Source #8 - Police Blotter: Detecting Computer-generated Porn?

McCullagh, Declan. "Police Blotter: Detecting Computer-generated Porn? - CNET News."CNET News. CBS Interactive. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. .


This article demonstrates the applications of computers in preventing and solving crimes in a unique way. It also shows how some technologies make crime detection significantly harder, with the advent of freely available photo manipulation software.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Detecting-computer-generated-porn/2100-1030_3-6145563.html

Source #9 - Programming Computers to Help Computer Programmers

"Programming Computers to Help Computer Programmers." Science News, Technology, Physics, Nanotechnology, Space Science, Earth Science, Medicine. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. .

The software industry is constantly finding ways to improve its methods and build better tools with which to make software, and programs that make programs would be a gigantic step forward. To either a better future or a Matrix-like one.


http://phys.org/news/2012-04-programmers.html

Source #10 - Classic Nintendo Games are NP-Hard

Aloupis, Greg, Erik Demaine, and Alan Guo. "Classic Nintendo Games Are NP-Hard." Web.


This source works well for my purposes because it shows how techniques applied using advanced computer science can be used to analyze generic datasets. This demonstrates how computer science pervades all aspects of modern culture. 

Slow Death By Rubber Duck Chapter Summaries

Source

Summary:
     The parts I read of Slow Death By Rubber Duck mainly emphasized the difference between the minimal dangerous chemical distribution in the past and how it's become much more widespread now. They also focused on the family of one of the authors and their personal exposure to dangerous chemicals, and how it affected their lives. This author performed an experiment on himself, bombarding himself with phthalates and other dangerous chemicals to test the outcome.

     The passage that struck me the most is as follows:

"...in yet another unusual incident, a fire at a chemical plant in Switzerland released 30 tonnes of pesticides into the Rhine River, turning the waterway red."

     This passage, though small, strikes me because of the sheer amount of dangerous substance (or any substance) required to turn an entire river a solid color. Between rapid water movement, riverbed absorption and other blocking factors, a lot of the chemical wouldn't stay in the river very long, making the act of altering its color for any period of time that much more significant. Once the magnitude of that accident is fully understood, its potential impact can be realized, and the damage that 30 tonnes of pesticide can do in a population's drinking water is revealed for the catastrophic accident that it is.

     My personal reaction to this book can be summed up in a single sentence: the ends justify the means. Everything I use, everywhere I go on a daily basis requires dangerous chemicals. Without chemicals, dangerous or otherwise, our technologically functional society doesn't work. Nothing gets built, nothing gets done. I'm willing to accept the dangerous implications of chemically-altered nonstick cooking spray if it means I can make a clean omelette. I'm willing to risk exposure to heated airborne metal residue if it means I can use high-durability thermal paste to keep my computer running smoothly. I value the quality of my lifestyle above its potential length, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few years if it means I can enjoy it for now.

"Slow Death by Rubber Duck" Reviews

"Milk" according to Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie.

Sources:

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/slow-death-by-rubber-duck-book-review.html

http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/732/book-review-slow-death-by-rubber-duck/

http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/06/23/book-review-slow-death-by-rubber-duck-by-rick-smith-and-bruce-lourie/#.T0_EHrLNnGU

Treehugger.com:
To be blunt, they were heavily disappointed by it. They found the authors' experimental methods to be contrived, misleading and unrepresentative of realistic conditions. They accuse the book of being written to be popular and accessible to the lowest common denominator of potential readers. They also suggest ways in which the authors could have improved the book, by looking at actual dangers and real risks of exposure instead of fear-mongering.

PhD in Parenting:
On the other hand, PIP enjoyed reading the book immensely, to the point of being legitimately frightened by it. The laud the book's use of case studies and industry stories to convey its point and explain how the chemicals are used and what their effects are. They too, however, were disappointed with the book's lack of actual scientific data; namely the small distribution, small sample size and lack of controls. Refers to the book as a "call to action" and gives it an overall high rating.

My own experience with this book so far has been forgettable. The authors spend a lot of their time fear mongering and praising their own experimental courage, while doing very little work describable as legitimate science.  The stories are interesting and nice enough, but they spend so much time trying to convince me of their point that they forget to bring up anything relevant.

Super-Duper Scary Chemical Things

Dow Chemical Agrees To Clean Dioxin-tainted Properties In Midland, Mich.


John Flesher. "Dow Chemical Agrees To Clean Dioxin-tainted Properties In Midland, Mich." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. .

Dow Chemical is "very, very sorry" for dumping all those "icky nasty" chemicals and being "super scary". Alongside this highly silly apology, they have work efforts cleaning up the damage they've done. 

I don't think any company puts aside this kind of money out of interest in helping the environment - they do it for PR. This article is full of that. The company has only begun these efforts because they were pressured into it by the people in the areas buying their products. In the end the motives don't really matter if they get the job done, though. 

.

My attitude towards the environment can best be described as a balanced state of almost total apathy. While I understand the importance of environmental conservation and that natural resources are limited and dwindling every day, the simple fact is that I won't be alive long enough to reap any benefits of actions I might take towards its protection. Is that selfish? A little. But my time here is limited, and I'd rather spend it on things that will have meaning during my lifetime.
If I had to choose, I supposed the greatest environmental concern for me is the high output of greenhouse gases (read: "hot air") pouring out of the capital every day. Ha! Politics! Speaking seriously, all of my favorite things are at least tangentially powered by natural gas, so that's a biggie for me.
The list of environmental issues I don't care about is long and eloquent, yet carries a sort of unnatural gracelessness akin to the sight of a young child attempting to use silverware. I don't care about global warming, I don't care about animals, I care very little about the rainforest (trees in general, really).
I think other people should care - scientists, engineers and biologists who can all make legitimate long-term contributions should care. Common men and women, who consider recycling or planting trees to be any sort of real contribution to the cause, should go about their lives and focus on contributing to the now.
In regards to the current threats to our environment, they should be researched and prepared against. Other than that, it's best for most people to do nothing. Otherwise, if at all possible, Captain Planet should be hired to take care of it.
I live in Wisconsin and I'm tired of seeing the same tree every six feet. This has caused me to grow bored of trees and develop a unique form of resentment towards them. I am therefore wholly for complete global deforestation. If mankind's breathing suffers, so be it, but damn I hate trees.