Yes, all these episodes were both set at Christmas and broadcast over the Christmas period in the UK (stretching into the New Year for the second part of "End of Time")

AIUI - "Spooky action at a distance" is really a consequence of the Copenhagen Interpretation and may be simply evidence that this interpretation is too simplistic.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is where we get the idea that when a quantum particle is measured/observed it goes from having an indeterminate state to "collapsing" into a definite state.

The key thing to realise is when you measure a quantum particle, the detector is always a macroscopic object. The particle interacts with the atoms in the detector and the detector registers (for example) a clockwise spin. The obvious inference is that the particle's spin took on the definite value and this was then picked up by the detector. However this is not necessarily the case.

In fact from one point of view it is not even likely ... all the quantum particles in all the atoms in the detector continue to behave according to quantum rules - for example the electrons stay in "orbit" around the nuclei by virtue of their indeterminate position. Why should the measured particle be any different?

The alternative is to consider that quantum particles always retain their indeterminancy and *individually* never lose it. Only macroscopic objects behave according to classical mechanics (or a very close approximation) which happens as a result of the combined interactions of all the particles in the object effectively cancelling out the "quantumness" of the individual particles.

From this alternative point of view the particle hits the detector and this triggers a sort of cascade effect whereby the particles interacts with one of detector's atoms which in turn causes changes in how the atom interacts with its neighbours and so on, spreading across the detector. All of these interactions are quantum in nature, but the overall effect is the detector registers a net definite spin.

In the case of entangled particles you have two detectors, but they are not seperate from each other, we all live in the same universe so both detectors constantly exchange Qubits with their environment and (directly or indirectly) with each other. If the detectors were used to measure unrelated particles this would be irrelevant, but when they are used to detect particles with a shared history it is probably necessary to take these interactions into account in order to make sense of the result.

Software on its own is an "abstract idea". It only becomes something more when it is running on a suitable piece of hardware. This is the reasoning behind the current trend of putting "on a computer" on software patents.

What I haven't seen anyone touch on before is why the hardware is allowed to be a general purpose microprocessor? I would imagine (haven't checked - reading patents gives me a headache ;-) that the patent for a general purpose microprocessor would have a claim stating "runs arbitrary software" or something to that effect. How can taking a machine capable of running a piece of arbitrary software and *giving it a piece of arbitrary software* result in a separately patentable invention?

There might be some room to allow a sufficiently customised piece of hardware and a piece of software combined to form a specialised device to be patentable - I could live with that. But software designed to run on a general purpose processor should not be patentable.

No, but *you* will need shots if you hang round with a dead puppy for any length of time.

Also therapy.

> I hope I'm wrong

You're not wrong.

> is a whole segment of the population going to become obsolete as distribution of goods and services becomes more and more efficient? Does this change result in a net loss of jobs, or is it just a transition, paving the way for a major paradigm shift and allowing us to put our energy elsewhere?

Short term: A great deal of upheaval with contraction (and possibly eventual collapse) of many distribution and publishing businesses. Many people will certainly lose their jobs.

Long term: More efficient market means a boost to the economy and leads to greater opportunities. New jobs are created which more than makes up for the ones that were previously lost. Contrast Scribes with the Printing Industry or the Horse Buggy Industry with the Automobile Industry.

In fact the whole point of this report is the highlight the absurdity of the claims made by the RIAA/MPAA. It deliberately uses the exact same methodology, where in the *AA case it assumes that all revenue generated by creative industries is attributable to the existence of copyright law - this report applies the same thinking to fair use.

The idea is to point out that even by the *AA's own calculations the economy benefits far more from exceptions to copyright law than it does from copyright law itself.

Without copyright all software could be copied with impunity - so it would be impossible to sell proprietary software.

This is for the same reason that although the FSF is fine with people selling GPL software, in practice this is not possible - in a free market where every recipient can resell copies, the price rapidly drops to zero.

In a non-copyright world all software authors would have to adopt the opensource business models of selling
support and services if they wanted to profit from their creations.

OK, let's break this down ...

> Once a paper is submitted, Nature goes through the task of tracking down other experts in the field.

They regularly wander off and get lost in the Amazon do they? I'm fairly certain journals keep records of which experts would be suitable and how to contact them. If not it's hardly going to be that expensive to look up some of the cited papers and contact the authors using the details right there on said papers.

> These experts use their valuable time to analyze, critique, understand, and provide educated proofing that if/when an article is published, the science is verifiable, testable, and valid

Indeed they do, but journals don't actually pay for this service so that's irrelevant.

> There's very substantial administrative costs in coordinating all this reviewing as it marches towards being publishable

I would agree that there are administrative costs, I would disagree that sending out a few emails constitutes "very substantial"

> And there's lots of projects fighting for the same ink space

How is this relevant to the costs of producing a journal?

> Then there's the cost of publishing the ink and paper.

There's this thing called the internet where publishing costs essentially nothing. By all means charge to send out a printed copy if there is demand, but this should be optional.

Don't forget that journals are quite unlike other publications - aside from a few pages of editorial they don't write any of the content. That's provided for free and reviewed for free. There is certainly some administrative work involved but this costs far far less than the massively over the top fees most journals charge. More importantly journals usually demand the copyright of the paper and lock it up for years, yet the service they provide just doesn't justify this amount of control.

What do you mean #2 is unlikely? Quite clearly, since MY religion is the Great Holy Truth and the One True Way it is completely inconceivable that aliens could believe anything else!

Of course they could be heathens and sinners if they profess to believe anything other than precisely what is written down in my Ancient Holy Book Of Wisdom and if so they clearly deserve to be exterminated!

In the event that the aliens have superior technology, that won't be a problem since my Unshakeable Faith in the Great Inscrutible Creator Of All Things will protect me and make sure I win!

(sadly there are real people who think this way - fortunately I am not one of them)

Well, I'm not sure how much having the source helps the average user learn how to use a program.

In the case of support generally, if you make the source available you can justify charging a higher rate for support - in effect you are turning the fact that your customer has the option to go elsewhere for support into a selling point.

In fact, people won't usually go elsewhere without a good reason - they tend to appreciate that the company that created a product is the best place to get support.

Well, that's true only as long as everyone else is doing the same. Even in a situation where everyone starts out doing this, it only takes one company to start giving away the source for free and you quickly find everyone else has to do so to remain competitive.

Of course since there are already open-source based companies, in reality you wouldn't even get this starting point.

Indeed part of the OSS model is to write customisations to clients (you can even make the source for these available since no-one else will want exactly the same implementation - it's custom after all)

As for your other points, it's true that it could be much more challenging to compete in a market without copyright. However I have difficulty believing that the current system that makes it relatively easy for companies but at the expense of the consumer and the economy is the better system.

Any competitors would have to both improve the software and release the source of the improvements to compete effectively.

At which point you can take the improved source back again and improve it further.

Which results in a much more vibrant marketplace based on constant innovation and this benefits the consumer and boosts the economy. See the fashion industry for an example of how this works.

Presumably you have already been paid by one of the aforementioned British newspapers/sites in exchange for your time and effort in producing these photographs?

Why do you feel you deserve to be paid a second time for the same piece of work, even though you have put in no additional time or effort?

Enforcement isn't necessary as the market will do that for you.

If it is impossible to sell binaries the proprietary software companies will be forced to use the same services/support business model that current OSS software companies do. With everyone using the same business model, those also giving the source away will quickly gain a commercial advantage, thus forcing everyone else to do the same.

Neither is the US a free country, since you aren't free to pick up a machete and go on a killing spree.

Most people accept some restrictions on "free" if they benefit society (and hence benefit you indirectly - I assume you don't have to dodge machete wielding morons when you walk down the street)

Sure, when there is not enough of something to go around and that something is vital for a decent quality of life, then some people are gonna get screwed. No method of truly "fair" allocation has ever existed that has worked for everyone at once, simply because no such system *can* exist.

The correct solution is to make the required resources non-scarce - either by making it so no-one needs it anymore, or by acquiring more of it (with bonus points if you can tap into a theoretically unlimited source of it)

So invest in unlimited renewable energy, terraform Mars, mine the asteroid belt, invent food replicators ... in general invest your currently limited resources into making future resources less limited.