reading that, it becomes clear that the problem is that the Quebec system uses DC power transmission instead of the AC usually used.
I thought the same when I first read the article, but this is not the case. The transmission system is 735 kV AC. It was the eddy currents themselves that were DC. The Wikipedia article uses some funny comma placement, but you'll see further up that the system is definitely AC, except for a single high-voltage DC link that was completed much later.
So, after looking up what happened in Quebec, I'm left with the question - Why was only Quebec affected this way?
Quebec is situated on the Canadian shield, which is primarily composed of insulating igneous rock. Eddy currents generated by the fluctuating magnetic fields that would normally dissipate in the ground in other parts of the world were instead directed into the power system, where they caused overloads.
The Wikipedia article on the Quebec electricity system for a slightly more detailed discussion.
I'll try and give a simplified version of the idea from my understanding of the article.
First, let me say this is extremely subtle stuff. I won't claim to understand it with even passing familiarity. But the summary and the article (which is a summary of a research paper) give enough clues to provide an educated guess.
Part of quantum mechanics involves the idea that some kinds of measurements are incompatible. For example, the famous Heisenberg principle says you can't make a measurement on a particle's position and velocity and get accurate measurements for each. If you make a measurement on position you'll get a result, and a physicist would then say that the particle is in a quantum state that has a well-defined position operator (actually he'd say that the particle is in an eigenstate of the position operator). You could make the measurement a second time, and you'd get the same position. Ditto for the third, fourth, etc time as well.
If you now go and try and measure velocity (momentum actually), you will also get a result. A physicist would write that particle is now in a quantum state with a well-defined momentum operator. Here's the catch: if you then go back and try to measure the particle's position again, you'll get a random result. It isn't possible to get a quantum state that has both position and momentum operators being well-defined.
Some kinds of operators are compatible, though. For those with some quantum mechanics knowledge, it would be possible to simultaneously measure the total magnetic spin of a particle (S^2) and the spin component along one axis (Sz). The mathies would talk about Hilbert spaces and diagonalizable matrices, but for our purposes we'll just say that the quantum state has several well defined operators.
So...my (limited) understanding of the paper is that the authors propose encoding a set of mathematical axiom by setting a particle into a quantum eigenstate that admits multiple well-defined operators, with each separate operator corresponding to a particular mathematical axiom.
If a particular mathematical proposition is compatible with the given set of axioms, it will then be associated with a well-defined quantum operator of the particle. Making a measurement would then give the same answer each time (like measuring position over and over). But, if the proposition were undecidable, then the quantum operator would not be well-defined, and the measurement would produce a different (random) result each time.
Actually implementing such a system would be another question entirely but, like so much of quantum mechanics, it does pose interesting thought experiments.
For those of us who trust that this is something that matters, but aren't nerdy enough to understand. What is the problem that the experts were being consulted about?
The EeePC comes with a variant of the GNU/Linux operating system, but it's a very bad one: it contains lots of non-free software. In fact, the machine demands that the user agree to an EULA before it will even start up. I received an EeePC as a gift, but I could not run it because my conscience will not let me agree to the EULA. Finally, I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used.
Does anyone else find it strange that he couldn't (or wouldn't) install Linux on the machine by himself? Why exactly does he need a friend to do that?
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
It's tough to believe but there just isn't enough waste to cut, at least not the easy kind. The federal deficit is projected to be $438 billion this year, and that was before the government started the massive bank bailouts. Combine that with deferred infrastructure maintenance and the baby boom starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare and things are not good.
Even if all pork were cut from House bills, it's still not enough to balance the budget. It's fun to talk about cutting a bridge to nowhere, but these kinds of numbers are going to require both serious spending cuts and higher taxes.
Higher taxes, cuts to major spending areas (military and civilian) as well as cuts to entitlement programs are going to happen, regardless of who gets in office.
That statement is simply false. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service.
I think it is more important for networks not to discriminate based on who sends the data, rather than how much they pay. It is certainly possible to have network neutrality even with tiered service.
In the real world, the post office is regarded as a common carrier but has still varying classes of mail (standard, priority post, next day service, etc). It is regarded as a neutral carrier because it doesn't discriminate based on who is sending the material. My letter being sent by priority post is treated no worse than one being sent by a major corporation.
For instance, if you orbit the earth every 90 minutes, you experience a very short day. If you are Muslim, how does that effect praying 5 times a day (every 18 minutes!). And what about direction?...In a related vein, can devout Jews use thrusters (light a fire) on the Sabbath?
As for whether Jews can use thrusters on the Sabbath, my guess is that you can provided you don't actually go where you want to. That was the position of my friend's rabbi about moving household furniture around the living room on the Sabbath.
Even for Slashdot, this is an overreaction. This is nothing more or less than a country having a law on the books that, read literally, applies to a situation that nobody envisioned when the law was originally written.
When you read the law in question, it was meant to regulate satellite operators from giving space images of sensitive American installations to not-so-friendly people. Seems pretty reasonable not to want the ABC Satellite Company to give high resolution images of military facilities to the Russians and Chinese, doesn't it? Unfortunately the way it was drafted it also applies to space tourists.
The law isn't stupid, it's just broader than anyone realized at the time Stupidity would be actually prosecuting anyone for taking a few snapshots out the spacecraft window without a license.
My hometown still has a law on the books that cars aren't allowed to scare the horses travelling down Main Street. Anyone want to get up in arms about that one while we're at it?
The patent you link to uses paper as the substrate material for the transistor. In layman's terms, the paper in that article simply provides structural stability transistor on the paper surface. In some sense, the paper in that device could be replaced by a silicon wafer, a plank of wood or some concrete--it just keeps everything together.
The new work has the paper providing not only structural stability but also acting as the insulator for the FET. Usually the insulator would be silicon dioxide, a high-k dielectric or some new-fangled polymer for organic transistors. These guys have managed to embed the remaining transistor components on both sides of a sheet of paper and have the used the insulating properties of the paper as an integral part of the transistor.
All jokes about smart toilet paper aside, this is big-league stuff. These guys managed to engineer electronics using stuff that really does grow on trees.
Any other big multigazillion dollar companies with a few billion to spend who want a chip manufacturer? I'd say IBM, but their interests seem to be elsewhere.
If AMD goes under, I'd bet the Chinese would take a crack at it. Being in such an important industry, government support for a multi-year development effort isn't out of the question.
If there were no copyright of software, RMS would have never needed to create the GPL to begin with.
If there were no copyright, the GPL would still be required to guarantee access to source code. A world free of copyright would be full of closed-source programs, we'd just be able to distribute them. Good luck in trying to do bug fixes though.
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
Some years ago I remember reading an article that argued that Microsoft should dump Windows and shift to Linux. Specifically it argued that MS should code the Windows desktop as a window interface running on top of a Linux core. At the time I dismissed it as the ravings of a Linux fan, but I wonder more and more if there isn't some value in the argument.
Findlaw did an interesting legal commentary on the lawsuit (by an actual lawyer, no less), located at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20080428.html. I provide a summary (in my best fair-use language) below.
It seems there are four issues that are looked at in cases where fair use exceptions are claimed as a defense: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the portion of material used in relation to the original work and finally the effect on the potential market.
The author of the article wrote that typically in analysis of the purpose and character of use, the derivative work involves some extension or transformation. There isn't likely to be much in a lexicon or encyclopedia, so this should cut in favour of Rowling. The author did point out that an analysis of mistakes and plot inconsistencies would involve substantial extension and so could well have a valid defense
With regards to the nature of the copyrighted work, Rowling's books are original pieces of writing (although perhaps not great literature). This is the kind of stuff that copyright is meant to defend, so this is likely to cut in Rowling's favour also.
The article argues that it is the final two issues that the lexicon's author may have traction on. The amount and importance of the portion of work used seems to be the X-factor. The lexicon will no doubt copy a significant amount of material from the Rowling originals but use it in small pieces and put it in a completely context. The author figured this would break on a judge-by-judge basis. One that read the copyright act literally would fall in favour of Rowling, while a judge considering the overall purpose would not.
Finally there was the question of the effect on the potential market. Certainly a lexicon would damage sales of an official Rowling lexicon, but the author felt (and I would agree) that a Rowling original would likely be a bigger draw for readership. Rowling has access to more material than anyone, and her encyclopedia would likely be a better piece of work for a collector. The author figured that Rowling's claim here was weak.
All-in-all, it sounded like who gets selected as judge would play a major role in the result. It is possible that some uses may be fine (a detailed analysis of inconsistencies and mistakes, for example) while other uses may have to be deleted (e.g. an encyclopedic or dictionary-type use).
Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.
It is common practice in many scientific disciplines to publish a preprint of work before it is submitted for publication. This has the advantage of rapidly disseminating advances to the scientific community and to the world at large, since it's a public server. In the case of work in competitive fields, posting a preprint helps establish priority in who did what first.
Because it's not peer reviewed and the preprint server is open to all, preprints must be taken with a grain of salt. Their value depends largely on the author's reputation within the scientific community. If the person who published this work is known to have produced good work in the past and/or works with those who have produced reliable work, the report within the preprint is generally taken at face value.
Ah but what businesses, and jobs, will be created? TFA says 2.4 million jobs will be created but it does not name 1 job. All it is really about is money saved and not jobs created. Then again the study itself does not say what jobs wll be created.
I doubt anyone can really tell you what kind of jobs will be created, in much the same way that few could have predicted the ways that the post-war building of the interstate system would affect things. But we have an expanded tourism industry, next-day courier delivery, the ability to transport fresh foods rapidly, an enormous auto industry, etc, all of which benefit from access to a reliable transportation system.
I think it's an act of faith that expansion of the communications system will lead to jobs, very much a "build it and they will come" kind of thing. But history shows that large scale infrastructure projects do lead to new jobs and productivity enhancements. Consider the railroad, the telegraph system, the interstates, the telephone network, air transportation, to name a few. There doesn't seem to be much reason to say that this time is different and there won't be any benefits.
One thing you cannot say for the GPL is that it is ambiguous. While there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there, the document states in pretty clear terms what its intent it.
Recently I attended a seminar given by the Chief Council of a technology company. He was addressing the legalities of open-source and free software and, as you might expect, the topic of the legality of the GPL came up. During the talk, he commented that the GPL was generally a solid license, but had some unknowns that made it tough for a lawyer.
After the talk I asked him to elaborate a little on this point, specifically asking under what conditions he would actually advise a client to litigate against a GPL claim. He responded that the issue of dynamic linking against GPL software is a significant unknown. While the FSF has a position on the subject, it is not addressed in the GPL, there is little or no case law on the subject and there are differing opinions within the software developer community on the subject.
I was a little surprised to see artificial insemination in the list of technologies, though. My understanding is that the church's position on abortion and birth control stemmed from the sanctity of life. Artificial insemination would seem to be perfectly compatible with this idea, so I'd be interested to see what the argument against it was.
Having said that, being uncomfortable with some of the advances in biosciences not new, nor is it unique to Catholics. I think many people, and not just the religious types, would be uncomfortable with some of these issues. Actually, given the potential of some of these technologies, I'd be disturbed if people weren't at least a little uncomfortable. While I hardly think it rises to the level of an affront to human dignity, the issue is important enough that having the debate is worthwhile.
This seems quite counter-intuitive. Look at all countries on the Earth and compare two variables: birth rate vs. energy consumption. I think you'll find that population growth has little need for energy, as long as you can produce enough food. Food is all solar powered, and we keep improving food production technologies.
Food production is strongly dependent on fossil fuels. One of the largest uses of worldwide oil production goes into producing the fertilizers that provide for the levels of farming that the world's population requires. When we run out of oil, we also run out of fertilizer.
While silicon wafers in principle could be recycled, silicon computer chips can't be. In a typical fabrication process, silicon is coated and exposed to a variety of other contaminants that can't be easily removed. Dopants like arsenic and phosphorous, dielectric coatings like silicon and hafnium oxides, plus a variety of metals for connections would all have to be removed from the chip before silicon could be thrown back into the melt. It's just not worth it for such a small amount of silicon.
Finding a paragraph like this in a research paper makes me call into question the motives and intentions of the 'researchers.' They seems sort of like the Jerry Springer of research (since he's just trying to help the families he has on his show...).
It's clear you didn't read the paper. To be sure, the quoted paragraph did appear in the paper, which of course was selected for the summary because it was the most interesting. The full paper is 24 pages of substantially heavier research and analysis. The paragraph in question was actually towards the end of the paper in a 'case study' section indicating what kind of information might be plausibly derived from an anonymity attack against the NetFlix database.
Also in the paper are one lemma, five theorems, a discussion thereof, a presentation and discussion of the the de-anonymizing algorithm, along with an interesting discussion of spareness within the original Netflix database (i.e. how similar are records from two different people).
I have never understood why we have turkey at Christmas (I'm a UKian not an American so I don't do thanks giving but it applies), it's a very poor meat and far too large for the average family, so how come we do it?
This very topic merited an article over at http://www.slate.com/id/2178388/nav/fix/. Poultry was popular in general because the cows had economic value (milk and labour) beyond that of birds. Pork or ham was common, but not considered fit for special events. Chicken hens were valuable for their eggs and rooster was too tough. Turkey had the advantage that birds that hatched in the spring would have grown to about 10 pounds by Thanksgiving, which was important because it was large enough to feed a big family.
Slashdot Mirror
reading that, it becomes clear that the problem is that the Quebec system uses DC power transmission instead of the AC usually used.
I thought the same when I first read the article, but this is not the case. The transmission system is 735 kV AC. It was the eddy currents themselves that were DC. The Wikipedia article uses some funny comma placement, but you'll see further up that the system is definitely AC, except for a single high-voltage DC link that was completed much later.
So, after looking up what happened in Quebec, I'm left with the question - Why was only Quebec affected this way?
Quebec is situated on the Canadian shield, which is primarily composed of insulating igneous rock. Eddy currents generated by the fluctuating magnetic fields that would normally dissipate in the ground in other parts of the world were instead directed into the power system, where they caused overloads.
The Wikipedia article on the Quebec electricity system for a slightly more detailed discussion.
First, let me say this is extremely subtle stuff. I won't claim to understand it with even passing familiarity. But the summary and the article (which is a summary of a research paper) give enough clues to provide an educated guess.
Part of quantum mechanics involves the idea that some kinds of measurements are incompatible. For example, the famous Heisenberg principle says you can't make a measurement on a particle's position and velocity and get accurate measurements for each. If you make a measurement on position you'll get a result, and a physicist would then say that the particle is in a quantum state that has a well-defined position operator (actually he'd say that the particle is in an eigenstate of the position operator). You could make the measurement a second time, and you'd get the same position. Ditto for the third, fourth, etc time as well.
If you now go and try and measure velocity (momentum actually), you will also get a result. A physicist would write that particle is now in a quantum state with a well-defined momentum operator. Here's the catch: if you then go back and try to measure the particle's position again, you'll get a random result. It isn't possible to get a quantum state that has both position and momentum operators being well-defined.
Some kinds of operators are compatible, though. For those with some quantum mechanics knowledge, it would be possible to simultaneously measure the total magnetic spin of a particle (S^2) and the spin component along one axis (Sz). The mathies would talk about Hilbert spaces and diagonalizable matrices, but for our purposes we'll just say that the quantum state has several well defined operators.
So...my (limited) understanding of the paper is that the authors propose encoding a set of mathematical axiom by setting a particle into a quantum eigenstate that admits multiple well-defined operators, with each separate operator corresponding to a particular mathematical axiom.
If a particular mathematical proposition is compatible with the given set of axioms, it will then be associated with a well-defined quantum operator of the particle. Making a measurement would then give the same answer each time (like measuring position over and over). But, if the proposition were undecidable, then the quantum operator would not be well-defined, and the measurement would produce a different (random) result each time.
Actually implementing such a system would be another question entirely but, like so much of quantum mechanics, it does pose interesting thought experiments.
For those of us who trust that this is something that matters, but aren't nerdy enough to understand. What is the problem that the experts were being consulted about?
The EeePC comes with a variant of the GNU/Linux operating system, but it's a very bad one: it contains lots of non-free software. In fact, the machine demands that the user agree to an EULA before it will even start up. I received an EeePC as a gift, but I could not run it because my conscience will not let me agree to the EULA. Finally, I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used.
Does anyone else find it strange that he couldn't (or wouldn't) install Linux on the machine by himself? Why exactly does he need a friend to do that?
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
It's tough to believe but there just isn't enough waste to cut, at least not the easy kind. The federal deficit is projected to be $438 billion this year, and that was before the government started the massive bank bailouts. Combine that with deferred infrastructure maintenance and the baby boom starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare and things are not good.
Even if all pork were cut from House bills, it's still not enough to balance the budget. It's fun to talk about cutting a bridge to nowhere, but these kinds of numbers are going to require both serious spending cuts and higher taxes.
Higher taxes, cuts to major spending areas (military and civilian) as well as cuts to entitlement programs are going to happen, regardless of who gets in office.
That statement is simply false. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service.
I think it is more important for networks not to discriminate based on who sends the data, rather than how much they pay. It is certainly possible to have network neutrality even with tiered service.
In the real world, the post office is regarded as a common carrier but has still varying classes of mail (standard, priority post, next day service, etc). It is regarded as a neutral carrier because it doesn't discriminate based on who is sending the material. My letter being sent by priority post is treated no worse than one being sent by a major corporation.
For instance, if you orbit the earth every 90 minutes, you experience a very short day. If you are Muslim, how does that effect praying 5 times a day (every 18 minutes!). And what about direction?...In a related vein, can devout Jews use thrusters (light a fire) on the Sabbath?
Questions related to Muslims in space were considered when Saudi Arabia sent its first man off-planet. See http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/mecca_in_orbit.
As for whether Jews can use thrusters on the Sabbath, my guess is that you can provided you don't actually go where you want to. That was the position of my friend's rabbi about moving household furniture around the living room on the Sabbath.
Even for Slashdot, this is an overreaction. This is nothing more or less than a country having a law on the books that, read literally, applies to a situation that nobody envisioned when the law was originally written.
When you read the law in question, it was meant to regulate satellite operators from giving space images of sensitive American installations to not-so-friendly people. Seems pretty reasonable not to want the ABC Satellite Company to give high resolution images of military facilities to the Russians and Chinese, doesn't it? Unfortunately the way it was drafted it also applies to space tourists.
The law isn't stupid, it's just broader than anyone realized at the time Stupidity would be actually prosecuting anyone for taking a few snapshots out the spacecraft window without a license.
My hometown still has a law on the books that cars aren't allowed to scare the horses travelling down Main Street. Anyone want to get up in arms about that one while we're at it?
The patent you link to uses paper as the substrate material for the transistor. In layman's terms, the paper in that article simply provides structural stability transistor on the paper surface. In some sense, the paper in that device could be replaced by a silicon wafer, a plank of wood or some concrete--it just keeps everything together.
The new work has the paper providing not only structural stability but also acting as the insulator for the FET. Usually the insulator would be silicon dioxide, a high-k dielectric or some new-fangled polymer for organic transistors. These guys have managed to embed the remaining transistor components on both sides of a sheet of paper and have the used the insulating properties of the paper as an integral part of the transistor.
All jokes about smart toilet paper aside, this is big-league stuff. These guys managed to engineer electronics using stuff that really does grow on trees.
Any other big multigazillion dollar companies with a few billion to spend who want a chip manufacturer? I'd say IBM, but their interests seem to be elsewhere.
If AMD goes under, I'd bet the Chinese would take a crack at it. Being in such an important industry, government support for a multi-year development effort isn't out of the question.
If there were no copyright of software, RMS would have never needed to create the GPL to begin with.
If there were no copyright, the GPL would still be required to guarantee access to source code. A world free of copyright would be full of closed-source programs, we'd just be able to distribute them. Good luck in trying to do bug fixes though.
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
Some years ago I remember reading an article that argued that Microsoft should dump Windows and shift to Linux. Specifically it argued that MS should code the Windows desktop as a window interface running on top of a Linux core. At the time I dismissed it as the ravings of a Linux fan, but I wonder more and more if there isn't some value in the argument.
Findlaw did an interesting legal commentary on the lawsuit (by an actual lawyer, no less), located at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20080428.html. I provide a summary (in my best fair-use language) below.
It seems there are four issues that are looked at in cases where fair use exceptions are claimed as a defense: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the portion of material used in relation to the original work and finally the effect on the potential market.
The author of the article wrote that typically in analysis of the purpose and character of use, the derivative work involves some extension or transformation. There isn't likely to be much in a lexicon or encyclopedia, so this should cut in favour of Rowling. The author did point out that an analysis of mistakes and plot inconsistencies would involve substantial extension and so could well have a valid defense
With regards to the nature of the copyrighted work, Rowling's books are original pieces of writing (although perhaps not great literature). This is the kind of stuff that copyright is meant to defend, so this is likely to cut in Rowling's favour also.
The article argues that it is the final two issues that the lexicon's author may have traction on. The amount and importance of the portion of work used seems to be the X-factor. The lexicon will no doubt copy a significant amount of material from the Rowling originals but use it in small pieces and put it in a completely context. The author figured this would break on a judge-by-judge basis. One that read the copyright act literally would fall in favour of Rowling, while a judge considering the overall purpose would not.
Finally there was the question of the effect on the potential market. Certainly a lexicon would damage sales of an official Rowling lexicon, but the author felt (and I would agree) that a Rowling original would likely be a bigger draw for readership. Rowling has access to more material than anyone, and her encyclopedia would likely be a better piece of work for a collector. The author figured that Rowling's claim here was weak.
All-in-all, it sounded like who gets selected as judge would play a major role in the result. It is possible that some uses may be fine (a detailed analysis of inconsistencies and mistakes, for example) while other uses may have to be deleted (e.g. an encyclopedic or dictionary-type use).
Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.
It is common practice in many scientific disciplines to publish a preprint of work before it is submitted for publication. This has the advantage of rapidly disseminating advances to the scientific community and to the world at large, since it's a public server. In the case of work in competitive fields, posting a preprint helps establish priority in who did what first.
Because it's not peer reviewed and the preprint server is open to all, preprints must be taken with a grain of salt. Their value depends largely on the author's reputation within the scientific community. If the person who published this work is known to have produced good work in the past and/or works with those who have produced reliable work, the report within the preprint is generally taken at face value.
...George Bush is demanding to know why nobody thought of this before invading Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction.
Ah but what businesses, and jobs, will be created? TFA says 2.4 million jobs will be created but it does not name 1 job. All it is really about is money saved and not jobs created. Then again the study itself does not say what jobs wll be created.
I doubt anyone can really tell you what kind of jobs will be created, in much the same way that few could have predicted the ways that the post-war building of the interstate system would affect things. But we have an expanded tourism industry, next-day courier delivery, the ability to transport fresh foods rapidly, an enormous auto industry, etc, all of which benefit from access to a reliable transportation system.
I think it's an act of faith that expansion of the communications system will lead to jobs, very much a "build it and they will come" kind of thing. But history shows that large scale infrastructure projects do lead to new jobs and productivity enhancements. Consider the railroad, the telegraph system, the interstates, the telephone network, air transportation, to name a few. There doesn't seem to be much reason to say that this time is different and there won't be any benefits.
One thing you cannot say for the GPL is that it is ambiguous. While there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there, the document states in pretty clear terms what its intent it.
Recently I attended a seminar given by the Chief Council of a technology company. He was addressing the legalities of open-source and free software and, as you might expect, the topic of the legality of the GPL came up. During the talk, he commented that the GPL was generally a solid license, but had some unknowns that made it tough for a lawyer.
After the talk I asked him to elaborate a little on this point, specifically asking under what conditions he would actually advise a client to litigate against a GPL claim. He responded that the issue of dynamic linking against GPL software is a significant unknown. While the FSF has a position on the subject, it is not addressed in the GPL, there is little or no case law on the subject and there are differing opinions within the software developer community on the subject.
I was a little surprised to see artificial insemination in the list of technologies, though. My understanding is that the church's position on abortion and birth control stemmed from the sanctity of life. Artificial insemination would seem to be perfectly compatible with this idea, so I'd be interested to see what the argument against it was.
Having said that, being uncomfortable with some of the advances in biosciences not new, nor is it unique to Catholics. I think many people, and not just the religious types, would be uncomfortable with some of these issues. Actually, given the potential of some of these technologies, I'd be disturbed if people weren't at least a little uncomfortable. While I hardly think it rises to the level of an affront to human dignity, the issue is important enough that having the debate is worthwhile.
if (WindowsUser)
return (true);
This seems quite counter-intuitive. Look at all countries on the Earth and compare two variables: birth rate vs. energy consumption. I think you'll find that population growth has little need for energy, as long as you can produce enough food. Food is all solar powered, and we keep improving food production technologies.
Food production is strongly dependent on fossil fuels. One of the largest uses of worldwide oil production goes into producing the fertilizers that provide for the levels of farming that the world's population requires. When we run out of oil, we also run out of fertilizer.
Does this mean we'll have to replace the premise of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?"
While silicon wafers in principle could be recycled, silicon computer chips can't be. In a typical fabrication process, silicon is coated and exposed to a variety of other contaminants that can't be easily removed. Dopants like arsenic and phosphorous, dielectric coatings like silicon and hafnium oxides, plus a variety of metals for connections would all have to be removed from the chip before silicon could be thrown back into the melt. It's just not worth it for such a small amount of silicon.
Finding a paragraph like this in a research paper makes me call into question the motives and intentions of the 'researchers.' They seems sort of like the Jerry Springer of research (since he's just trying to help the families he has on his show...).
It's clear you didn't read the paper. To be sure, the quoted paragraph did appear in the paper, which of course was selected for the summary because it was the most interesting. The full paper is 24 pages of substantially heavier research and analysis. The paragraph in question was actually towards the end of the paper in a 'case study' section indicating what kind of information might be plausibly derived from an anonymity attack against the NetFlix database.
Also in the paper are one lemma, five theorems, a discussion thereof, a presentation and discussion of the the de-anonymizing algorithm, along with an interesting discussion of spareness within the original Netflix database (i.e. how similar are records from two different people).
I have never understood why we have turkey at Christmas (I'm a UKian not an American so I don't do thanks giving but it applies), it's a very poor meat and far too large for the average family, so how come we do it?
This very topic merited an article over at http://www.slate.com/id/2178388/nav/fix/. Poultry was popular in general because the cows had economic value (milk and labour) beyond that of birds. Pork or ham was common, but not considered fit for special events. Chicken hens were valuable for their eggs and rooster was too tough. Turkey had the advantage that birds that hatched in the spring would have grown to about 10 pounds by Thanksgiving, which was important because it was large enough to feed a big family.