Actually, according to the data presented in the lecture, the drugs improve short term memory as well

Gitmo is still open because the Bush administration successfully painted us into the corner through the use of torture. The violations of human rights at Gitmo under Bush turned out to be so extreme that it rapidly became clear that if the inmates were given a fair trial with US standards of evidence judge, so much of the "evidence" against them would have to be thrown out that large numbers of very dangerous terrorists would have to be released.

Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

The primary thing this tells us is that Groklaw is so biased on this matter that they aren't thinking straight. Let's apply just a bit of common sense:

These are Samsung documents. Apple obviously does not have the power to hide the contents of Samsung's own documents. As is commonly the case, some court documents were redacted for the public to protect the proprietary interests of the companies involved (Samsung, in this case). That does not mean that the jury did not get to see them. It appears that Samsung now thinks it is in its interest to make the documents public.

Groklaw is trying to get us to believe that the jury's decision that Samsung intentionally copied Apple was based entirely on an out-of-context quite from this document. There's something a bit fishy there. If Apple quoted something from Samsung's documents out of context, wouldn't Samsung's lawyers have been at pains to quote the correct context? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, this document was not actually as pivotal as Groklaw (and presumably Samsung) now would like us to believe. Could it be that the jury did not base its judgment solely--or even primarily--on this document? Could it be that the jury saw much more compelling evidence that Samsung's copying was intentional?

Say for instance a detailed Samsung report comparing Samsung's product to Apple's feature by feature and recommending that Samsung emulate Apple's design choices?

Or perhaps emails showing that Google warned Samsung that its products were infringing upon Apple's designs?

This is kind of sad. Groklaw did some nice reporting on the SCO lawsuit. But when it comes to Apple and Samsung, they seem to have gone off the rails.

It also presumes that advanced civilizations would waste their time and resources building such a contraption, when, given the technology necessary to do so, it would be far easier to find another planet.

Would it? The technology required to build any kind of Dyson sphere and the technology required to move a large population to another star are both so far beyond our own capability that there is little basis to judge which is easiest.

Roundup kills plants, and is full of phosphates. Your kidneys would be in a very very bad state.

Uh, our bodies are full of phosphates. So are all the foods that we eat. Ever hear of ATP, the fundamental energy currency of a cell? That's adenosine triphosphate. Most of our enzymes have phosphate groups stuck to them, often several. Needless to say, our kidneys handle it very well--which is why it is possible to drink a soft drink--most of which are buffered with quite a bit of phosphate--without suffering kidney damage. The amount of phosphate resulting from herbicide residue would be trivial in comparison.

2. Natural fungicides are available, and most grain is tested for this sort of thing. Nobody uses antibiotics on plants crops, and the only regular bacterial infections from "organic" food come from e.coli infections due to the use of uncomposted manures, any responsible farmer uses dried and if possible composted manure.

Antibiotics are not widely used on plant crops because the major things that kill crops are things like insects, fungi, and competition from other plants, so we use insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. That does not make them sterile. Bacteria are everywhere, including in the soil, and there are many other pathogenic species that can be in manure besides coli. And crops are generally picked or otherwise handled by humans, and humans also carry diseases. Natural fungicides do exist, but they are not infallible--fungi and plants have been engaged in biological warfare since before our species existed, and for every weapon there is a counter weapon--which is why plants, organic or otherwise, are often harmed by fungal infection. And note that any fungicide, natural or otherwise, is fundamentally a poison. It may not poison us because our cells are different from fungi in some (but not all) ways, but there is no guarantee of safety.

The cat does know. The superposition is of a live cat (that knows it is alive) with a dead cat (that presumably doesn't know anything).

Good, I can stop requesting on a hand search when I fly out of Boston. It's not that I consider the exposure particularly hazardous--I don't; I've voluntarily exposed myself to far more radiation over the years--I just saw no point in additional exposure to ionizing radiation when I can avoid it, and I don't really mind the hand search.

There are many other interpretations. The one where it exists in a combination of the possible states is the Copenhagen interpretation.
Another popular one is the many words interpretation. Instead of the cat being in a combination of the possible states, there are multiple universes with each universe containing a different possible history (dies at T=1, dies at T=2, still alive, etc.) and there is a different version of the observer in each universe coming to a conclusion based on which universe he's in.

Many worlds does not get you away from quantum superposition, because the different histories still have to be able to interfere to be consistent with the equations. My understanding of the many worlds interpretation is that when we open the box, our state becomes correlated with the state of the cat, so that the system goes from outside scientist observing a closed box containing a superposition of live cat and dead cat, to a superposition of sad scientist observing a dead cat and relieved scientist observing a live cat. In a sense, the superposition appears to go away because we become part of it. So this is a method of obtaining information about the nature of the superposition inside the box without ourselves becoming correlated with the individual states.

Yes, these exaggerated complaints arise every time Apple releases a new phone, and in the end, they never seem to have amounted to much. Remember iPhone4 "antennagate"? It received huge media coverage, but in the end it had minimal impact on the user experience, because overall the iPhone4 got good reception, and despite all the jokes about "holding it wrong," pretty much any cell phone will get better reception if you don't cover the antenna with your hand. Loosening up your grip a bit when in a marginal signal area turns out to be a pretty minor adjustment that most people make without even thinking about it.

So are the maps flap and the camera flap any different? Perhaps Apple's new Maps application isn't quite as reliable as the old Google version (although more recent tests that objectively compare the two versions find that they are not dramatically different in reliability for simple navigation). But Google navigation is still available through Google's mobile web site and there are numerous 3rd party alternatives, so while it is always news that an Apple product is not absolutely perfect, the impact on most users is very nearly zero--and Apple will probably improve it over time, now that they are getting feedback from millions of users.

So now we find that the iPhone 5 camera produces lens artifacts in circumstances where there is a bright light shining on the lens--a situation that is problematic for many cameras for multiple reasons. There have already been numerous reports that the overall performance of the camera is quite good, particularly in low light situations. So is the iPhone 5 really more vulnerable to such lens flare than other cell phone cameras (clearly other cameras do the same sort of thing in at least some circumstances)? Perhaps; we'll have to await objective tests to know for sure. But let's suppose that it is. Certainly the iPhone 5 can successfully take pictures in some circumstances when many phones--and even dedicated cameras--will fail, due to its good low-light performance and HDR capability. So is it really such a horrible problem if users have to be a little more careful in framing their picture when there is a bright light source in the scene?

A camera on a cell phone is inherently a compromise. It needs a very small lens, and it can't be recessed much.

And to get a good picture you have to hold it right--the most common way of holding it wrong being to put your thumb in front of the lens.

Lens flares can arise with any camera, to the point that computer-generated video often includes simulated lens flares, because it makes the image seem more "realistic" to people who are accustomed to camera video.

The iPhone 5 camera has received a number of accolades for its improved performance, particularly in low light situations, and a lens that is less vulnerable to damage. Now we are hearing that it has a tendency to lens flares when there is a bright light source shining directly on the lens. Most of the photos I've seen that illustrate this artifact are ones that would be problematic with most point-and-shoot cameras, simply because the automatic exposure tends to be dominated by the bright light source, leaving the intended subject too dark. However, some modern cameras, including the ones in recent iPhones, have HDR capability, encouraging people to take shots that they would not even have attempted with cameras of just a few years ago. It's a bit early to tell whether the iPhone 5 is really more prone to lens flare artifacts than earlier models, but the same general advice applies to all cameras, and especially cell phone cameras:

For optimum results, take some care in how you hold the camera and how you frame your shot, particularly when there are bright light sources in the scene.

Considering that a license is a contract to use somebody else's IP, that seem a pretty fine distinction, but IANAL, so perhaps it makes some kind of legal sense. Perhaps the agreement included provision for arbitrary termination by Samsung. In that case, the question arises whether Qualcomm disclosed this to Apple. If not, it seems like Apple might have a cause against Qualcomm if they happen to lose to Samsung.

Samsung had an agreement with Qualcomm that Qualcomm's license to Samsung's patents covered Qualcomm's customers. So Apple used Qualcomm's chips under the understanding that they were fully licensed. But apparently desperate because of Apple's many claims related to Samsung's copying, Samsung attempted to cancel Qualcomm's license as it pertains to Apple. This is of doubtful legality, as licensing of standards-essential patents is supposed to be nondiscriminatory. But it gives Samsung some basis for countersuit, which probably helps them with investors, at least for the moment.

Certainly speaking as an academic scientist, sorting my emails over several years to respond to such a demand would be an enormous amount of labor at substantial cost, for which we have neither the funding nor the manpower. It would be unethical to simply turn it all over, as there are items in it that are covered by confidentiality--discussion of student progress, for example, or information covered by NDA. So somebody would have to go through all of the email, read each one and judge whether it is subject to the demand.

This is likely to be the case for nearly any academic researcher, so such demands would be a good way to slow down a scientist's work--or, if the university ends up paying the expense, leading university administrators to discourage faculty from engaging in any kind of research that might subject the university to the financial liability of responding to such demands.

It is hard to imagine that the benefits from allowing this sort of imposition on university researchers would justify the cost in dollars and lost productivity. And there are additional costs--consider for example, the way stolen emails of climate researchers were taken out of context and distorted to fuel accusations of impropriety--which after multiple (and costly) investigations turned out to be false.

another in an increasingly long list of features that apple fans have been willing to live without for many years

Yes, the lack of a Apple voice routing app was an unfortunate consequence of relying on Google. Google never provided voice routing, and the terms of use for Google's data specifically prohibited using it for that purpose.

But comments like yours make me think that people who have never owned an iPhone have simply no notion of the richness and diversity of 3rd party apps available for iOS. Like virtually everybody who has a need for it, I've had voice turn-by-turn navigation on my iPhone for years. There are a wealth of such apps for iOS, at a range of prices down to free. The only thing we haven't had until now is an Apple-branded one. Which explains why the glitches with the new Apple Maps app haven't dissuaded much of anybody from upgrading to the new version of iOS.