• London’s Shame Frame By Frame

Pretty cool time-accelerated map of tube disruptions.

• NYTimes: France Wins Fusion Bid
• BugMeNot

Bypass Compulsory Web Registration

SCOTUSblog is reporting that the decision in MGM v. Grokster has gone in MGM’s favour.

The judge announced that

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties

The key phrase here seems to be “clear expression or other affirmative steps”. The impact I’d be most worried about is that from now on every software developer involved in media-related software will have to spend time and money making sure that his software does not take ‘affirmative steps’ to promote infringement. This could prove difficult, especially considering the vagueness of the language used.

This will put up the cost of software development and stifle creativity. The effect will be felt the worst by the small independent developers who may be put off developing a product altogether for fear of litigation.

Pretty strange coincidence but the BBC has its own nuclear fusion Q&A out today.

With a resolution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor arguments apparently imminent I thought it might be interesting to have a look at exactly what is so special about this reactor and what it could mean for the future.

What makes this nuclear reactor different?

The ITER reactor will use the nuclear fusion reaction rather than the nuclear fission reaction common in all current nuclear power plants.

In the conventional fission reaction the nucleus is split into two or more parts, releasing thermal energy in the process. This thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy by means of a steam turbine and finally into electricity.

In a sense, the nuclear fusion reaction is the opposite. This reaction involves fusing two nuclei into a heavier one, again resulting in an energy release. The nucleus used must be lighter than iron since the nuclei of heavier elements absorb energy rather than releasing it when fused.

Why is fusion better than fission?

It seems clear that fusion power is both safer and more environmentally friendly than fission power for several reasons. First, the likelihood of a catastrophic accident occurring in a fusion reactor is far smaller than in a fission reactor. This is because the fuel contained within the fusion reaction chamber is only enough to last about a minute whereas the fission reaction chamber contains enough fuel to last approximately one year.

Second, the by-product of fusion is a small amount of helium, which is benign and does not contribute to global warming. Tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) might cause more difficulty due to its radioactivity but its 12.32-year half-life means that the potential for long-term build up would be small.

Third, the technological overlap with nuclear weapons is much smaller than that of fission and therefore will help to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry.

In addition to the safety and environmental advantages there is the bonus that the power produced by fusion reactions would be virtually limitless. The only raw material required for the fuel cycle is deuterium (Tritium is also required but can be manufactured from deuterium) which can be found abundantly in water. According to the ITER website Lake Geneva alone contains enough deuterium to supply the primary energy needs of the planet for several thousand years to come.

In summary fusion power is environmentally benign and essentially inexhaustible.

What are the politics surrounding nuclear fusion?

ITER is an international project involving China, the EU, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the US. It is governed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There are two potential sites for the proposed reactor: Cadarache in southern France and Rokkasho-mura in northern Japan. There has been a protracted argument between representatives for the two sites over who will get to build the reactor (which is expected to cost 10 Billion Euros). However, the Japanese Government is expected to concede the privilige to the French in exchange for a generous concessions package, which it reportedly judges to be of equal value.

The six backers will meet in a meeting in Moscow tomorrow to make a final decision.

Sources

Wikipedia: Fusion Power
Wikipedia: Nuclear Power
Wikipedia: Nuclear Fusion
Wikipedia: Nuclear Fission
ITER
IAEA
BBC Article

• Google defines Global Warming

Interesting collection of definitions from around the web.

• Quick Verbal Tactics

Cool blog I just found about tactics in confrontational conversations. Via Lifehacks.

• Baby Name Wizard

Really cool presentation of the popularity of names throughout the decades. Via Freakonomics.

According to the Climate Change Glossary at GlobalWarming.org the term ‘Climate Change’

is sometimes used to refer to all forms of climatic inconsistency, but because the Earth’s climate is never static, the term is more properly used to imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, ‘climate change’ has been used synonymously with the term, ‘global warming’; scientists however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to also include natural changes in climate.

And the term ‘Global Warming’ refers to:

An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists generally agree that the Earth’s surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 140 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and that increased concentrations of sulfate aerosols have led to relative cooling in some regions, generally over and downwind of heavily industrialized areas.

Wikipedia contends that global warming is:

a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Global warming theories attempt to account for the rise in average global temperatures since the late 19th century (0.6 ± 0.2°C) [1] [2] and assess the extent to which the effects are due to human causes. The most common global warming theories attribute temperature increases to increases in the greenhouse effect caused primarily by anthropogenic (human-generated) carbon dioxide (CO2) and to possible increases in solar activity.

but that:

the more neutral term climate change is usually used for a change in climate with no presumption as to cause and no characterization of the kind of change involved, such as the Ice Ages.

So, here are the claims of the Global Warming theory as I see them:

1. The average temperature of the near-surface atmosphere and oceans of the Earth has been increasing since the late 19th Century.

2. Such temperature increase is, at least in part, anthropogenic in nature.

Of course, there are many different brands of global warming theory, all with different claims. But from what I can gather they all have these two claims in common. Anybody want to disagree with or add anything to these claims? I’d love to get some input from people involved in the debate.

Assuming for the moment the accuracy of my account of the claims of the global warming theory there are two obvious next steps in my investigation. First, it must be established whether the earth’s temperature has been increasing. Second, (and I suspect more importantly) I need to find out whether such increase is man-made.

No problem! I’ll get right on it.

So, by now we all know that I was wrong and that Apple is switching to Intel chips across its entire computer line. You can read Apple’s (fairly uninformative) press release on the subject here.

There are a few questions remaining unanswered. First, we know that Apple will be using Intel chips but we haven’t explicitly been told what kind of Intel chips. I think, however, that it’s reasonably safe to assume that the company will be using the x86 chipset for two reasons. First, the keynote was presented using P4s. Second, if there have been Intel builds of OS X since 10.0 then it’s hard to imagine any other chipset being used.

The second question (and this is the reason I doubted the switch to Intel) is how Apple intends to stop OS X being run on other Intel PCs. If Apple is indeed planning to use the x86 chipset then this will be a significant technical challenge and it will be very interesting to see how they accomplish it and how watertight their measures will be.

The final question is how big a hit Mac sales are going to take. The company now faces a 1-2 year period where Mac revenues will fall before the transition is complete. Let’s not forget, though, that Apple has about $5 Billion in cash reserves that it might be willing to spend if it considers this transition important (which it clearly does).

There’s no doubt that this is a risky move for Apple but it also opens up a lot of possibilities. Whatever the next couple of years bring, one thing’s for sure: they won’t be boring.