In the US, there are 31 state laws that either bar cousin marriage or permit it only where the couple obtains genetic counseling or is beyond reproductive age or if one partner is sterile. Clearly, the western world sees cousin marriage as both socially unacceptable and scientifically wrong.

Science talk

Scientists have heavily criticized both the negative social stigma’s associated with cousin marriage and the incorrect perception of risk involved with child birth.

“Such legislation reflects outmoded prejudices about immigrants and the rural poor and relies on oversimplified views of heredity. There is no scientific grounding for it,” says Professor Hamish Spencer, a Research Associate at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. “Neither the scientific nor social assumptions behind such legislation stand up to close scrutiny.”

The risk factor according to NSGC

The US National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) report estimated the average risk as 1.7 – 2 per cent higher than the background population risk of congenital defects and 4.4 per cent higher than general risk for dying in childhood.

“Women over the age of 40 have a similar risk of having children with birth defects and no one is suggesting they should be prevented from reproducing. People with Huntington’s Disease or other autosomal dominant disorders have a 50 per cent risk of transmitting the underlying genes to offspring and they are not barred either,” Professor Spencer says.

When Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Nomination on August 29, his chances against McCain seemed grim. The Republican machine was growing stronger and the Democrats seemed to be divided over their party’s candidate. The Senator was facing an even steeper challenge back in 2007 when he declared that he would run for President. His supporters were steady but optimism about his success was a rare commodity. Not many people fancied the chances of a black man from Illinois securing the nomination, let alone making it to the White House.

Now, just a few days before the decisive votes are to be cast, I’m sitting back and trying to reflect upon the present state of the campaign and wondering how it came to be. Obama is leading in almost every poll and McCain seems to be slowly fading out of the picture as ripples of division grow within his party.

“We know the battle ahead will be long,” declared a victorious Obama in New Hampshire after winning key primaries for the Democratic nomination. “But always remember that nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.” And its no secret that many of those voices were to be found on a new frontier of global politics: the Internet. When the Democratic debates were broadcast on YouTube for the first time in July, the Internet signaled that it would play a significant role in the upcoming elections.

America might be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, but the demographics of the online world are vastly different. The Obama campaign has so far trumped its rival on all the major Internet battlegrounds. The Internet has not only helped Barack Obama raise record-breaking funds; it has also helped him mobilize support and fight Republican “smears”.

The YouTube electorate

On YouTube, Obama’s channel has released more than 1,710 videos which are now beamed immediately to over 108,682 subscribers. The campaign has received nearly 18 million channel views and their videos have been watched and promoted by many more. In comparison, McCain’s channel has posted only 315 videos with less than 30,000 subscribers and 2 million channel views. In the time it took McCain’s subscribers to grow from 27332 to 27335, Obama’s number had jumped from 108,662 to 108,682.

Videos posted by users also show a significant pro-Obama trend. While McCain’s and Palin’s ‘gaffes’ are closely scrutinized by the YouTube Electorate, Obama’s speeches and advertisements are often glorified. A YouTube search for “Obama speech” pulls up videos which are mostly pro-Obama. But type in “McCain speech” and you’ll notice that more than half the resulting videos do not reflect favorably upon John McCain.

Digg, Facebook, Twitter and Myspace

Obama has also had a clean sweep on Digg.com, a social network that lets users submit and ‘Digg’ their favorite stories in order to determine their importance and popularity. With 25,594 fans (compared to McCain’s 3,545), the Obama campaign has had a significant influence over the stories that made headlines on Digg. The campaign was also more pro-active, making 99 submissions in contrast to the 14 by their Republican counterparts.

On Twitter, Obama has been continuously updating 108,268 ‘followers’ about his campaign. He has made a total of 248 updates. John McCain has only managed to gain 4,289 followers and make 25 updates. On Facebook, Barack has 2.3 million supporters compared with McCains 600,000. Finally, Obama has also outplayed McCain on MySpace, gaining four times as many supporters as him (794,720 to 205,070).

International opinion matters

Most of these networks operate on principles of democracy under which the videos, news or blogs rated highest make it to the frontpages. Obama’s army of Digg fans and YouTube subscribers ensure that his posts are well promoted and thus more readily available to undecided audiences.

Barack Obama is highly favored over his opponent by people in Europe and many other parts of the world. Many of them have taken part in the online campaign by supporting Barack on these social networks. Although this has given him a rather unfair advantage, his success can be mainly attributed to the incredible effort made by his campaign to engage young voters on the Internet.

Note: The data provided in this article is accurate as of 0330 GMT on October 29, 2007.

Statistics

Many social networking sites ask you to describe yourself in a brief ‘about me’ section on your profile page. The varieties of formats in which people post this information are truly diverse. Some scribble precise details about their current life while others take up more space to attempt a description of their personalities. Some like to keep it short and simple while others use poetry and quotes as tools to make themselves look more complicated and deep.

Most friends now visit each other’s profiles more often than they visit each other. Others stay in touch solely through the Internet. A profile page can have a great impact on how people perceive you. In fact, it can have a great impact on how you perceive yourself. Sci-fi junkies often predict that future technology will let us choose who we want to be. In a way, those predictions might be coming true. We might be close to the day when the central point of a person’s consciousness is found near the photo frame of their Facebook profile.

People comb through their own profiles very often. As such, a girl who plays cynical in her own ‘about me’ section might end up believing that cynicism is actually part of her personality. Also, for the sake of coherence, she may incorporate those traits into real life. Whether or not this effort is conscious at first, it may eventually become part of how she identifies herself. In the complex maze of perception and self-identity, some people might learn to view their profiles as mere non-physical extensions of the self.

‘About me’ is all that many people know of you and they’re reminded every time they visit your profile. Shouldn’t the composition of such information require some amount of self-reflection? Yet, it seems that some people are content with swiftly painting a picture that satisfies some part of their ego. Some are clearly making a play while others seem too sure of themselves. Some are lacking and make you wonder while others go on and on.

No matter how outlandish your profile maybe, it describes some part of your persona. In an ideal world, your friends would know you well enough to look at your profile from the point of reference of your personality. But the opposite maybe true and they may find themselves viewing the real you from the perspective they’ve gained from your profile. It’s hard to tell.

So if you were to describe yourself in a few lines for the world to read, how would you go about it? What part of you would you include and what would you consider not important enough to be worthy of the headlines?

Since everyone gets an empty canvas to start with, a mutual understanding seems to exist subconsciously which guarantees that people take the information that you provide them at face value. Questioning the accuracy of someone’s profile could mean risking the perceived integrity of your own.

Your visitors are a diverse mix, especially if you have an open profile. Some (the most pleasant kind in my opinion) are just trying to keep in touch. Others (friends and stalkers) are browsing to see how you’re doing. Still others (employers and secret crushes) might be sizing you up. As such, presentation can be as important as dressing up for that all-important interview or first date while too much information can buy you some quality hassle. For whom do you tailor the ‘About me’?

GENEVE (1ED) – At 0600 hrs yesterday, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider announced that their worst fears were  realized when the collission of sub-atomic particles just shy of the speed of light resulted in the creation of several blackholes at different scales. Following a plea by scientists, major news corporations and newspapers have decided to not publish the news so as to not create havoc amongst the concerned masses.

“We do not know how many black holes have formed,” says a scientist at the LHC on the condition of anonymity, “but we believe there to be more than one”. Top sources at the LHC claim that the scale of the black holes poses no credible threat. But as the energy of the colliding particles increases, the size of the possible black holes will increase exponentially, threatening the safety of the entire world.

The chances of this happening were reported to be one in 5 million before the experiments began. But the odds had been going up ever since the Collidor began operation. “We realized early on that our calculations on how the apparatus should behave were off,” says the scientist, “and we had to revise the estimates almost every hour due to the unpredictable manner in which the LHC was operating”. When asked why the potentially dangerous experiment was allowed to continue, a spokesman for the LHC said that the huge sum of money invested into the idea could not be forsaken “at the slightest dab of concern”.

Conception and construction of the LHC cost approximately £3.5 billion over nearly a decade. Scientists are hoping to find the ellusive Higgs Boson particle by colliding sub-atomic particles at very high speeds. The Higgs Boson is the particle which physicists believe to be responsible for the mass of things. It has never been observed although the framework of modern physics rests upon its shoulders. Conditions were set-up at the LHC that replicate the state of the universe when the big-bang had just occured. The LHC was cooled down for weeks to transform it into one of the coldest places in the universe and subatomic particles raced along its 27 km circumference, accelerating towards the speed of light.

“When the experiment first began,” says the scientist, “the odds of finding the Higgs Boson were considerably higher than those of creating a black hole. But the revised odds after only a day of operation made the creation of black holes more likely. Many mathematicians expressed their concern and wanted the LHC to be shut down until the calculations were reviewed”. Despite the concern, the LHC was allowed to operate further due to two major reasons.

“If we were to stop operations, the hysteria would make it unlikely for the LHC to resume atleast in the near future. Also, there was no contingency plan to halt the operations. Thats the one thing that we didn’t plan”.

Frankie Boyle, a regular contributor to BBC’s Channel 2 recently said, “These black holes are the worst possible kind of black holes. Everybody is going to slowly move towards Switzerland”. To make his point in a debate about the importance of new discoveries promised by the LHC, Mr. Boyle said, “I’m sure they’ll find some interesting things about protons. But I may add, I don’t give a shit”.

Our newsteam has promised to pass on any comments to our scientist at the Large Hadron Collider.  Please keep your messages short. Also, this is (obvious) satire against the prepostorous “end of the world” drama. Stop if you’re sweating and hope you enjoyed the read.

• Colin King
  Kerner engineer at Canonical Ltd (Ubuntu)
  Aircraft normally triple redundancy, so Microsoft would probably cobble together Vista, Windows 98SE and XP.

• Jessica Gray
  Software engineer at Google.
  None of those systems is designed for that sort of operation and I know Mac and MS specifically list several things their software should be used for. IE and Safari don’t need to have the fail safes a flight control systems needs and would be prohibitively expense if they did.

• Benjamin Myers
  Software Design Engineer at Microsoft.
  Yes, even back when I hated Microsoft, my stuff worked at first and died later after I abused it.Mac, no. I’ve never worked on any Mac anything that didn’t need a lot of hand holding when asked to really grind. It’d give you a pretty death and then email your friends and relatives a catchy funeral march that Apple would own the rights to.  

  Ashamed to say I’ve never heard of Ubuntu. I would trust Unix and Sun (at least the ones I worked on in late 1980s/early 1990s), but not Linux.

• Gary Clarke
  Senior Manager at Amazon Kindle.
  Are you kidding me? Someone would connect their seat-belt and cause a device-driver conflict. Flush the toilet and the flaps will extend in mid-flight.

• Chris Gamble
  President of CRG Media. Former System Administrator at JPMorgan and Chase.
  Windows: As long as its XP, and not an OEM install.
  Mac: I’m sure it would be a nice ride, but you would spend all of the money you earn on in-flight upgrades.
  Linux: I know I would get there safely, but all the money would be spent on Chiropractor bills.

• Abhinav Mishra
  Programmer at Infosys (India’s largest software company).
  If I have a Unix based parachute, I won’t mind.

• Robert Lindsley
  Executive Producer at Atari
  No, yes and no.

• John Gilman
  Former Business & Technology Consultant at Microsoft.
  Of course, I would prefer Windows embedded over any OS for stability…I just to make sure the hardware drivers and other applications are written up to snuff.

• Kurt Brust
  Sr Linux Platform Engineer at Wachovia. Former Sr Linux Consultant at IBM.
  Maybe if it was running in a virtual session under Linux!

• Tadd Moor
  Director, IS&T Infrastructure at Rooney Holdings Inc.
  No, I wouldn’t. Partly because I’m burned out on air travel an – even free travel; and partly because you didn’t mention from who Microsoft “liberated” the technology.

• Geoff Beckman
  Owner of Beckman & Associates.
  No for two reasons:
  1. I can’t wait 18 months for it to launch.
  2. I bought my flight bag in 1998, and the luggage compartment doesn’t support it anymore.2. Ubuntu isn’t scheduled to add stairs to the plane in the next release (right now you have to climb hand over hand using a rope), and I’m tired of being called a “newbie” or MS-100Z3R when I request that someone look into adding seats and restrooms.  

  No to the others as well:
  1. Mac OS X will fly me to San Francisco, Monte Carlo, or Rio, but will not support a return trip, because Steve Jobs doesn’t think it’s a cool experience to fly to Ohi

• John Swanagon
  Senior Systems Architect Manager at Avaya. Former Principal Consultant at Lucent technologies.
• Absolutely. Let me qualify that by saying that I would as long as the plane, which includes the software, was cleared and certified by the FAA (or in the process of certification). There are varying opinions out there as to Windows’ stability, but I believe that it is a stable product. I would trust it to run the software on a plane.The other thing to remember too is the backup systems. If all else fails, the pilots could land the plane without the software. If the plane was so dependent on the software that a “manual” landing was impossible, then I would say absolutely not.

• Sanjay Vyas
  Sr. Vice President at Aptech & Owner of Synergetics India.
  Yes… if its version 3.0!

• Jason King
  Senior Developer at Optus SingTel Pty Ltd. & Technical Director at Handle IT
  Fee for boarding test flight: $10,000,000
  Parachute: $2000
  Standby recovery team: $10,000
  MS Windows plane never getting close to even pushing back from the gate: Priceless!

• Hosun Lee
  Former Technical Sales Specialist at IBM
  Sure I would.
  1) Microsoft makes quality software.
  2) The publicity associated with a plane crashing when Windows crashing would be catastrophic enough for Microsoft to want to make sure it works.
  3) Microsoft already powers my car, and I have a much greater chance of dying in a car accident than in a plane crash (knock on wood).

• John Ruxlow
  Works for Thomson Reuters.
  I would be willing to get on it, but I would want the money to go to my family if I didn’t make it. From what I am seeing on the news Microsoft couldn’t screw it up any worse than the FAA and plane maintenance groups already have it.

• Alan Crawford
  Former Senior Systems Engineer at Trident Systems Inc.
  Board it, yes. However, I’d be sure to get off and take cover before they started the engines, let alone attempted to get airborne.
  For the other two – no. I don’t fly on planes running general purpose operating systems. While wild horses wouldn’t get me airborne on even Windows for Airliners (formerly Windows for Warships, previously Windows for Washing Machines, originally Bob), there are already plenty of planes airborne with subsystems that make use of specialized versions of the Linux kernel. Probably a fair number of systems using Window CE based systems too.

• Ray Miller
  Former Project Team Leader at GE Aircraft Engines.
  Windows: NO (especially Vista). Mac: Yes. Ubuntu: Yes

Colm MacKernan is the Director of Origin Ltd, an Intellectual Property Consulting Firm in London. He represents high-tech companies based in Europe, North America and Asia on complex international matters.

“Apple is in a tricky position,” he says. “The core of its problem is that it sells OS X Leopard as a separate item from an Apple Computer ($129 on the Apple site.) This gives rise to an argument that Apple is engaging in “tying,” a practice that is often held illegal under many antitrust or competition laws, that involves requiring a purchaser (or licensee) to buy a product that purchaser may not want as a condition of obtaining the product it does want, i.e., if you want A, you must take B as well, or in this case if you want OS X you must buy an Apple computer. In effect this is similar to the problems Microsoft had when it sold Internet Explorer in combination with Windows and Media Player — although in that case Microsoft had the added handicap of being dominant, which subjected it to stricter scrutiny. That Apple is not dominant does not mean that Apple would not be subject to scrutiny, just that the “market power” leg of an illegal-tying case is weaker.

“Students of competition law will note that Patent and Copyright “misuse” in the US refers to commercial strategies that seek to extend the economic benefits of an item of intellectual property beyond is lawful scope. Typically misuse involves a violation of antitrust or competition law, most commonly illegal tying. The most common penalty in US law is to block enforcement of the relevant patents and copyrights. The other problem for Apple is that tying is specifically addressed in the European Licensing Guidelines, the Technology Transfer Block Exemption, the US Antitrust Guidelines for Licensing Intellectual Property as well as the Japanese and Korean guidelines. None “smile” on tying, although the US does say that it will not be treated as automatically illegal and quality-control cases can be made under the others. Now this does not mean that Apple would lose a case of copyright and patent infringement (many aspects of OS X Leopard are also subject to patent protection), but it does mean that they have a complicated case.”

The final blow to HD-DVD’s format-war effort against Sony’s Blu-ray came as Warner Bros. Studios announced that it would press high-definition movies only in the Blu-ray format. Ever since, most companies that had been aggressively campaigning for HD-DVD have retreated or switched camps. Toshiba, one of the prime supporters of the losing format has announced that it will cease production of HD-DVD players. Microsoft is considering Blu-ray extensions for the Xbox 360.

This turn of events is good news to consumers who had purchased Blu-ray players or had yet to make up their minds prior to the Warner Bros. announcement. However, disappointment will surely be rampant amongst those who purchased HD-DVD players. Giving up on HD-DVD must have been a difficult decision to arrive at but Toshiba is already moving to cut its losses. The company is reported to be negotiating the sale of factories that produce certain chips for Blu-ray players with Sony. It may or may not succeed in cutting its losses but consumers who eagerly purchased its HD-DVD players are surely the ones left begging for answers. Owners of HD-DVD equipment who wish to continue using high-definition content must now buy the equally pricey Blu-ray players.

Consumers who bought HD-DVD players were willing to pay the high prices for the promise of freely available content on the HD-DVD format. Shouldn’t companies that marketed, produced and sold HD-DVD players provide compensation to consumers who bought their products?