fu). Judo is a refinement of jujitsu to make a competition style out of it- the types of techniques are restricted, in order to reduce the likelihood that someone will be injured. It's now an olympic sport. Jeet kun do was the 'hybrid' form of martial arts that Bruce Lee developed before he bought the farm.
Obviously this is still the Beta, but the plan is to eventually make 5.2 the start of the production/stable branch. I imagine that the final decision won't be made until after 5.2 has been moved out of Beta and officially released for a while. . . while the testing and Beta period catches a lot of things, there are always bugs that only crop up under the heavier/more diverse use that a final, official release brings. I would wait until 5.2 has been in full release for a couple months, and watch the incoming bug reports to see if there is something that specifically affects you, and after that I'd deem it ready to move things to.
Actually, I believe it was the participants in the plot to overthrow Premier Mossadeq of Iran that were exposed. The shah was already in power at the time, and was essentially a puppet of the U.S. and Great Britain. Mossadeq was a very popularly elected official who was attempting to regain some control of Iran's destiny- mostly by removing the oil reserves that Britian had bought for a song (actually, they bribed the Shah with a variety of shiny things) from foreign control.
The U.S., of course, labeled this as 'communism' and began agitating to get Mossadeq dissmissed by the Shah. This included such charming acts of democracy as sending F.D.R's grandson (a CIA operative) out onto the streets of Tehran to hand out $50 bills to get Iranians to gather in front of the Shah's palace and demand Mossadeq's ouster. The Shah capitulated to the West and the "popular" demand, and Mossaeq was driven from office.
If you're ever curious why a bunch of extremist nuts that not even the Iranians like are running Iran, little anecdotes like this are a good start.
While Mossadeq is long gone, the PDF screw up may have exposed the families of the Iranian participants in the coup to a great deal of scrutiny if they were still living in Iran. It isn't healthy anywhere to be associated with someone who betrayed their country to a foreign interest, and moreso if you're living in Iran and the foreign government in question was the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
You have my sympathy. I hope medical science advances before the deer kicks its way out of your chest.
More seriously, another fact that is being overlooked is the relative maturity of the two fields. As you say, medicine is one of the oldest sciences (though it didn't really get on a scientific footing until quite recently- engineering and architecture were already old by the time we stopped looking for imaginary "humors"). Computer technology has made incredible progress in the last fifty years because- it didn't exist 60 years ago. The gains that are made in the early days of a science, particularly a science that benefits from a mature scientific establishment around it, are always going to be huge. Look at the difference that medicine made in the early days; the discovery of germ theory and various anti-pathogen compounds (antibiotics, anti-malarials, etc.) literally changed the settlement patterns and population scale of the world around us. Life expectancy in the developed world rose in a generation or so from "most of you will die as infants" to "most of you will live until some of your major organs wear out". We demolished many childhood diseases and put an end (though perhaps only temporarily) to the era of plague-driven population boom and bust cycles in urban environments.
So what's happened since then? We got into the hard stuff. Things like cancer, where the biological circuitry that drives your own cells turns against you- and it can happen in a million different ways. Antibiotic resistant diseases. Degenerative disorders that can progress for years without external signs. And we're continuing to make progress; more sophisticated transplants, gene therapy, implanted technologies, etc. But it's slow, because, frankly, we've reached a more complex plain of problems. We smashed all the easy ones pretty quickly.
Computers and electronics are still in the early phase. They benefited from the fact that a number of allied fields (electrodynamics, manufacturing, materials science) were already much more mature when they got their start. The question is, will they continue to grow apace once they hit the regime where there's a whole lot more to it than 'refine, repeat' in order to keep squeezing out those Moore's law boosts? We're already seeing some indications that the game may be changing; as chips sizes approach quantum mechanical limits, computer tech is going to move into a new problem regime where things are going to get much, much more complicated. I would be very surprised if at that point electronics doesn't move into a more settled, mature phase of development, and away from the rapid growth that marked the 20th century.
I've found that meth handles my nasal allergy symptoms quite nicely. It's also now easier to get than functioning decongestants.
Sudafed PE apparently stands for "placebo edition".
... and the other question that immediately presents itself: when the partners involved in this deal lose interest after a couple years of lackluster sales, what will become of that nice device that you paid for- probably paid a lot for, given the "built in" subscription cost? Will you be able to load music onto it from other sources, or will it be bricked once the associated service is shut down?
I'm not sure if you're serious, or if this is just the best Star Trek joke I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.
You're thinking of translation in terms of human methodologies- learn the language-specific grammar and vocabulary of individual words- rather than as a mapping problem: map a sentence (which is often the smallest unit of language you care about) in one language into a sentence in another language. Machine learning applications have already made significant progress in this area, and with growing data sets and refinements in the algorithms, their ability to statistically "predict" what a sentence in one language should be mapped to in another language is growing quite a bit over time.
Peter Norvig, the AI researcher who supervised the creation the software for the Mars rover, is overseeing people doing this sort of work at Google. There are no individual human translators involved in their translation system; instead, you take the English language version of a web page, and compare it with the non-English language pages. Make a map- using contextual and structural clues in the document- to map from one language to the other. Repeat a gazillion times using the largest data set you can find (hint: Google's page cache- Norvig's stated reason for moving from NASA to Google was "they have all the data"), and statistically weight the mappings as you scan more and more data.
Is it perfect? Nope. But in quite a few cases, it's good enough. And it gets a little bit better every time someone, somewhere in the world, translates a web page into another language. While real-time speech translation a la Star Trek may be way out, I would expect to see significant strides made in the translation of text using these methods in the next couple decades.
No, because they're gibberish. All of this talk about Ashoka "evangelizing by the sword" is hot air that members of the Hindu nationalist movement started spewing in the 20th century. Historians can't prove, based on the epigraphical evidence, that Ashoka was actually Buddhist per se- his edicts speak in broad terms about the concept of Dharma generally, occasionally about Buddhism specifically, and mention providing support for a number of the religious groups that were active in India at the time, Buddhism being one of them. Buddhists mythologized Ashoka into being the model Buddhist king, but there's no historical evidence that the genteel Buddhist lay patron depicted in the Buddhist chronicles was a historical reality. There's even less evidence that Ashoka was some sort of a religious zealot who forced conversions on his subjects. In fact, we know from inscriptions that many of the kings in his dynasty were much bigger supporters of the Jain movement rather than Buddhism- how would there be such a movement around to support if Ashoka had been busy slaughtering and converting his non-Buddhist subjects?
The "exploitive conversions" thing is just silly- how exactly are we expected to judge the self-esteem of people described in brief, 2000 year old stanzas? Such a "strategy" is certainly never spelled out in any Buddhist or non-Buddhist source, which means that this idea originates with someone looking selectively at conversion tales recorded in the Buddhist canon and saying "oh, there's a pattern." There's no evidence for most of these conversions 1) that the specific individuals mentioned ever existed, except for a few kings, or 2) that the stories in question are representative of conversion patterns, rather than being specific examples selected to prove a point- not everyone who converted to Buddhism during the life of the Buddha had their conversion recorded in the sutras, only those whose conversion was marked by a specific novel teaching, or, presumably, those whose conversion was regarded as being an important "coup" by the assemblers of the early texts. If anything, a lot of scholars believe now that Buddhism spread primarily by becoming a religion that was popular with an early psuedo-middle class merchants and traders. These conversions are not particularly well represented in the Canon- likely because most of them occurred after the Buddha's era, and because the conversion of merchants was not regarded as being as positive an example as the conversion of kings and other notable figures.
In the case of the "fuzzy" boundary between Buddhism and Hinduism- that's quite a sinister interpretation to put on a process of religious assimilation and borrowing that's been going on- in both directions- for thousands of years. Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka shared temples and deities for many years before the current troubles- was that an attempt by one side or the other to "corrupt" or convert the other? Were the Indo-Greek images of the Buddha that came out of Gandhara an attempt to "trick" Buddhists into worshiping the Greek pantheon, or to trick Greeks into worshiping the Buddha? Hinduism and Buddhism have borrowed from each other and from local traditions as long as recorded history of them has existed- how otherwise to explain the proliferation of names and aspects of both Hindu and Buddhist deities, or the incorporation of local spirit practices into Buddhist rituals? The re-interpretation of stories and deities happens in every tradition, and its rarely ever a conscious effort at some sort of conversion or persuasion. By the Muslim invasion of India, Buddhism was likely already in decline- its popular strains having merged and blended with Hinduism, leaving a monastic institution that was likely out of touch with the common people. By the time the Mughals sacked the last of the great Buddhist universities and monasteries in India, there wasn't enough of a popular base among the regular people to restore them. Buddhism and Hinduism had blended back into each other- consider the be
I imagine that they are more worried about what assaulting monks would do within the country, rather than outside. Within Theravada countries- Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc.- support for the Buddhist monastic institution is one of the traditional duties of government. As a result, it's also one of the most important ways that you can legitimize your power if you take over in a show of force. If you're taking care of Buddhism- building monasteries, sponsoring the ordination of young men, donating conspicuously to monks and temples- then you're fulfilling the role of a legitimate government. It's more important than making the trains run on time, and certainly more important than supporting human rights that have rarely been offered significant protection by any prior government.
In Cambodia, the Vietnamese-backed post-Khmer Rouge government started to face questions from locals about its legitimacy. It's response? Import Vietnamese-educated Khmer monks and re-establish the Cambodian sangha. Every government in SE Asia that has stepped away from its traditional role as protector and promoter of Buddhism has eventually reversed their decision in the face of unrest (except the Khmer Rouge, who were batshit insane). After a coup, there's almost always a conspicuous show of piety on the part of the new ruling party in order to help shore up their legitimacy.
Striking or shedding the blood of a monk- particularly if it's a senior monk, who might be popularly regarded as having achieved enlightenment- is one of the worst crimes imaginable in a Buddhist society. In scriptures, it's put on a level with murdering your own mother and father, or shedding the blood of the Buddha himself. It's certainly possible that Burmese police and grunts might refuse orders to fire on or otherwise attack monks. But just as importantly, ordering the killing of Buddhist monks means that the government is repudiating its duty to protect and promote the Sangha. Even if no pictures ever made it out to the West, knowledge of such attacks would spread inside Burma, and it will kick one of the legs out from under the ruling junta, which, despite previous abuses, has tried to position itself as a protector of Buddhism in order to justify its rule.
Actually, the Dalai Lama was the nominal head of a medieval regime in Tibet. Though regents ruled in his place for most of his life prior to exile.
Critics are right to point out that Tibet was no land of milk and honey before the Chinese invasion. It also wasn't nearly as brutal and repressive as the Chinese would have you believe- for one thing, there wasn't enough centralization or technology in pre-invasion Tibet to have anything approaching a fascist state. There's also no compelling reason to believe that the "backwards-ness" of Tibet had much at all to do with its religious leadership; it's a resource-poor region (in terms of providing farming subsistence and a food surplus, necessary for a more complex society), land-locked, and communications with potential trade partners are disrupted by the ruggedness of the terrain and climate. For that matter, many more repressive religiously-backed regimes in the West made it out of the middle ages just fine- they just didn't do so at the point of a Chinese bayonet, and at the cost of 15% of their population.
Buddhism has its warts, as does any world-wide religion. Racist/chauvinists in Sri Lanka, war crime apologists in Japan, crooked monastic landlords in Tibet... What it also has is a strong history of non-violent resistance. The same technique employed by the monks in Burma- refusing to accept alms from government officials- is recorded in Buddhist scriptures that date back to the 3rd century AD. While acts of violence are certainly identifiable within Buddhist history and are sometimes condoned by local Buddhist leaders (there's never been any period of violence given universal sanction by international Buddhist leadership, Buddhism at the supra-national level being an entirely ad-hoc, voluntary arrangement), there is also an undeniable trend in the 20th Century of Buddhists- lay and monastic- acting as leaders in non-violent struggles for independence. Thich Nhat Hanh and Thich Quang Duc in Vietnam, the Dalai Lama and others in the Tibetan movement, the Burmese monks, the early Sri Lankan monks who opposed Western evangelism through writing and debate, the peace and reconciliation marches lead by Maha Goshananda in Cambodia...
If Buddhism is lately more associated with peace than other religions in the West, there is certainly a certain amount of starry-eyed idealism in that assessment. But, on balance, there's a grain of truth to it as well.
The US has one of the nastiest diesel supplies in the world- regulations on diesel here haven't kept pace with those on regular gasoline. As a result, our diesel supply has a much higher rates of contamination with sulfur and other impurities than diesel in the rest of the developed world. The poor quality of diesel fuel here results in higher emissions, and can play hell with some of the components of those nifty Eurodiesel engines. This, combined with the low quality of some of the consumer diesel autos sold in the 60-70's in the states have resulted in diesel's bad rap- you can't even buy new diesel autos legally in CA anymore. When some non-third world regulations on the diesel supply go into effect here in the states (which I think is in the works- a modest improvement, at least), then diesel may start to have a chance again.
Your absolutely correct on the pragmatics of the issue. This is clearly the best strategy for the Chinese government to take if they intend to keep control of Tibet. What most people would argue is that the moral issue here is the self-determination of a nation of people. The Tibetan people are culturally and linguistically distinct, and existed as an independent nation. Many Tibetans clearly wish to regain their independence, or at least to obtain assurances that their culture and traditions will be respected by the government.
The Dalai Lama has actually struck a much more conciliatory position than you ascribe to him in the years since his exile. First of all, his (or a future Dalai Lama) ruling the country in the fashion of the old kingdom is a non-starter- he himself was involved in organizing a government-in-exile independent of him and elected by Tibetan expats to represent the country. He has repeatedly stated in the last several years that his is not interested in seperating Tibet from China- let China manage the external affairs of the country, similar to the way Hong Kong now operates, while allowing Tibetans the same sort of local autonomy that China has been allowing to other 'Special' zones within the country. You'll notice that nearly ten years ago, the ICT and other organizations changed their slogan from 'Free Tibet' to 'Save Tibet'- indicating that preserving Tibetan language and culture is given a much higher priority than political independence, even if that means making permanent accommodations to China.
Finally, to say that only aristocrats and crooked monks lament the effect of China's invasion is a gross over-generalization. Yes, those groups had the most to loose. But there are plenty of ordinary Tibetans who are none too happy with the loss of their language, their religious institutions, and their national identity as a free nation.
Were conditions in Tibet before the Chinese invasion bad? Of course. It was a dirt-poor nation essentially stuck in the middle ages. The current (and immediately previous) Dalai Lama were interested in modernizing, and changing some of those conditions. Chinese investment has made material improvements in the lives of some, but those improvements tend to be concentrated in the hands of party loyalists. Much of Tibet's natural resources have been used to fuel growth in the rest of China; during the Great Leap Forward, Tibetans were allowed to starve while their agricultural output was sent back to the Chinese mainland, a pattern of exploitation of ethnic minorities that has been repeated many times by the PRC central government.
The number of Tibetans in Tibet has dropped by about 1/6th since the Chinese invasion, in the form of emigration to India and Nepal and deaths, due to starvation, executions, and military action. Forcible sterilizations have been carried out among ethnic Tibetans. The Tibetan language and traditional cultural expressions have been banned or strongly restricted. The sorts of cruel punishments carried out by medieval justice are still present, just updated in the form of electrocutions, torture, and beatings for individuals suspected of being linked with the independence movement, or showing reverence for the Dalai Lama. I think a lot of Tibetans would take their old medieval landlords over that- though even the medieval landlords themselves are now arguing for a democratic government.
I was wondering if someone might point that one out ;)
Well, at least the Turkish government didn't try to take away the Turkish language. I mean, other than abandoning the old alphabet and replacing it with the new, incomprehensible one...
It's slightly more complex than that. The government of China has no interest in telling random Buddhists on the street that they can't reincarnate. What China wants to do is control certain institutions of Tibetan Buddhism (most notably, the Dalai Lama) where succession is through successive reincarnation.
The Dalai Lama dies. Afterwards, some monks read a prophecy he wrote- or some other instructions- and go off and find a kid who was born a while after he died. The kid is (eventually) recognized as the new Dalai Lama, according to various "tests" and supernatural means. The new kid moves into a big monastery/palace, where he is given a dual education in being a ruler and being a senior monk. Once the kid reaches their age of majority (15-16 or so), they take on their new full role as ruler and religious leader. They've been reared from their toddler-hood to believe that they are responsible for the well-being of the Tibetan people, and in the traditions of Tibetan culture and belief. A similar scenario applies for the senior-most positions of many of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, without the associated temporal power (though some of them were historically huge feudal landlords).
All of this contributes to these reincarnated leaders being a source of stability and continuity in Tibetan culture. The fact that these senior leaders won't roll over and toe the (Communist) party line has stuck in the craw of the Chinese ever since they invaded. They want collaborators, not independent religious leaders encouraging the formation of governments-in-exile. As long as new reincarnated teachers are selected and raised by loyal Tibetan Buddhists, that isn't going to be likely to happen. They want a new Dalai Lama who will stand in front of the Jokhang and tell Tibetans across the world that it is their duty as good Buddhists to stop all this clap-trap about preserving Tibetan culture and independence, and become good Chinese citizens. Start speaking Mandarin instead of Tibetan, and start saying 'thank you, it is a pleasure to serve the party' when a PRC official redirects all of your local food production to feed your 'brothers' in Beijing, as the PRC did during the Great Leap Forward.
I'm sure what they really want to control is recognition of a new incarnation. When a living tulku (reincarnated master/teacher) is nearing death, they traditionally make some sort of prophecy or predictions by which their next incarnation will be recognized. These are typically vague in the fashion of predictions everywhere ('a house with a pitched roof in the direction of the setting sun', not 'Tenzin Thompson, 1242 Yak Lane, Lhasa'), and once the current incarnation is dead a search is begun, typically by senior monks, either students of the previous teacher or otherwise ranking members of his/her sect. The 'search committee' finds some kids, and potentially administers tests to them (often in the form of having them select belongings of the deceased tulku from a collection of random odds and ends), and take likely looking candidates to visit people who knew the previous tulku, or who have a traditional duty/privilege in recognizing the new incarnation.
It's that last bit where it gets tricky. By custom, certain high monastic officials may have the final say in who is/isn't a new incarnation. Everyone doesn't always agree- look at the current case of the Karmapa. Having recognition from a high-ranking monastic (like the Dalai Lama) may help cement the claim. In any case, there are sometimes multiple claimants, and it takes a few years (or a generation) to sort things out.
China wants to give itself the final say in who is the reincarnation, and perhaps control over the selection committee that finds the candidate children. It did something similar with the Panchen Lama, but would like to extend the practice to all Tibetan tulku- most importantly, the selection of the next Dalai Lama. They would pick a child who would inevitably be spirited away to be raised by party officials and state-approved monks, who would teach them the ritual roles of the Dalai Lama along with a meaty helping of state propaganda. The PRC might even pick a Han Chinese child living in Tibet; Han immigration is a big issue in Tibet, with a lot of external rights groups agreeing that the PRC is essentially attempting to 'choke out' Tibetan culture by settling non-Tibetans in the region as fast as possible (ethnic Tibetans are now, I believe, a minority in most of Tibet- certainly in the larger towns and cities).
The biggest outcome of all this will be to 'muddy the water' regarding who is the real tulku. Tibetans will be presented with a state-approved figure, and expected to treat them as the real deal. Rival claimants will appear among the Tibetan diaspora. It is essentially an attempt to drive a wedge between the Tibetan people and their religion, and to splinter the exile and remaining resident Tibetan communities.
Of course, the Turkish government is not an occupying power hell-bent on destroying the language and culture of the Turkish people. The Chinese government, on the other hand, is only interested in Tibetan culture to the extent that it can be used to encourage the tourist trade. This is just the latest in a long series of moves by the PRC to attempt to squash Tibetan religion and culture; previous steps have included destroying monasteries and religious schools, forcing monks to renounce their vows, forbidding pictures of the Dalai Lama, language restrictions, etc.
This is also essentially the next round in the ongoing battle of what will happen to the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism once the current Dalai Lama dies. China wants the next DL to be a hand-picked puppet of the state who will lend legitimacy to Chinese rule in Tibet. At the very least, they would like to create a long-standing controversy over who the 'real' Dalai Lama is, as they've done with the Panchen Lama, in order to cast a shadow on a very visible and popular rallying point for the Tibetan preservation and independence movement.
It tells you absolutely zero about VMWare's ethics, and even less about the legal status of their product. They made a vague, far reaching marketing prediction that casts their product in a positive light. What on earth could that possibly tell you, other than that their marketing department consists of the same sort of people that work at every other tech company in the world?
I have a funny feeling that this is not nearly as aimed at 'tech savvy' people as you think. It would be a much more likely seller in smaller and rural communities where broadband penetration- and even the cable company- are not a significant presence. A 'tech savvy' person in a wired, urban area already has a lot of other viewing options: Netflix, local DVD rental shops, TiVO, digital cable, broadband media content (streaming video, audio downloads, pirated movies), etc. This sort of a product would more be in competition with satelite TV in low-density populations, where everyone has a POTS line and very few people have broadband. While some urbanites are ditching their land lines for cell-only, POTS is still ubiquitous and plenty of people outside of major urban centers continue to use it for their only Internet access.
If the product is a success with the target market, it will be dead simple to bring out an Ethernet or wireless capable version that can run over broadband, but there's no reason to be wading into already thickly infested waters for a product launch.
How do you know that that is why the government filed for the patent? It could instead be a defensive measure; the DOE doesn't want a private organization to build off of its research and then file their own patent, preventing a wider field from employing the technology. The DOE can file a patent to prevent this sort of abuse, and then decline to charge any licensing fee for companies or individuals that want to employ the technology. Doing it this way avoids future court battles over who gets to profit from the results of government research. It's all in how the patent is used. I imagine that there is some official government policy on how these things are done; I doubt that this is the first time that a government body has taken out a patent on new technology.
Oh sure, there are still uses for undergraduate libraries- but holding course packs for Core courses is the sort of thing that the new UT-style UG library could do without having to have a seperate collection of circulating books. I know a lot of people really like Lamont, but I always found- even for non-major courses- that it ended up being just one more stop on a long circuit around the campus libraries. Most of the books I wanted were usually in the Div library or Widener, but there was inevitably one or two that were in Lamont- meaning an extra stop, an extra line to stand in, yadda yadda yadda. So while some sort of undergraduate library or general academic building with language labs and the like might be useful, it's not clear that in a seperate circulating collection is necesary for undergraduates.
Plus, what was the deal with the climate control in Lamont? Like a sauna it was!
What they are talking about is not removing the books from the UT library system. What they are talking about is, basically, converting a single undergraduate library into a student center, because undergrad libraries are no longer necesary in most places.
See, back in the Bad Old Days, undergrads were sort of like roaches. You wanted them out of sight, and you certainly didn't want them anywhere important. So they weren't permitted in the stacks at university libraries. Instead, you filled out a form and gave it to a librarian, and they brought you the book you requested. Fill out the form wrong and get the wrong book? Fill out another form. All this to prevent those scalliwag undergrads from mussing the stacks.
In the 50's, Harvard had what was (at the time) a revolutionary idea: don't just keep undergrads out of the stacks- quarantine them! They built Lamont library, the nations first undergraduate library. The shelves were filled with the sort of intro-level books on topics that undergrads were likely to research for their classes. There was a recreational reading collection, and rooms for group study. The undergrads got to browse the books and had a place to gather. The grad school and departmental libraries didn't have to interact with undergrads. Everyone was happy.
Since those heady days, things have changed a bit. Many university systems have replaced cantankerous old librarians and card catalogues with computer-indexed search systems, and English majors employed part-time to damage the bar code scanner. Many schools have open stacks now, and have opened all their libraries to undergraduates. Furthermore, the growth of collections means that more and more a dedicated undergraduate library can't house all the books that an undergrad might need. Now you have your collection divided between the grab-bag of books in the undergrad collection, the in-depth books in the departmental or grad school collection, and the overflow books available by request from the warehouse featured in "Raiders of the Lost Arc".
In such a situation, some schools (apparently such as UT) have found that the undergrad library is more of a bother than a help as a library. Undergrads still go there to study, but increasingly the books that they want are in other parts of the library system; for books that might be useful to both undergraduates and grad students and faculty, you either have to duplicate efforts or force grads and faculty to wander over to the undergrad library. So there's a logical solution: convert the undergrad library to what it really is- a student center for undergrads, oriented somewhat around studying and writing papers- and move the books back into the general library system, which everyone is already using anyway.
This has little or nothing to do with "taking the books out of libraries" as near as I can tell. UT will still have its giant collection of real books that you can check out and read when the power goes out, or on a plane for 12 hours, or in the bathroom without your eyes bleeding and falling out of your head. They will continue to buy new books as they are published, and maintain the old collection. No need to push the bibliophile panic button just yet.
I'm not convinced that the people who include EULA's in their products even read them. There is clearly a lot of cutting and pasting that goes on. I find lots of bizarre threats about infringement and exclusivity attached to unsupported free products. One Eula had changed the warranty section to read: "by agreeing to this license, you are granted a warranty for a period of zero (0) days.", rather than just change the language to indicate that their was no warranty.
Best one I've seen so far: reading the EULA for a RPG dice rolling program, I find this:
Section 3.a.i: This software is a guitar utility. This is a learning tool.
A dice roller that teaches you to play the guitar? Now that's a feature!
The NJ law seems like technological overkill. If they are looking to avoid accidental shootings by children, there are simpler, more reliable technologies available. Considering that the linked article looks suspiciously like a press release, I suspect that a smart lobbyist has gotten hold of someone's ear in the state capitol.
You're thinking of Jeet Kun Do. Jujitsu is the grappling art that (in various forms) forms the root of most forms of native mainland Japanese martial arts (but not the Okinawan ones, like karate, which have their roots in Chinese Kung Fu). Judo is a refinement of jujitsu to make a competition style out of it- the types of techniques are restricted, in order to reduce the likelihood that someone will be injured. It's now an olympic sport. Jeet kun do was the 'hybrid' form of martial arts that Bruce Lee developed before he bought the farm.
Obviously this is still the Beta, but the plan is to eventually make 5.2 the start of the production/stable branch. I imagine that the final decision won't be made until after 5.2 has been moved out of Beta and officially released for a while. . . while the testing and Beta period catches a lot of things, there are always bugs that only crop up under the heavier/more diverse use that a final, official release brings. I would wait until 5.2 has been in full release for a couple months, and watch the incoming bug reports to see if there is something that specifically affects you, and after that I'd deem it ready to move things to.
Actually, I believe it was the participants in the plot to overthrow Premier Mossadeq of Iran that were exposed. The shah was already in power at the time, and was essentially a puppet of the U.S. and Great Britain. Mossadeq was a very popularly elected official who was attempting to regain some control of Iran's destiny- mostly by removing the oil reserves that Britian had bought for a song (actually, they bribed the Shah with a variety of shiny things) from foreign control.
The U.S., of course, labeled this as 'communism' and began agitating to get Mossadeq dissmissed by the Shah. This included such charming acts of democracy as sending F.D.R's grandson (a CIA operative) out onto the streets of Tehran to hand out $50 bills to get Iranians to gather in front of the Shah's palace and demand Mossadeq's ouster. The Shah capitulated to the West and the "popular" demand, and Mossaeq was driven from office.
If you're ever curious why a bunch of extremist nuts that not even the Iranians like are running Iran, little anecdotes like this are a good start.
While Mossadeq is long gone, the PDF screw up may have exposed the families of the Iranian participants in the coup to a great deal of scrutiny if they were still living in Iran. It isn't healthy anywhere to be associated with someone who betrayed their country to a foreign interest, and moreso if you're living in Iran and the foreign government in question was the U.S.