uid
stringlengths 4
7
| premise
stringlengths 19
9.21k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 13
488
| label
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|
id_5100 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | Breaking school rules is grounds for automatic suspension. | contradiction |
id_5101 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | Schooling is compulsory for children until they turn sixteen. | neutral |
id_5102 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | Parents can speak at the board meeting to discuss suspension. | entailment |
id_5103 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | A student cannot be suspended unless the bad behaviour is continual. | contradiction |
id_5104 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | After-school detention is the punishment preferred by most parents. | neutral |
id_5105 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | A student can be suspended even if no one has actually been harmed yet. | entailment |
id_5106 | School Disciplinary Procedures Three types of behaviour can result in the suspension of a student from school. Often it may be a combination of two or even all three: Gross misconduct that is damaging or dangerous a very serious one-off incident A pattern of disobedience that is a harmful or dangerous example to other students There is the likelihood of someone being seriously hurt if the offending student is not removed When a student has misbehaved, the disciplinary process gets underway with an investigation by the principal of what actually happened. Suspension does not inevitably follow, even if school rules have been violated. It depends on whether any of the points mentioned above can be proven. The outcome of the enquiry could be that the student stays at school, but with some form of punishment such as cleaning the grounds or detention. However, students cannot be detained outside school hours without parental consent. For serious misdemeanours, there are several options. The first is a stand-down: removal from school for a fixed period of not more than five days per school term or ten days per year. The parents have to be notified and given the reasons in writing. The second option is suspension. The principal decides to suspend the student from school until the board of governors meets to discuss the case. Parents must be kept fully informed and will be given all the information that the board will consider. Generally, the board will meet within ten days and the parents have the right to be at the meeting, with or without a support person, and to be heard by the board before a decision is made. If the board decides to exclude a student who is under sixteen, the principal must try to arrange for enrolment in another school. Expulsion is the harshest punishment, but it can only apply to students aged sixteen or over. In such cases. there is no obligation on the principal to find another school. It should be noted that school discipline is not confined to misbehaviour in the school itself, but can extend to school trips, school buses, even downtown if the student is in school uniform. | A stand-down is for a minimum of five days each school term. | contradiction |
id_5107 | Science is a sort of news agency comparable in principle to other news agencies. But this news agency gives us information which is reliable to an extraordinary high degree due to elaborate techniques of verification and its capacity to survive centuries. So, science should be read with as much interest as we read news. | Science encourages investigative spirit | entailment |
id_5108 | Science is a sort of news agency comparable in principle to other news agencies. But this news agency gives us information which is reliable to an extraordinary high degree due to elaborate techniques of verification and its capacity to survive centuries. So, science should be read with as much interest as we read news. | People read news out of interest. | entailment |
id_5109 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10-15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | All scientists believe the earths climate is changing. | neutral |
id_5110 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10-15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | Human activities are not the only reason for climate change. | entailment |
id_5111 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10-15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | Reducing methane emissions will have a detrimental impact on global industry. | neutral |
id_5112 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10-15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | People will catch more tropical disease due to climate change. | neutral |
id_5113 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10-15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | The enormity of alterations to our climate system has never been experienced by human beings before. | neutral |
id_5114 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10-15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | Only the difference in velocity distinguishes current climates shifts from previous shifts. | contradiction |
id_5115 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10;15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | People will catch more tropical disease due to climate change. | entailment |
id_5116 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10;15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | The enormity of alterations to our climate system has never been experienced by human beings before. | neutral |
id_5117 | Scientists believe we are experiencing a dramatic change in the overall climate system, verified by the 10;15 cm rise in sea levels over the last 100 years and the increases in severe weather conditions. Although climate change occurs naturally, scientists believe human activities have led to increased carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide concentrations, leading to climate changes and, in turn, observed increases in sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, and erratic weather systems. This means that todays climate shift differs dramatically from previous shifts in climates in both magnitude and rate. Scientific research suggests that advancing sea levels, rising temperatures and severe weather conditions caused by climate change will result in a host of negative consequences such as a threat to international trade patterns, an increase in the movement of tropical disease, and an increased risk of forest fires and landslides. | Only the difference in velocity distinguishes current climates shifts from previous shifts. | contradiction |
id_5118 | Scientists have ambitious plans to use cloning technology to save Indias lion population from extinction. They believe that biotechnological intervention is a viable modern way to save threatened species. But conservationists argue that the high cost of such experiments would be better spent on protecting animals in their natural habitat. They argue that forests are still being lost to land clearance and India does not have enough wild space left in which the lions can live and hunt. | There are many sceptics of the scientists plans. | neutral |
id_5119 | Scientists have ambitious plans to use cloning technology to save Indias lion population from extinction. They believe that biotechnological intervention is a viable modern way to save threatened species. But conservationists argue that the high cost of such experiments would be better spent on protecting animals in their natural habitat. They argue that forests are still being lost to land clearance and India does not have enough wild space left in which the lions can live and hunt. | The passage fails to present the counter-argument. | contradiction |
id_5120 | Scientists have ambitious plans to use cloning technology to save Indias lion population from extinction. They believe that biotechnological intervention is a viable modern way to save threatened species. But conservationists argue that the high cost of such experiments would be better spent on protecting animals in their natural habitat. They argue that forests are still being lost to land clearance and India does not have enough wild space left in which the lions can live and hunt. | The passage states that the application of biotechnological interventions may have a role in a programme to save the Indian lion from extinction. | contradiction |
id_5121 | Scientists have been able to successfully genetically modify plants, animals and micro-organisms for a number of years. They do this by manipulating genes to produce genetic changes, which could in theory occur naturally. Supporters of genetically modified (GM) organisms claim that the benefits, such as being able to produce crops that are resistant to disease, will help alleviate world food shortages. Many environmentalists believe that the accidental release of genetically modified organisms into the environment is genetic pollution and they fear that the uncontrolled interbreeding of modified organisms with those occurring naturally will contaminate the environment in unforeseen and possibly dangerous ways. They point out that experiments done by researchers to reassure the public about the safety of GM crops have been carried out under scientifically-controlled conditions which are far-removed from the actual working conditions of food producers. | There have been no experiments involving GM crops which have been carried out in a scientifically-controlled environment. | contradiction |
id_5122 | Scientists have been able to successfully genetically modify plants, animals and micro-organisms for a number of years. They do this by manipulating genes to produce genetic changes, which could in theory occur naturally. Supporters of genetically modified (GM) organisms claim that the benefits, such as being able to produce crops that are resistant to disease, will help alleviate world food shortages. Many environmentalists believe that the accidental release of genetically modified organisms into the environment is genetic pollution and they fear that the uncontrolled interbreeding of modified organisms with those occurring naturally will contaminate the environment in unforeseen and possibly dangerous ways. They point out that experiments done by researchers to reassure the public about the safety of GM crops have been carried out under scientifically-controlled conditions which are far-removed from the actual working conditions of food producers. | Genetic change in plants could occur without the intervention of humans. | entailment |
id_5123 | Scientists have been able to successfully genetically modify plants, animals and micro-organisms for a number of years. They do this by manipulating genes to produce genetic changes, which could in theory occur naturally. Supporters of genetically modified (GM) organisms claim that the benefits, such as being able to produce crops that are resistant to disease, will help alleviate world food shortages. Many environmentalists believe that the accidental release of genetically modified organisms into the environment is genetic pollution and they fear that the uncontrolled interbreeding of modified organisms with those occurring naturally will contaminate the environment in unforeseen and possibly dangerous ways. They point out that experiments done by researchers to reassure the public about the safety of GM crops have been carried out under scientifically-controlled conditions which are far-removed from the actual working conditions of food producers. | Some people expect global food shortages without the use of GM crops | neutral |
id_5124 | Seahorse populations have declined everywhere that seahorse are fished. During the past five years, seahorse populations have decreased by 50 percent. Last year, biologists met to discuss what might be done to reverse this trend. | Seahorses are likely to become extinct within five years. | neutral |
id_5125 | Seahorse populations have declined everywhere that seahorse are fished. During the past five years, seahorse populations have decreased by 50 percent. Last year, biologists met to discuss what might be done to reverse this trend. | Seahorse fishermen have spoken out against the biologists. | neutral |
id_5126 | Seahorse populations have declined everywhere that seahorse are fished. During the past five years, seahorse populations have decreased by 50 percent. Last year, biologists met to discuss what might be done to reverse this trend. | Biologists from all over the world are working to save the seahorses. | neutral |
id_5127 | Seahorse populations have declined everywhere that seahorse are fished. During the past five years, seahorse populations have decreased by 50 percent. Last year, biologists met to discuss what might be done to reverse this trend. | One way to increase seahorse populations is to ban the fishing of seahorses. | entailment |
id_5128 | Search begins for 'Earth' beyond solar system A European spacecraft took off today to spearhead the search for another "Earth" among the stars. The Corot space telescope blasted off aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan shortly after 2.20pm. Corot, short for convection rotation and planetary transits, is the first instrument capable of finding small rocky planets beyond the solar system. Any such planet situated in the right orbit stands a good chance of having liquid water on its surface, and quite possibly life, although a leading scientist involved in the project said it was unlikely to find "any little green men". Developed by the French space agency, CNES, and partnered by the European Space Agency (ESA), Austria, Belgium, Germany, Brazil and Spain, Corot will monitor around 120,000 stars with its 27cm telescope from a polar orbit 514 miles above the Earth. Over two and a half years, it will focus on five to six different areas of the sky, measuring the brightness of about 10,000 stars every 512 seconds. "At the present moment we are hoping to find out more about the nature of planets around stars which are potential habitats. We are looking at habitable planets, not inhabited planets. We are not going to find any little green men, " Professor Ian Roxburgh, an ESA scientist who has been involved with Corot since its inception, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. Prof Roxburgh said it was hoped Corot would find "rocky planets that could develop an atmosphere and, if they are the right distance from their parent star, they could have water". To search for planets, the telescope will look for the dimming of starlight caused when an object passes in front of a star, known as a "transit". Although it will take more sophisticated space telescopes planned in the next 10 years to confirm the presence of an Earth-like planet with oxygen and liquid water, Corot will let scientists know where to point their lenses. Measurements of minute changes in brightness will enable scientists to detect giant Jupiter-like gas planets as well as small rocky ones. It is the rocky planets - that could be no bigger than about twice the size of the Earth - which will cause the most excitement. Scientists expect to find between 10 and 40 of these smaller planets. Corot will also probe into stellar interiors by studying the acoustic waves that ripple across the surface of stars, a technique called "asteroseismology". The nature of the ripples allows astronomers to calculate a star's precise mass, age and chemical composition. "A planet passing in front of a star can be detected by the fall in light from that star. Small oscillations of the star also produce changes in the light emitted, which reveal what the star is made of and how they are structured internally. This data will provide a major boost to our understanding of how stars form and evolve, " Prof Roxburgh said. Since the discovery in 1995 of the first "exoplanet" - a planet orbiting a star other than the Sun - more than 200 others have been found by ground-based observatories. Until now the usual method of finding exoplanets has been to detect the "wobble" their gravity imparts on parent stars. But only giant gaseous planets bigger than Jupiter can be found this way, and they are unlikely to harbour life. In the 2010s, ESA plans to launch Darwin, a fleet of four or five interlinked space telescopes that will not only spot small rocky planets, but analyse their atmospheres for signs of biological activity. At around the same time, the US space agency, Nasa, will launch Terrestrial Planet Finder, another space telescope designed to locate Earth-like planets. | BBC Radio 4 recently focuses on the broadcasting of Corot. | neutral |
id_5129 | Search begins for 'Earth' beyond solar system A European spacecraft took off today to spearhead the search for another "Earth" among the stars. The Corot space telescope blasted off aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan shortly after 2.20pm. Corot, short for convection rotation and planetary transits, is the first instrument capable of finding small rocky planets beyond the solar system. Any such planet situated in the right orbit stands a good chance of having liquid water on its surface, and quite possibly life, although a leading scientist involved in the project said it was unlikely to find "any little green men". Developed by the French space agency, CNES, and partnered by the European Space Agency (ESA), Austria, Belgium, Germany, Brazil and Spain, Corot will monitor around 120,000 stars with its 27cm telescope from a polar orbit 514 miles above the Earth. Over two and a half years, it will focus on five to six different areas of the sky, measuring the brightness of about 10,000 stars every 512 seconds. "At the present moment we are hoping to find out more about the nature of planets around stars which are potential habitats. We are looking at habitable planets, not inhabited planets. We are not going to find any little green men, " Professor Ian Roxburgh, an ESA scientist who has been involved with Corot since its inception, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. Prof Roxburgh said it was hoped Corot would find "rocky planets that could develop an atmosphere and, if they are the right distance from their parent star, they could have water". To search for planets, the telescope will look for the dimming of starlight caused when an object passes in front of a star, known as a "transit". Although it will take more sophisticated space telescopes planned in the next 10 years to confirm the presence of an Earth-like planet with oxygen and liquid water, Corot will let scientists know where to point their lenses. Measurements of minute changes in brightness will enable scientists to detect giant Jupiter-like gas planets as well as small rocky ones. It is the rocky planets - that could be no bigger than about twice the size of the Earth - which will cause the most excitement. Scientists expect to find between 10 and 40 of these smaller planets. Corot will also probe into stellar interiors by studying the acoustic waves that ripple across the surface of stars, a technique called "asteroseismology". The nature of the ripples allows astronomers to calculate a star's precise mass, age and chemical composition. "A planet passing in front of a star can be detected by the fall in light from that star. Small oscillations of the star also produce changes in the light emitted, which reveal what the star is made of and how they are structured internally. This data will provide a major boost to our understanding of how stars form and evolve, " Prof Roxburgh said. Since the discovery in 1995 of the first "exoplanet" - a planet orbiting a star other than the Sun - more than 200 others have been found by ground-based observatories. Until now the usual method of finding exoplanets has been to detect the "wobble" their gravity imparts on parent stars. But only giant gaseous planets bigger than Jupiter can be found this way, and they are unlikely to harbour life. In the 2010s, ESA plans to launch Darwin, a fleet of four or five interlinked space telescopes that will not only spot small rocky planets, but analyse their atmospheres for signs of biological activity. At around the same time, the US space agency, Nasa, will launch Terrestrial Planet Finder, another space telescope designed to locate Earth-like planets. | Passing objects might cause a fall in light. | entailment |
id_5130 | Search begins for 'Earth' beyond solar system A European spacecraft took off today to spearhead the search for another "Earth" among the stars. The Corot space telescope blasted off aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan shortly after 2.20pm. Corot, short for convection rotation and planetary transits, is the first instrument capable of finding small rocky planets beyond the solar system. Any such planet situated in the right orbit stands a good chance of having liquid water on its surface, and quite possibly life, although a leading scientist involved in the project said it was unlikely to find "any little green men". Developed by the French space agency, CNES, and partnered by the European Space Agency (ESA), Austria, Belgium, Germany, Brazil and Spain, Corot will monitor around 120,000 stars with its 27cm telescope from a polar orbit 514 miles above the Earth. Over two and a half years, it will focus on five to six different areas of the sky, measuring the brightness of about 10,000 stars every 512 seconds. "At the present moment we are hoping to find out more about the nature of planets around stars which are potential habitats. We are looking at habitable planets, not inhabited planets. We are not going to find any little green men, " Professor Ian Roxburgh, an ESA scientist who has been involved with Corot since its inception, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. Prof Roxburgh said it was hoped Corot would find "rocky planets that could develop an atmosphere and, if they are the right distance from their parent star, they could have water". To search for planets, the telescope will look for the dimming of starlight caused when an object passes in front of a star, known as a "transit". Although it will take more sophisticated space telescopes planned in the next 10 years to confirm the presence of an Earth-like planet with oxygen and liquid water, Corot will let scientists know where to point their lenses. Measurements of minute changes in brightness will enable scientists to detect giant Jupiter-like gas planets as well as small rocky ones. It is the rocky planets - that could be no bigger than about twice the size of the Earth - which will cause the most excitement. Scientists expect to find between 10 and 40 of these smaller planets. Corot will also probe into stellar interiors by studying the acoustic waves that ripple across the surface of stars, a technique called "asteroseismology". The nature of the ripples allows astronomers to calculate a star's precise mass, age and chemical composition. "A planet passing in front of a star can be detected by the fall in light from that star. Small oscillations of the star also produce changes in the light emitted, which reveal what the star is made of and how they are structured internally. This data will provide a major boost to our understanding of how stars form and evolve, " Prof Roxburgh said. Since the discovery in 1995 of the first "exoplanet" - a planet orbiting a star other than the Sun - more than 200 others have been found by ground-based observatories. Until now the usual method of finding exoplanets has been to detect the "wobble" their gravity imparts on parent stars. But only giant gaseous planets bigger than Jupiter can be found this way, and they are unlikely to harbour life. In the 2010s, ESA plans to launch Darwin, a fleet of four or five interlinked space telescopes that will not only spot small rocky planets, but analyse their atmospheres for signs of biological activity. At around the same time, the US space agency, Nasa, will launch Terrestrial Planet Finder, another space telescope designed to locate Earth-like planets. | Corot can tell whether there is another Earth-like planet. | contradiction |
id_5131 | Search begins for 'Earth' beyond solar system A European spacecraft took off today to spearhead the search for another "Earth" among the stars. The Corot space telescope blasted off aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan shortly after 2.20pm. Corot, short for convection rotation and planetary transits, is the first instrument capable of finding small rocky planets beyond the solar system. Any such planet situated in the right orbit stands a good chance of having liquid water on its surface, and quite possibly life, although a leading scientist involved in the project said it was unlikely to find "any little green men". Developed by the French space agency, CNES, and partnered by the European Space Agency (ESA), Austria, Belgium, Germany, Brazil and Spain, Corot will monitor around 120,000 stars with its 27cm telescope from a polar orbit 514 miles above the Earth. Over two and a half years, it will focus on five to six different areas of the sky, measuring the brightness of about 10,000 stars every 512 seconds. "At the present moment we are hoping to find out more about the nature of planets around stars which are potential habitats. We are looking at habitable planets, not inhabited planets. We are not going to find any little green men, " Professor Ian Roxburgh, an ESA scientist who has been involved with Corot since its inception, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. Prof Roxburgh said it was hoped Corot would find "rocky planets that could develop an atmosphere and, if they are the right distance from their parent star, they could have water". To search for planets, the telescope will look for the dimming of starlight caused when an object passes in front of a star, known as a "transit". Although it will take more sophisticated space telescopes planned in the next 10 years to confirm the presence of an Earth-like planet with oxygen and liquid water, Corot will let scientists know where to point their lenses. Measurements of minute changes in brightness will enable scientists to detect giant Jupiter-like gas planets as well as small rocky ones. It is the rocky planets - that could be no bigger than about twice the size of the Earth - which will cause the most excitement. Scientists expect to find between 10 and 40 of these smaller planets. Corot will also probe into stellar interiors by studying the acoustic waves that ripple across the surface of stars, a technique called "asteroseismology". The nature of the ripples allows astronomers to calculate a star's precise mass, age and chemical composition. "A planet passing in front of a star can be detected by the fall in light from that star. Small oscillations of the star also produce changes in the light emitted, which reveal what the star is made of and how they are structured internally. This data will provide a major boost to our understanding of how stars form and evolve, " Prof Roxburgh said. Since the discovery in 1995 of the first "exoplanet" - a planet orbiting a star other than the Sun - more than 200 others have been found by ground-based observatories. Until now the usual method of finding exoplanets has been to detect the "wobble" their gravity imparts on parent stars. But only giant gaseous planets bigger than Jupiter can be found this way, and they are unlikely to harbour life. In the 2010s, ESA plans to launch Darwin, a fleet of four or five interlinked space telescopes that will not only spot small rocky planets, but analyse their atmospheres for signs of biological activity. At around the same time, the US space agency, Nasa, will launch Terrestrial Planet Finder, another space telescope designed to locate Earth-like planets. | Scientists are trying to find out about the planets that can be inhabited. | entailment |
id_5132 | Secret of Thailands Success? It is a question officials here in Asia are being posed more and more: Why are your economies so vibrant? explanations include young and swelling populations, decreased debt, growing cities, emerging middle-class consumer sectors, evolving markets and, of course, (Chinas rise. Add this to that list: Women and their increasing role in Asias economies. The idea is that the more opportunities women have, the more vibrant economies are and, consequently, the less need there is to amass a huge public debt to boost growth. It is an idea bolstered by a new survey by MasterCard International Inc. , which compares the socio-economic level of women with men in Asia-Pacific nations. The gauge uses four key indicators: participation in the labour force, college education, managerial positions, and above-median income. Which Asian nation is doing host when it comes to womens advancement? Thailand. It scored 92.3 of a possible 100, and according to MasterCards index, 100 equals gender equality. The survey was based on interviews with 300 to 350 women in thirteen nations and national statistics. Malaysia came in second with a score of 86.2, while China came in third with 68.4. The average score in Asia was 67.7. At the bottom of the list is South Korea (45.5), followed by Indonesia (52.5), and Japan (54.5). Perhaps it is a bizarre coincidence, yet MasterCards findings fit quite neatly with two important issues in Asia: economic leadership and debt. Thailand, Malaysia, and China are three economies widely seen as the future of Asia. Thailands economic boom in recent years has prompted many leaders in the region to look at its growth strategy. Malaysia, which has a female central bank governor, is one of Asias rising economic powers. China, of course, is the worlds hottest economy, and one that is shaking up trade patterns and business decisions everywhere. Something all three economies have in common is an above-average level of female participation. What the three worst ranked economies share are severe long-term economic challenges of high levels of debt and a female workforce that is being neglected. Research in economic history is very conclusive on the role of women in economic growth and development, says Yuwa Hedrick-Wong, an economic adviser to MasterCard. The more extensive womens participation at all areas of economic activities, the higher the probability for stronger economic growth. That, Hedrick-Wong says, means societies and economies that consistently fail to fully incorporate womens ability and talent in businesses, and the workplace will suffer the consequences. Take Korea, which has been walking in place economically in recent years. Immediately following the 1997 1998 Asian financial crisis, Korea became a regional role model as growth boomed and unemployment fell. Yet a massive increase in household debt left consumers overexposed and growth slowed. Maybe it is a just coincidence that Korea also ranks low on measures of gender equality published by the United Nations. As of 2003, for example, it ranked below Honduras, Paraguay, Mauritius, and Ukraine in terms of womens economic and political empowerment. Utilising more of its female workforce would deepen Koreas labour pool and increase potential growth rates in the economy. The same goes for Japan. The reluctance of Asias biggest economy to increase female participation and let more women into the executive suite exacerbates its biggest long-term challenge: a declining birth rate. In 2003, the number of children per Japanese woman fell to a record low of 1.29 versus about. 2 in the early 1970s. Preliminary government statistics suggest the rate declined further in 2004. The trend is nothing short of a crisis for a highly indebted nation of 126 million that has yet to figure out how to fund the national pension system down the road. Yet Japan has been slow to realise that for many women, the decision to delay childbirth is a form of rebellion against societal expectations to have children and become housewives, It may be 2005, yet having children is a career-ending decision for millions of bright, ambit ions, and well-educated Japanese, Until corrected, Japans birth rate will drop and economic growth will lag, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was absolutely right earlier this month when he said no other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity than the empowerment of women. Here, in Thailand, the government is getting some decent marks in this regard, and the economys 6 per cent-plus growth rate may be a direct result. Thailand still has a long way to go. Yet the Bank of Thailands deputy governor, Tarisa Watanagase, is a woman, as are seven of nine assistant governors. Then theres Jada Wattanasiritham, who runs Siam Commercial Bank Plc, Thailands fourth-biggest lender. How many female chief executives can you name in Japan or Korea? Looked at broadly in Asia, MasterCards survey is on to something. It is that giving women more opportunities to contribute to an economy is not just about fairness, but dollars and sense, too. | The writer considers fairness to be a bad reason for giving women top jobs. | neutral |
id_5133 | Secret of Thailands Success? It is a question officials here in Asia are being posed more and more: Why are your economies so vibrant? explanations include young and swelling populations, decreased debt, growing cities, emerging middle-class consumer sectors, evolving markets and, of course, (Chinas rise. Add this to that list: Women and their increasing role in Asias economies. The idea is that the more opportunities women have, the more vibrant economies are and, consequently, the less need there is to amass a huge public debt to boost growth. It is an idea bolstered by a new survey by MasterCard International Inc. , which compares the socio-economic level of women with men in Asia-Pacific nations. The gauge uses four key indicators: participation in the labour force, college education, managerial positions, and above-median income. Which Asian nation is doing host when it comes to womens advancement? Thailand. It scored 92.3 of a possible 100, and according to MasterCards index, 100 equals gender equality. The survey was based on interviews with 300 to 350 women in thirteen nations and national statistics. Malaysia came in second with a score of 86.2, while China came in third with 68.4. The average score in Asia was 67.7. At the bottom of the list is South Korea (45.5), followed by Indonesia (52.5), and Japan (54.5). Perhaps it is a bizarre coincidence, yet MasterCards findings fit quite neatly with two important issues in Asia: economic leadership and debt. Thailand, Malaysia, and China are three economies widely seen as the future of Asia. Thailands economic boom in recent years has prompted many leaders in the region to look at its growth strategy. Malaysia, which has a female central bank governor, is one of Asias rising economic powers. China, of course, is the worlds hottest economy, and one that is shaking up trade patterns and business decisions everywhere. Something all three economies have in common is an above-average level of female participation. What the three worst ranked economies share are severe long-term economic challenges of high levels of debt and a female workforce that is being neglected. Research in economic history is very conclusive on the role of women in economic growth and development, says Yuwa Hedrick-Wong, an economic adviser to MasterCard. The more extensive womens participation at all areas of economic activities, the higher the probability for stronger economic growth. That, Hedrick-Wong says, means societies and economies that consistently fail to fully incorporate womens ability and talent in businesses, and the workplace will suffer the consequences. Take Korea, which has been walking in place economically in recent years. Immediately following the 1997 1998 Asian financial crisis, Korea became a regional role model as growth boomed and unemployment fell. Yet a massive increase in household debt left consumers overexposed and growth slowed. Maybe it is a just coincidence that Korea also ranks low on measures of gender equality published by the United Nations. As of 2003, for example, it ranked below Honduras, Paraguay, Mauritius, and Ukraine in terms of womens economic and political empowerment. Utilising more of its female workforce would deepen Koreas labour pool and increase potential growth rates in the economy. The same goes for Japan. The reluctance of Asias biggest economy to increase female participation and let more women into the executive suite exacerbates its biggest long-term challenge: a declining birth rate. In 2003, the number of children per Japanese woman fell to a record low of 1.29 versus about. 2 in the early 1970s. Preliminary government statistics suggest the rate declined further in 2004. The trend is nothing short of a crisis for a highly indebted nation of 126 million that has yet to figure out how to fund the national pension system down the road. Yet Japan has been slow to realise that for many women, the decision to delay childbirth is a form of rebellion against societal expectations to have children and become housewives, It may be 2005, yet having children is a career-ending decision for millions of bright, ambit ions, and well-educated Japanese, Until corrected, Japans birth rate will drop and economic growth will lag, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was absolutely right earlier this month when he said no other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity than the empowerment of women. Here, in Thailand, the government is getting some decent marks in this regard, and the economys 6 per cent-plus growth rate may be a direct result. Thailand still has a long way to go. Yet the Bank of Thailands deputy governor, Tarisa Watanagase, is a woman, as are seven of nine assistant governors. Then theres Jada Wattanasiritham, who runs Siam Commercial Bank Plc, Thailands fourth-biggest lender. How many female chief executives can you name in Japan or Korea? Looked at broadly in Asia, MasterCards survey is on to something. It is that giving women more opportunities to contribute to an economy is not just about fairness, but dollars and sense, too. | Other countries are looking at the example of Thailand to see if its policies can help their economies. | entailment |
id_5134 | Secret of Thailands Success? It is a question officials here in Asia are being posed more and more: Why are your economies so vibrant? explanations include young and swelling populations, decreased debt, growing cities, emerging middle-class consumer sectors, evolving markets and, of course, (Chinas rise. Add this to that list: Women and their increasing role in Asias economies. The idea is that the more opportunities women have, the more vibrant economies are and, consequently, the less need there is to amass a huge public debt to boost growth. It is an idea bolstered by a new survey by MasterCard International Inc. , which compares the socio-economic level of women with men in Asia-Pacific nations. The gauge uses four key indicators: participation in the labour force, college education, managerial positions, and above-median income. Which Asian nation is doing host when it comes to womens advancement? Thailand. It scored 92.3 of a possible 100, and according to MasterCards index, 100 equals gender equality. The survey was based on interviews with 300 to 350 women in thirteen nations and national statistics. Malaysia came in second with a score of 86.2, while China came in third with 68.4. The average score in Asia was 67.7. At the bottom of the list is South Korea (45.5), followed by Indonesia (52.5), and Japan (54.5). Perhaps it is a bizarre coincidence, yet MasterCards findings fit quite neatly with two important issues in Asia: economic leadership and debt. Thailand, Malaysia, and China are three economies widely seen as the future of Asia. Thailands economic boom in recent years has prompted many leaders in the region to look at its growth strategy. Malaysia, which has a female central bank governor, is one of Asias rising economic powers. China, of course, is the worlds hottest economy, and one that is shaking up trade patterns and business decisions everywhere. Something all three economies have in common is an above-average level of female participation. What the three worst ranked economies share are severe long-term economic challenges of high levels of debt and a female workforce that is being neglected. Research in economic history is very conclusive on the role of women in economic growth and development, says Yuwa Hedrick-Wong, an economic adviser to MasterCard. The more extensive womens participation at all areas of economic activities, the higher the probability for stronger economic growth. That, Hedrick-Wong says, means societies and economies that consistently fail to fully incorporate womens ability and talent in businesses, and the workplace will suffer the consequences. Take Korea, which has been walking in place economically in recent years. Immediately following the 1997 1998 Asian financial crisis, Korea became a regional role model as growth boomed and unemployment fell. Yet a massive increase in household debt left consumers overexposed and growth slowed. Maybe it is a just coincidence that Korea also ranks low on measures of gender equality published by the United Nations. As of 2003, for example, it ranked below Honduras, Paraguay, Mauritius, and Ukraine in terms of womens economic and political empowerment. Utilising more of its female workforce would deepen Koreas labour pool and increase potential growth rates in the economy. The same goes for Japan. The reluctance of Asias biggest economy to increase female participation and let more women into the executive suite exacerbates its biggest long-term challenge: a declining birth rate. In 2003, the number of children per Japanese woman fell to a record low of 1.29 versus about. 2 in the early 1970s. Preliminary government statistics suggest the rate declined further in 2004. The trend is nothing short of a crisis for a highly indebted nation of 126 million that has yet to figure out how to fund the national pension system down the road. Yet Japan has been slow to realise that for many women, the decision to delay childbirth is a form of rebellion against societal expectations to have children and become housewives, It may be 2005, yet having children is a career-ending decision for millions of bright, ambit ions, and well-educated Japanese, Until corrected, Japans birth rate will drop and economic growth will lag, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was absolutely right earlier this month when he said no other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity than the empowerment of women. Here, in Thailand, the government is getting some decent marks in this regard, and the economys 6 per cent-plus growth rate may be a direct result. Thailand still has a long way to go. Yet the Bank of Thailands deputy governor, Tarisa Watanagase, is a woman, as are seven of nine assistant governors. Then theres Jada Wattanasiritham, who runs Siam Commercial Bank Plc, Thailands fourth-biggest lender. How many female chief executives can you name in Japan or Korea? Looked at broadly in Asia, MasterCards survey is on to something. It is that giving women more opportunities to contribute to an economy is not just about fairness, but dollars and sense, too. | Higher female participation in an economy always leads to greater economic growth. | contradiction |
id_5135 | Secret of Thailands Success? It is a question officials here in Asia are being posed more and more: Why are your economies so vibrant? explanations include young and swelling populations, decreased debt, growing cities, emerging middle-class consumer sectors, evolving markets and, of course, (Chinas rise. Add this to that list: Women and their increasing role in Asias economies. The idea is that the more opportunities women have, the more vibrant economies are and, consequently, the less need there is to amass a huge public debt to boost growth. It is an idea bolstered by a new survey by MasterCard International Inc. , which compares the socio-economic level of women with men in Asia-Pacific nations. The gauge uses four key indicators: participation in the labour force, college education, managerial positions, and above-median income. Which Asian nation is doing host when it comes to womens advancement? Thailand. It scored 92.3 of a possible 100, and according to MasterCards index, 100 equals gender equality. The survey was based on interviews with 300 to 350 women in thirteen nations and national statistics. Malaysia came in second with a score of 86.2, while China came in third with 68.4. The average score in Asia was 67.7. At the bottom of the list is South Korea (45.5), followed by Indonesia (52.5), and Japan (54.5). Perhaps it is a bizarre coincidence, yet MasterCards findings fit quite neatly with two important issues in Asia: economic leadership and debt. Thailand, Malaysia, and China are three economies widely seen as the future of Asia. Thailands economic boom in recent years has prompted many leaders in the region to look at its growth strategy. Malaysia, which has a female central bank governor, is one of Asias rising economic powers. China, of course, is the worlds hottest economy, and one that is shaking up trade patterns and business decisions everywhere. Something all three economies have in common is an above-average level of female participation. What the three worst ranked economies share are severe long-term economic challenges of high levels of debt and a female workforce that is being neglected. Research in economic history is very conclusive on the role of women in economic growth and development, says Yuwa Hedrick-Wong, an economic adviser to MasterCard. The more extensive womens participation at all areas of economic activities, the higher the probability for stronger economic growth. That, Hedrick-Wong says, means societies and economies that consistently fail to fully incorporate womens ability and talent in businesses, and the workplace will suffer the consequences. Take Korea, which has been walking in place economically in recent years. Immediately following the 1997 1998 Asian financial crisis, Korea became a regional role model as growth boomed and unemployment fell. Yet a massive increase in household debt left consumers overexposed and growth slowed. Maybe it is a just coincidence that Korea also ranks low on measures of gender equality published by the United Nations. As of 2003, for example, it ranked below Honduras, Paraguay, Mauritius, and Ukraine in terms of womens economic and political empowerment. Utilising more of its female workforce would deepen Koreas labour pool and increase potential growth rates in the economy. The same goes for Japan. The reluctance of Asias biggest economy to increase female participation and let more women into the executive suite exacerbates its biggest long-term challenge: a declining birth rate. In 2003, the number of children per Japanese woman fell to a record low of 1.29 versus about. 2 in the early 1970s. Preliminary government statistics suggest the rate declined further in 2004. The trend is nothing short of a crisis for a highly indebted nation of 126 million that has yet to figure out how to fund the national pension system down the road. Yet Japan has been slow to realise that for many women, the decision to delay childbirth is a form of rebellion against societal expectations to have children and become housewives, It may be 2005, yet having children is a career-ending decision for millions of bright, ambit ions, and well-educated Japanese, Until corrected, Japans birth rate will drop and economic growth will lag, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was absolutely right earlier this month when he said no other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity than the empowerment of women. Here, in Thailand, the government is getting some decent marks in this regard, and the economys 6 per cent-plus growth rate may be a direct result. Thailand still has a long way to go. Yet the Bank of Thailands deputy governor, Tarisa Watanagase, is a woman, as are seven of nine assistant governors. Then theres Jada Wattanasiritham, who runs Siam Commercial Bank Plc, Thailands fourth-biggest lender. How many female chief executives can you name in Japan or Korea? Looked at broadly in Asia, MasterCards survey is on to something. It is that giving women more opportunities to contribute to an economy is not just about fairness, but dollars and sense, too. | Female participation in the economy is lower in Japan than in most other developed economies. | neutral |
id_5136 | Secret of Thailands Success? It is a question officials here in Asia are being posed more and more: Why are your economies so vibrant? explanations include young and swelling populations, decreased debt, growing cities, emerging middle-class consumer sectors, evolving markets and, of course, (Chinas rise. Add this to that list: Women and their increasing role in Asias economies. The idea is that the more opportunities women have, the more vibrant economies are and, consequently, the less need there is to amass a huge public debt to boost growth. It is an idea bolstered by a new survey by MasterCard International Inc. , which compares the socio-economic level of women with men in Asia-Pacific nations. The gauge uses four key indicators: participation in the labour force, college education, managerial positions, and above-median income. Which Asian nation is doing host when it comes to womens advancement? Thailand. It scored 92.3 of a possible 100, and according to MasterCards index, 100 equals gender equality. The survey was based on interviews with 300 to 350 women in thirteen nations and national statistics. Malaysia came in second with a score of 86.2, while China came in third with 68.4. The average score in Asia was 67.7. At the bottom of the list is South Korea (45.5), followed by Indonesia (52.5), and Japan (54.5). Perhaps it is a bizarre coincidence, yet MasterCards findings fit quite neatly with two important issues in Asia: economic leadership and debt. Thailand, Malaysia, and China are three economies widely seen as the future of Asia. Thailands economic boom in recent years has prompted many leaders in the region to look at its growth strategy. Malaysia, which has a female central bank governor, is one of Asias rising economic powers. China, of course, is the worlds hottest economy, and one that is shaking up trade patterns and business decisions everywhere. Something all three economies have in common is an above-average level of female participation. What the three worst ranked economies share are severe long-term economic challenges of high levels of debt and a female workforce that is being neglected. Research in economic history is very conclusive on the role of women in economic growth and development, says Yuwa Hedrick-Wong, an economic adviser to MasterCard. The more extensive womens participation at all areas of economic activities, the higher the probability for stronger economic growth. That, Hedrick-Wong says, means societies and economies that consistently fail to fully incorporate womens ability and talent in businesses, and the workplace will suffer the consequences. Take Korea, which has been walking in place economically in recent years. Immediately following the 1997 1998 Asian financial crisis, Korea became a regional role model as growth boomed and unemployment fell. Yet a massive increase in household debt left consumers overexposed and growth slowed. Maybe it is a just coincidence that Korea also ranks low on measures of gender equality published by the United Nations. As of 2003, for example, it ranked below Honduras, Paraguay, Mauritius, and Ukraine in terms of womens economic and political empowerment. Utilising more of its female workforce would deepen Koreas labour pool and increase potential growth rates in the economy. The same goes for Japan. The reluctance of Asias biggest economy to increase female participation and let more women into the executive suite exacerbates its biggest long-term challenge: a declining birth rate. In 2003, the number of children per Japanese woman fell to a record low of 1.29 versus about. 2 in the early 1970s. Preliminary government statistics suggest the rate declined further in 2004. The trend is nothing short of a crisis for a highly indebted nation of 126 million that has yet to figure out how to fund the national pension system down the road. Yet Japan has been slow to realise that for many women, the decision to delay childbirth is a form of rebellion against societal expectations to have children and become housewives, It may be 2005, yet having children is a career-ending decision for millions of bright, ambit ions, and well-educated Japanese, Until corrected, Japans birth rate will drop and economic growth will lag, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was absolutely right earlier this month when he said no other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity than the empowerment of women. Here, in Thailand, the government is getting some decent marks in this regard, and the economys 6 per cent-plus growth rate may be a direct result. Thailand still has a long way to go. Yet the Bank of Thailands deputy governor, Tarisa Watanagase, is a woman, as are seven of nine assistant governors. Then theres Jada Wattanasiritham, who runs Siam Commercial Bank Plc, Thailands fourth-biggest lender. How many female chief executives can you name in Japan or Korea? Looked at broadly in Asia, MasterCards survey is on to something. It is that giving women more opportunities to contribute to an economy is not just about fairness, but dollars and sense, too. | Most of the Bank of Thailands assistant governors are female. | entailment |
id_5137 | Seed Hunting With a quarter of the worlds plants set to vanish within the next 50 years, Dough Alexander reports on the scientists working against the clock the preserve the Earths botanical heritage. They travel the four comers of the globe, scouring jungles, forests, and savannas. But theyre not looking for ancient artifacts, lost treasure or undiscovered tombs. Just pods. It may lack the romantic allure of archaeology or the whiff of danger that accompanies going after a big game, but seed hunting is an increasingly serious business. Some seek seeds for profithunters in the employ of biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies and private corporations on the lookout for species that will yield the drugs or crops of the future. Others collect to conserve, working to halt the sad slide into extinction facing so many plant species. Among the pioneers of this botanical treasure hunt was John Tradescant, an English royal gardener who brought back plants and seeds from his journeys abroad in the early 1600s. Later, the English botanist Sir Joseph Banks who was the first director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and traveled with Captain James Cook on his voyages near the end of the 18th centurywas so driven to expand his collections that he sent botanists around the world at his own expense. Those heady days of exploration and discovery may be over, but they have been replaced by a pressing need to preserve our natural history for the future. This modem mission drives hunters such as Dr. Michiel van Slageren, a good-natured Dutchman who often sports a wide-brimmed hat in the fieldhe could easily be mistaken for the cinematic hero Indiana Jones. He and three other seed hunters work at the Millennium Seed Bank, an 80 million [pounds sterling] international conservation project that aims to protect the worlds most endangered wild plant species The groups headquarters are in a modem glass-and-concrete structure on a 200-hectare Estate at Wakehurst Place in the West Sussex countryside. Within its underground vaults are 260 million dried seeds from 122 countries, all stored at -20 Celsius to survive for centuries. Among the 5,100 species represented are virtually all of Britains 1,400 native seed-bearing plants, the most complete such collection of any countrys flora. Overseen by the Royal botanic gardens, the Millennium Seed Bank is the worlds largest wild-plant depository. It aims to collect 24,000 species by 2010. The reason is simple: thanks to humanitys efforts, an estimated 25 percent of the worlds plants are on the verge of extinction and may vanish within 50 years. Were currently responsible for habitat destruction on an unprecedented scale, and during the past 400 years, plant species extinction rates have been about 70 times greater than those indicated by the geological record as being normal. Experts predict that during the next 50 years further one billion hectares of wilderness will be converted to farmland in developing countries alone. The implications of this loss are enormous. Besides providing staple food crops, plants are a source of many machines and the principal supply of fuel and building materials in many parts of the world. They also protect soil and help regulate the climate. Yet, across the globe, plant species are being driven to extinction before their potential benefits are discovered. The World Conservation Union has listed 5,714 threatened species is sure to be much higher. In the UK alone, 300 wild plant species are classified as endangered. The Millennium Seed Bank aims to ensure that even if a plant becomes extinct in the wild, it wont be lost forever. Stored seeds can be used the help restore damaged or destroyed environment or in scientific research to find new benefits for society- in medicine, agriculture or local industry- that would otherwise be lost. Seed banks are an insurance policy to protect the worlds plant heritage for the future, explains Dr. Paul Smith, another Kew seed hunter. Seed conservation techniques were originally developed by farmers/ he says. Storage is the basis what we do, conserving seeds until you can use them just as in farming, Smith says theres no reason why any plant species should become extinct, given todays technology. But he admits that the biggest challenge is finding, naming and _ categorizing all the worlds plants. And someone has to gather these seeds before its too late. There arent a lot of people out there doing this, he says The key is to know the flora from a particular area, and that knowledge takes years to acquire. There are about 1,470 seedbanks scattered around the globe, with a combined total of 5.4 million samples, of which perhaps two million are distinct non-duplicates. Most preserve genetic material for agriculture use in order to ensure crop diversity; others aim to conserve wild species, although only 15 percent of all banked plants are wild. Imperial College, London, examined crop collections from 151 countries and found that while the number of plant samples had increased in two-thirds of the countries, the budget had been cut in a quarter and remained static in another 35 percent. The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has since set up the Global Conservation Trust, which aims to raise the US $260 million to protect seed banks in perpetuity. | The purpose of collecting seeds now is different from the past | entailment |
id_5138 | Seed Hunting With a quarter of the worlds plants set to vanish within the next 50 years, Dough Alexander reports on the scientists working against the clock the preserve the Earths botanical heritage. They travel the four comers of the globe, scouring jungles, forests, and savannas. But theyre not looking for ancient artifacts, lost treasure or undiscovered tombs. Just pods. It may lack the romantic allure of archaeology or the whiff of danger that accompanies going after a big game, but seed hunting is an increasingly serious business. Some seek seeds for profithunters in the employ of biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies and private corporations on the lookout for species that will yield the drugs or crops of the future. Others collect to conserve, working to halt the sad slide into extinction facing so many plant species. Among the pioneers of this botanical treasure hunt was John Tradescant, an English royal gardener who brought back plants and seeds from his journeys abroad in the early 1600s. Later, the English botanist Sir Joseph Banks who was the first director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and traveled with Captain James Cook on his voyages near the end of the 18th centurywas so driven to expand his collections that he sent botanists around the world at his own expense. Those heady days of exploration and discovery may be over, but they have been replaced by a pressing need to preserve our natural history for the future. This modem mission drives hunters such as Dr. Michiel van Slageren, a good-natured Dutchman who often sports a wide-brimmed hat in the fieldhe could easily be mistaken for the cinematic hero Indiana Jones. He and three other seed hunters work at the Millennium Seed Bank, an 80 million [pounds sterling] international conservation project that aims to protect the worlds most endangered wild plant species The groups headquarters are in a modem glass-and-concrete structure on a 200-hectare Estate at Wakehurst Place in the West Sussex countryside. Within its underground vaults are 260 million dried seeds from 122 countries, all stored at -20 Celsius to survive for centuries. Among the 5,100 species represented are virtually all of Britains 1,400 native seed-bearing plants, the most complete such collection of any countrys flora. Overseen by the Royal botanic gardens, the Millennium Seed Bank is the worlds largest wild-plant depository. It aims to collect 24,000 species by 2010. The reason is simple: thanks to humanitys efforts, an estimated 25 percent of the worlds plants are on the verge of extinction and may vanish within 50 years. Were currently responsible for habitat destruction on an unprecedented scale, and during the past 400 years, plant species extinction rates have been about 70 times greater than those indicated by the geological record as being normal. Experts predict that during the next 50 years further one billion hectares of wilderness will be converted to farmland in developing countries alone. The implications of this loss are enormous. Besides providing staple food crops, plants are a source of many machines and the principal supply of fuel and building materials in many parts of the world. They also protect soil and help regulate the climate. Yet, across the globe, plant species are being driven to extinction before their potential benefits are discovered. The World Conservation Union has listed 5,714 threatened species is sure to be much higher. In the UK alone, 300 wild plant species are classified as endangered. The Millennium Seed Bank aims to ensure that even if a plant becomes extinct in the wild, it wont be lost forever. Stored seeds can be used the help restore damaged or destroyed environment or in scientific research to find new benefits for society- in medicine, agriculture or local industry- that would otherwise be lost. Seed banks are an insurance policy to protect the worlds plant heritage for the future, explains Dr. Paul Smith, another Kew seed hunter. Seed conservation techniques were originally developed by farmers/ he says. Storage is the basis what we do, conserving seeds until you can use them just as in farming, Smith says theres no reason why any plant species should become extinct, given todays technology. But he admits that the biggest challenge is finding, naming and _ categorizing all the worlds plants. And someone has to gather these seeds before its too late. There arent a lot of people out there doing this, he says The key is to know the flora from a particular area, and that knowledge takes years to acquire. There are about 1,470 seedbanks scattered around the globe, with a combined total of 5.4 million samples, of which perhaps two million are distinct non-duplicates. Most preserve genetic material for agriculture use in order to ensure crop diversity; others aim to conserve wild species, although only 15 percent of all banked plants are wild. Imperial College, London, examined crop collections from 151 countries and found that while the number of plant samples had increased in two-thirds of the countries, the budget had been cut in a quarter and remained static in another 35 percent. The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has since set up the Global Conservation Trust, which aims to raise the US $260 million to protect seed banks in perpetuity. | The millennium seed bank is the earliest seed bank. | neutral |
id_5139 | Seed Hunting With a quarter of the worlds plants set to vanish within the next 50 years, Dough Alexander reports on the scientists working against the clock the preserve the Earths botanical heritage. They travel the four comers of the globe, scouring jungles, forests, and savannas. But theyre not looking for ancient artifacts, lost treasure or undiscovered tombs. Just pods. It may lack the romantic allure of archaeology or the whiff of danger that accompanies going after a big game, but seed hunting is an increasingly serious business. Some seek seeds for profithunters in the employ of biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies and private corporations on the lookout for species that will yield the drugs or crops of the future. Others collect to conserve, working to halt the sad slide into extinction facing so many plant species. Among the pioneers of this botanical treasure hunt was John Tradescant, an English royal gardener who brought back plants and seeds from his journeys abroad in the early 1600s. Later, the English botanist Sir Joseph Banks who was the first director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and traveled with Captain James Cook on his voyages near the end of the 18th centurywas so driven to expand his collections that he sent botanists around the world at his own expense. Those heady days of exploration and discovery may be over, but they have been replaced by a pressing need to preserve our natural history for the future. This modem mission drives hunters such as Dr. Michiel van Slageren, a good-natured Dutchman who often sports a wide-brimmed hat in the fieldhe could easily be mistaken for the cinematic hero Indiana Jones. He and three other seed hunters work at the Millennium Seed Bank, an 80 million [pounds sterling] international conservation project that aims to protect the worlds most endangered wild plant species The groups headquarters are in a modem glass-and-concrete structure on a 200-hectare Estate at Wakehurst Place in the West Sussex countryside. Within its underground vaults are 260 million dried seeds from 122 countries, all stored at -20 Celsius to survive for centuries. Among the 5,100 species represented are virtually all of Britains 1,400 native seed-bearing plants, the most complete such collection of any countrys flora. Overseen by the Royal botanic gardens, the Millennium Seed Bank is the worlds largest wild-plant depository. It aims to collect 24,000 species by 2010. The reason is simple: thanks to humanitys efforts, an estimated 25 percent of the worlds plants are on the verge of extinction and may vanish within 50 years. Were currently responsible for habitat destruction on an unprecedented scale, and during the past 400 years, plant species extinction rates have been about 70 times greater than those indicated by the geological record as being normal. Experts predict that during the next 50 years further one billion hectares of wilderness will be converted to farmland in developing countries alone. The implications of this loss are enormous. Besides providing staple food crops, plants are a source of many machines and the principal supply of fuel and building materials in many parts of the world. They also protect soil and help regulate the climate. Yet, across the globe, plant species are being driven to extinction before their potential benefits are discovered. The World Conservation Union has listed 5,714 threatened species is sure to be much higher. In the UK alone, 300 wild plant species are classified as endangered. The Millennium Seed Bank aims to ensure that even if a plant becomes extinct in the wild, it wont be lost forever. Stored seeds can be used the help restore damaged or destroyed environment or in scientific research to find new benefits for society- in medicine, agriculture or local industry- that would otherwise be lost. Seed banks are an insurance policy to protect the worlds plant heritage for the future, explains Dr. Paul Smith, another Kew seed hunter. Seed conservation techniques were originally developed by farmers/ he says. Storage is the basis what we do, conserving seeds until you can use them just as in farming, Smith says theres no reason why any plant species should become extinct, given todays technology. But he admits that the biggest challenge is finding, naming and _ categorizing all the worlds plants. And someone has to gather these seeds before its too late. There arent a lot of people out there doing this, he says The key is to know the flora from a particular area, and that knowledge takes years to acquire. There are about 1,470 seedbanks scattered around the globe, with a combined total of 5.4 million samples, of which perhaps two million are distinct non-duplicates. Most preserve genetic material for agriculture use in order to ensure crop diversity; others aim to conserve wild species, although only 15 percent of all banked plants are wild. Imperial College, London, examined crop collections from 151 countries and found that while the number of plant samples had increased in two-thirds of the countries, the budget had been cut in a quarter and remained static in another 35 percent. The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has since set up the Global Conservation Trust, which aims to raise the US $260 million to protect seed banks in perpetuity. | One of the major threats for plant species extinction is farmland expansion into wildness. | entailment |
id_5140 | Seed Hunting With a quarter of the worlds plants set to vanish within the next 50 years, Dough Alexander reports on the scientists working against the clock the preserve the Earths botanical heritage. They travel the four comers of the globe, scouring jungles, forests, and savannas. But theyre not looking for ancient artifacts, lost treasure or undiscovered tombs. Just pods. It may lack the romantic allure of archaeology or the whiff of danger that accompanies going after a big game, but seed hunting is an increasingly serious business. Some seek seeds for profithunters in the employ of biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies and private corporations on the lookout for species that will yield the drugs or crops of the future. Others collect to conserve, working to halt the sad slide into extinction facing so many plant species. Among the pioneers of this botanical treasure hunt was John Tradescant, an English royal gardener who brought back plants and seeds from his journeys abroad in the early 1600s. Later, the English botanist Sir Joseph Banks who was the first director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and traveled with Captain James Cook on his voyages near the end of the 18th centurywas so driven to expand his collections that he sent botanists around the world at his own expense. Those heady days of exploration and discovery may be over, but they have been replaced by a pressing need to preserve our natural history for the future. This modem mission drives hunters such as Dr. Michiel van Slageren, a good-natured Dutchman who often sports a wide-brimmed hat in the fieldhe could easily be mistaken for the cinematic hero Indiana Jones. He and three other seed hunters work at the Millennium Seed Bank, an 80 million [pounds sterling] international conservation project that aims to protect the worlds most endangered wild plant species The groups headquarters are in a modem glass-and-concrete structure on a 200-hectare Estate at Wakehurst Place in the West Sussex countryside. Within its underground vaults are 260 million dried seeds from 122 countries, all stored at -20 Celsius to survive for centuries. Among the 5,100 species represented are virtually all of Britains 1,400 native seed-bearing plants, the most complete such collection of any countrys flora. Overseen by the Royal botanic gardens, the Millennium Seed Bank is the worlds largest wild-plant depository. It aims to collect 24,000 species by 2010. The reason is simple: thanks to humanitys efforts, an estimated 25 percent of the worlds plants are on the verge of extinction and may vanish within 50 years. Were currently responsible for habitat destruction on an unprecedented scale, and during the past 400 years, plant species extinction rates have been about 70 times greater than those indicated by the geological record as being normal. Experts predict that during the next 50 years further one billion hectares of wilderness will be converted to farmland in developing countries alone. The implications of this loss are enormous. Besides providing staple food crops, plants are a source of many machines and the principal supply of fuel and building materials in many parts of the world. They also protect soil and help regulate the climate. Yet, across the globe, plant species are being driven to extinction before their potential benefits are discovered. The World Conservation Union has listed 5,714 threatened species is sure to be much higher. In the UK alone, 300 wild plant species are classified as endangered. The Millennium Seed Bank aims to ensure that even if a plant becomes extinct in the wild, it wont be lost forever. Stored seeds can be used the help restore damaged or destroyed environment or in scientific research to find new benefits for society- in medicine, agriculture or local industry- that would otherwise be lost. Seed banks are an insurance policy to protect the worlds plant heritage for the future, explains Dr. Paul Smith, another Kew seed hunter. Seed conservation techniques were originally developed by farmers/ he says. Storage is the basis what we do, conserving seeds until you can use them just as in farming, Smith says theres no reason why any plant species should become extinct, given todays technology. But he admits that the biggest challenge is finding, naming and _ categorizing all the worlds plants. And someone has to gather these seeds before its too late. There arent a lot of people out there doing this, he says The key is to know the flora from a particular area, and that knowledge takes years to acquire. There are about 1,470 seedbanks scattered around the globe, with a combined total of 5.4 million samples, of which perhaps two million are distinct non-duplicates. Most preserve genetic material for agriculture use in order to ensure crop diversity; others aim to conserve wild species, although only 15 percent of all banked plants are wild. Imperial College, London, examined crop collections from 151 countries and found that while the number of plant samples had increased in two-thirds of the countries, the budget had been cut in a quarter and remained static in another 35 percent. The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has since set up the Global Conservation Trust, which aims to raise the US $260 million to protect seed banks in perpetuity. | The works of seed conservation are often limited by financial problems. | entailment |
id_5141 | Seed Hunting With a quarter of the worlds plants set to vanish within the next 50 years, Dough Alexander reports on the scientists working against the clock the preserve the Earths botanical heritage. They travel the four comers of the globe, scouring jungles, forests, and savannas. But theyre not looking for ancient artifacts, lost treasure or undiscovered tombs. Just pods. It may lack the romantic allure of archaeology or the whiff of danger that accompanies going after a big game, but seed hunting is an increasingly serious business. Some seek seeds for profithunters in the employ of biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies and private corporations on the lookout for species that will yield the drugs or crops of the future. Others collect to conserve, working to halt the sad slide into extinction facing so many plant species. Among the pioneers of this botanical treasure hunt was John Tradescant, an English royal gardener who brought back plants and seeds from his journeys abroad in the early 1600s. Later, the English botanist Sir Joseph Banks who was the first director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and traveled with Captain James Cook on his voyages near the end of the 18th centurywas so driven to expand his collections that he sent botanists around the world at his own expense. Those heady days of exploration and discovery may be over, but they have been replaced by a pressing need to preserve our natural history for the future. This modem mission drives hunters such as Dr. Michiel van Slageren, a good-natured Dutchman who often sports a wide-brimmed hat in the fieldhe could easily be mistaken for the cinematic hero Indiana Jones. He and three other seed hunters work at the Millennium Seed Bank, an 80 million [pounds sterling] international conservation project that aims to protect the worlds most endangered wild plant species The groups headquarters are in a modem glass-and-concrete structure on a 200-hectare Estate at Wakehurst Place in the West Sussex countryside. Within its underground vaults are 260 million dried seeds from 122 countries, all stored at -20 Celsius to survive for centuries. Among the 5,100 species represented are virtually all of Britains 1,400 native seed-bearing plants, the most complete such collection of any countrys flora. Overseen by the Royal botanic gardens, the Millennium Seed Bank is the worlds largest wild-plant depository. It aims to collect 24,000 species by 2010. The reason is simple: thanks to humanitys efforts, an estimated 25 percent of the worlds plants are on the verge of extinction and may vanish within 50 years. Were currently responsible for habitat destruction on an unprecedented scale, and during the past 400 years, plant species extinction rates have been about 70 times greater than those indicated by the geological record as being normal. Experts predict that during the next 50 years further one billion hectares of wilderness will be converted to farmland in developing countries alone. The implications of this loss are enormous. Besides providing staple food crops, plants are a source of many machines and the principal supply of fuel and building materials in many parts of the world. They also protect soil and help regulate the climate. Yet, across the globe, plant species are being driven to extinction before their potential benefits are discovered. The World Conservation Union has listed 5,714 threatened species is sure to be much higher. In the UK alone, 300 wild plant species are classified as endangered. The Millennium Seed Bank aims to ensure that even if a plant becomes extinct in the wild, it wont be lost forever. Stored seeds can be used the help restore damaged or destroyed environment or in scientific research to find new benefits for society- in medicine, agriculture or local industry- that would otherwise be lost. Seed banks are an insurance policy to protect the worlds plant heritage for the future, explains Dr. Paul Smith, another Kew seed hunter. Seed conservation techniques were originally developed by farmers/ he says. Storage is the basis what we do, conserving seeds until you can use them just as in farming, Smith says theres no reason why any plant species should become extinct, given todays technology. But he admits that the biggest challenge is finding, naming and _ categorizing all the worlds plants. And someone has to gather these seeds before its too late. There arent a lot of people out there doing this, he says The key is to know the flora from a particular area, and that knowledge takes years to acquire. There are about 1,470 seedbanks scattered around the globe, with a combined total of 5.4 million samples, of which perhaps two million are distinct non-duplicates. Most preserve genetic material for agriculture use in order to ensure crop diversity; others aim to conserve wild species, although only 15 percent of all banked plants are wild. Imperial College, London, examined crop collections from 151 countries and found that while the number of plant samples had increased in two-thirds of the countries, the budget had been cut in a quarter and remained static in another 35 percent. The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has since set up the Global Conservation Trust, which aims to raise the US $260 million to protect seed banks in perpetuity. | technological development is the only hope to save plant species. | contradiction |
id_5142 | Seed Hunting With a quarter of the worlds plants set to vanish within the next 50 years, Dough Alexander reports on the scientists working against the clock the preserve the Earths botanical heritage. They travel the four comers of the globe, scouring jungles, forests, and savannas. But theyre not looking for ancient artifacts, lost treasure or undiscovered tombs. Just pods. It may lack the romantic allure of archaeology or the whiff of danger that accompanies going after a big game, but seed hunting is an increasingly serious business. Some seek seeds for profithunters in the employ of biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies and private corporations on the lookout for species that will yield the drugs or crops of the future. Others collect to conserve, working to halt the sad slide into extinction facing so many plant species. Among the pioneers of this botanical treasure hunt was John Tradescant, an English royal gardener who brought back plants and seeds from his journeys abroad in the early 1600s. Later, the English botanist Sir Joseph Banks who was the first director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and traveled with Captain James Cook on his voyages near the end of the 18th centurywas so driven to expand his collections that he sent botanists around the world at his own expense. Those heady days of exploration and discovery may be over, but they have been replaced by a pressing need to preserve our natural history for the future. This modem mission drives hunters such as Dr. Michiel van Slageren, a good-natured Dutchman who often sports a wide-brimmed hat in the fieldhe could easily be mistaken for the cinematic hero Indiana Jones. He and three other seed hunters work at the Millennium Seed Bank, an 80 million [pounds sterling] international conservation project that aims to protect the worlds most endangered wild plant species The groups headquarters are in a modem glass-and-concrete structure on a 200-hectare Estate at Wakehurst Place in the West Sussex countryside. Within its underground vaults are 260 million dried seeds from 122 countries, all stored at -20 Celsius to survive for centuries. Among the 5,100 species represented are virtually all of Britains 1,400 native seed-bearing plants, the most complete such collection of any countrys flora. Overseen by the Royal botanic gardens, the Millennium Seed Bank is the worlds largest wild-plant depository. It aims to collect 24,000 species by 2010. The reason is simple: thanks to humanitys efforts, an estimated 25 percent of the worlds plants are on the verge of extinction and may vanish within 50 years. Were currently responsible for habitat destruction on an unprecedented scale, and during the past 400 years, plant species extinction rates have been about 70 times greater than those indicated by the geological record as being normal. Experts predict that during the next 50 years further one billion hectares of wilderness will be converted to farmland in developing countries alone. The implications of this loss are enormous. Besides providing staple food crops, plants are a source of many machines and the principal supply of fuel and building materials in many parts of the world. They also protect soil and help regulate the climate. Yet, across the globe, plant species are being driven to extinction before their potential benefits are discovered. The World Conservation Union has listed 5,714 threatened species is sure to be much higher. In the UK alone, 300 wild plant species are classified as endangered. The Millennium Seed Bank aims to ensure that even if a plant becomes extinct in the wild, it wont be lost forever. Stored seeds can be used the help restore damaged or destroyed environment or in scientific research to find new benefits for society- in medicine, agriculture or local industry- that would otherwise be lost. Seed banks are an insurance policy to protect the worlds plant heritage for the future, explains Dr. Paul Smith, another Kew seed hunter. Seed conservation techniques were originally developed by farmers/ he says. Storage is the basis what we do, conserving seeds until you can use them just as in farming, Smith says theres no reason why any plant species should become extinct, given todays technology. But he admits that the biggest challenge is finding, naming and _ categorizing all the worlds plants. And someone has to gather these seeds before its too late. There arent a lot of people out there doing this, he says The key is to know the flora from a particular area, and that knowledge takes years to acquire. There are about 1,470 seedbanks scattered around the globe, with a combined total of 5.4 million samples, of which perhaps two million are distinct non-duplicates. Most preserve genetic material for agriculture use in order to ensure crop diversity; others aim to conserve wild species, although only 15 percent of all banked plants are wild. Imperial College, London, examined crop collections from 151 countries and found that while the number of plant samples had increased in two-thirds of the countries, the budget had been cut in a quarter and remained static in another 35 percent. The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has since set up the Global Conservation Trust, which aims to raise the US $260 million to protect seed banks in perpetuity. | The approach that scientists apply to store seeds is similar to that used by farmers. | entailment |
id_5143 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | There are different levels of refrigeration according to the kinds of seeds stored. | contradiction |
id_5144 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | The vault has the capacity to accommodate undiscovered types of seed at a later date. | entailment |
id_5145 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | During winter, the flow of air entering the vault is regularly monitored by staff. | contradiction |
id_5146 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | If seeds are sent from Svalbard to other banks, there is an obligation for the recipient to send replacements back. | entailment |
id_5147 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | The people who work at Svalbard are mainly locals. | neutral |
id_5148 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | Once a seed package Is In the vault, it remains unopened. | entailment |
id_5149 | Seed vault guards resources for the future Fiona Harvey paid a visit to a building whose contents are very precious. About 1,000 km from the North Pole, Svalbard is one of the most remote places on earth. For this reason, it is the site of a vault that will safeguard a priceless component of our common heritage the seeds of our staple crops. Here, seeds from the worlds most vital food crops will be locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years. If something goes wrong in the world, the vault will provide the means to restore farming. We, or our descendants, will not have to retread thousands of years of agriculture from scratch. Deep in the vault at the end of a long tunnel, are three storage vaults which are lined with insulated panels to help maintain the cold temperatures. Electronic transmitters linked to a satellite system monitor temperature, etc. and pass the information back to the appropriate authorities at Longycarbyen and the Nordic Gene Bank which provide the technical information for managing the seed vaults. The seeds are placed in scaled boxes and stored on shelves in the vaults. The minimal moisture level and low temperature ensure low metabolic activity. The remote location, as well as the rugged structure, provide unparalleled security for the worlds agricultural heritage. The three vaults are buried deep in the hillside. To reach them, it is necessary to proceed down a long and surprisingly large corridor. At 93.3 metres in length, it connects the 26-metre long entrance building to the three vaults, each of which extends a further 27 metres into the mountain. Towards the end of this tunnel, after about 80 metres, there are several small rooms on the right-hand side. One is a transformer room to which only the power company officials have access this houses the equipment needed to transform the incoming electrical current down to 220 volts. A second is an electrical room housing controls for the compressor and other equipment. I he oilier room is an office which can be heated to provide comfortable working conditions for those who will make an inventory of the samples in and out of the vault. Anyone seeking access to the seeds has to pass through four locked doors: the heavy steel entrance doors, a second door approximately 90 metres down the tunnel and finally the two keyed doors separated by an airlock, from which it is possible to proceed directly into the seed vaults. Keys are coded to allow access to different levels of the facility. A work of art will make the vault visible for miles with reflective sheets of steel and mirrors which form an installation acting as a beacon. It reflects polar light in the summer months, while in the winter, a network of 200 fibre-optic cables will give the piece a muted greenish-turquoise and white light. Cary Fowler, the mastermind behind the vault, stands inside the echoing cavern. For him, this is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work. Its an insurance policy, he explains, a very cheap insurance policy when you consider what were insuring the earths biological diversity. Seeds are being brought here from all over the world, from seed banks created by governments, universities and private institutions. Soon, there will be seed varieties from at least 100 crops in the Svalbard vault extending to examples of all of the 1.5 million known crop seed varieties in the world. If any more are unearthed. either in the wild or found in obscure collections, they can be added, too the vault has room for at least 4.5 million samples. Inside the entrance area it is more than 10 C below freezing, but in the chambers where the seeds are kept, refrigerators push down the temperature even further, to -18oC. At this temperature, which will be kept constant to stop the seeds germinating or rotting, the wheat seeds will remain viable for an estimated 1.700 vears. the years. Svalbards Arctic conditions will keep the seeds cold. In order to maintain the temperature at a constant -10 C to -20 C, the cold Arctic air will be drawn into the vault during the winter, automatically and without human intervention. The surrounding rock will maintain the temperature requirements during the extremely cold season and, during warmer periods, refrigeration equipment will engage. Looking out across the snow-covered mountains of Svalbard, it is hard not to feel respect for the 2,300 or so people who live here, mainly in Longyearbyen, a village a few miles away. There are three months without light in winter. Svalbard is intended 3s the seed bank of last resort. Each sample is made up of a few hundred seeds, sealed inside a watertight package which will never be tampered with while it is in the vault. The packages of seeds remain the property of the collections they have come from. Svalbard will disburse samples only if all the other seeds in other collections around the world are gone, explains Fowler. If seeds do have to be given out, those who receive them are expected to germinate them and generate new samples, to be returned to the vault. | There is a back-up refrigeration system ready to be switched on if the present one fails. | neutral |
id_5150 | Seeking an energy holy trinity NEELIE KROES, the European Unions competition commissioner, did not mince her words when reporting on Europes energy markets on Wednesday January 10th. Europes energy firms have failed to invest in networks and so customers are suffering. Those vertically integrated energy companies such as Electricite de France (EDF) or Germanys E. ON, widely dubbed as national champions, are effectively behaving like local monopolies. Shy of competition, eager for artificially high prices, they are helping to block the efficient generation, transmission and distribution of energy on the continent. Energy prices vary wildly across Europe. Ms Kroes wants to see cheaper energy, and intends to push suppliers to divest their distribution network and to get them to invest more in transportation systems so that more energyin the form of gas, or electricity, for examplecan flow easily over borders. It is remarkably hard, for example, for gas-poor Germany to import from the neighbouring, gas-rich Netherlands. Companies that dominate national markets have, so far, had little interest in improving the interconnections which would mean lower prices for consumers across the continent. Ms Kroes, of course, will struggle to get her way. The European Commission, which on the same day presented its recommendation for improving EU energy policy, also wants to see the unbundling of ownership, the legal separation of energy suppliers and transporters, something that the integrated energy companies and interested governments, notably in France and Germany, are bound to oppose ferociously. Complicating the matter is an argument over the security of energy supply in Europe. Much has been made of the risk for western Europe of depending too heavily on Russian exports of gas. Russia under Vladimir Putin is prone to using energy exports as a blunt tool of foreign policy, especially when trying to bully countries in its hinterland. Last year Russia interrupted gas deliveries to Ukraine, affecting supplies in central and western Europe too. This week it blocked oil exports passing via Belarus to Europe, though that spat was soon resolved. The risk is that concerns about security of supply may be used spuriously by those in Europe who oppose the sort of liberalisation encouraged by Ms Kroes. The likes of E. ON and EDF may claim that only protected national champions are able to secure supply, by striking long-term deals with powerful foreign suppliers. The Commission disagrees. Such deals are too often politically motivated and far from transparent. Protection has been tried for long enough and evidently has not worked for the internal market, nor have these companies secured the best deals for consumers from the Russians. In contrast, the Commission's new policy proposes, ideally, a break-up of these companies into suppliers and distributors. (As a second best solution, especially for France and Germany, it recommends the management of the networks by a third party. ) Properly independent managers of Europe's energy networks would have a strong incentive to build interconnecting pipelines and power lines across borders. For the gas market another means of ensuring competition and security would be finding a more diverse range of suppliers, for example by building more terminals for the import of liquified natural gas. It would also be likely to mean lower prices, if the example of liberalised Britain over the past ten years is anything to go by. Whether any of this is likely to happen soon, however, is another matter. The Commission is also calling for European governments to agree on a common effort to reduce carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If America is willing to play ball, the Commission proposes to reduce emissions by as much as 30%. Achieving either target would mean promoting cleaner cars, a more effective emissions-trading system for Europe, wider use of public transport and a sharp increase in the use of renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power. All that is laudable enough, but will also require political horse-trading as governmentsEuropes leaders are due to meet in March to discuss the various energy proposalstry to avoid commitments that may hurt domestic energy companies or make European firms less competitive than rivals in America, Asia and elsewhere. | E. ON and EDF may oppose the liberalisation due to their concerns about the security of energy supply. | contradiction |
id_5151 | Seeking an energy holy trinity NEELIE KROES, the European Unions competition commissioner, did not mince her words when reporting on Europes energy markets on Wednesday January 10th. Europes energy firms have failed to invest in networks and so customers are suffering. Those vertically integrated energy companies such as Electricite de France (EDF) or Germanys E. ON, widely dubbed as national champions, are effectively behaving like local monopolies. Shy of competition, eager for artificially high prices, they are helping to block the efficient generation, transmission and distribution of energy on the continent. Energy prices vary wildly across Europe. Ms Kroes wants to see cheaper energy, and intends to push suppliers to divest their distribution network and to get them to invest more in transportation systems so that more energyin the form of gas, or electricity, for examplecan flow easily over borders. It is remarkably hard, for example, for gas-poor Germany to import from the neighbouring, gas-rich Netherlands. Companies that dominate national markets have, so far, had little interest in improving the interconnections which would mean lower prices for consumers across the continent. Ms Kroes, of course, will struggle to get her way. The European Commission, which on the same day presented its recommendation for improving EU energy policy, also wants to see the unbundling of ownership, the legal separation of energy suppliers and transporters, something that the integrated energy companies and interested governments, notably in France and Germany, are bound to oppose ferociously. Complicating the matter is an argument over the security of energy supply in Europe. Much has been made of the risk for western Europe of depending too heavily on Russian exports of gas. Russia under Vladimir Putin is prone to using energy exports as a blunt tool of foreign policy, especially when trying to bully countries in its hinterland. Last year Russia interrupted gas deliveries to Ukraine, affecting supplies in central and western Europe too. This week it blocked oil exports passing via Belarus to Europe, though that spat was soon resolved. The risk is that concerns about security of supply may be used spuriously by those in Europe who oppose the sort of liberalisation encouraged by Ms Kroes. The likes of E. ON and EDF may claim that only protected national champions are able to secure supply, by striking long-term deals with powerful foreign suppliers. The Commission disagrees. Such deals are too often politically motivated and far from transparent. Protection has been tried for long enough and evidently has not worked for the internal market, nor have these companies secured the best deals for consumers from the Russians. In contrast, the Commission's new policy proposes, ideally, a break-up of these companies into suppliers and distributors. (As a second best solution, especially for France and Germany, it recommends the management of the networks by a third party. ) Properly independent managers of Europe's energy networks would have a strong incentive to build interconnecting pipelines and power lines across borders. For the gas market another means of ensuring competition and security would be finding a more diverse range of suppliers, for example by building more terminals for the import of liquified natural gas. It would also be likely to mean lower prices, if the example of liberalised Britain over the past ten years is anything to go by. Whether any of this is likely to happen soon, however, is another matter. The Commission is also calling for European governments to agree on a common effort to reduce carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If America is willing to play ball, the Commission proposes to reduce emissions by as much as 30%. Achieving either target would mean promoting cleaner cars, a more effective emissions-trading system for Europe, wider use of public transport and a sharp increase in the use of renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power. All that is laudable enough, but will also require political horse-trading as governmentsEuropes leaders are due to meet in March to discuss the various energy proposalstry to avoid commitments that may hurt domestic energy companies or make European firms less competitive than rivals in America, Asia and elsewhere. | The European Commission proposes to reduce carbon emissions by 30% if the U. S. is willing to cut its. | entailment |
id_5152 | Seeking an energy holy trinity NEELIE KROES, the European Unions competition commissioner, did not mince her words when reporting on Europes energy markets on Wednesday January 10th. Europes energy firms have failed to invest in networks and so customers are suffering. Those vertically integrated energy companies such as Electricite de France (EDF) or Germanys E. ON, widely dubbed as national champions, are effectively behaving like local monopolies. Shy of competition, eager for artificially high prices, they are helping to block the efficient generation, transmission and distribution of energy on the continent. Energy prices vary wildly across Europe. Ms Kroes wants to see cheaper energy, and intends to push suppliers to divest their distribution network and to get them to invest more in transportation systems so that more energyin the form of gas, or electricity, for examplecan flow easily over borders. It is remarkably hard, for example, for gas-poor Germany to import from the neighbouring, gas-rich Netherlands. Companies that dominate national markets have, so far, had little interest in improving the interconnections which would mean lower prices for consumers across the continent. Ms Kroes, of course, will struggle to get her way. The European Commission, which on the same day presented its recommendation for improving EU energy policy, also wants to see the unbundling of ownership, the legal separation of energy suppliers and transporters, something that the integrated energy companies and interested governments, notably in France and Germany, are bound to oppose ferociously. Complicating the matter is an argument over the security of energy supply in Europe. Much has been made of the risk for western Europe of depending too heavily on Russian exports of gas. Russia under Vladimir Putin is prone to using energy exports as a blunt tool of foreign policy, especially when trying to bully countries in its hinterland. Last year Russia interrupted gas deliveries to Ukraine, affecting supplies in central and western Europe too. This week it blocked oil exports passing via Belarus to Europe, though that spat was soon resolved. The risk is that concerns about security of supply may be used spuriously by those in Europe who oppose the sort of liberalisation encouraged by Ms Kroes. The likes of E. ON and EDF may claim that only protected national champions are able to secure supply, by striking long-term deals with powerful foreign suppliers. The Commission disagrees. Such deals are too often politically motivated and far from transparent. Protection has been tried for long enough and evidently has not worked for the internal market, nor have these companies secured the best deals for consumers from the Russians. In contrast, the Commission's new policy proposes, ideally, a break-up of these companies into suppliers and distributors. (As a second best solution, especially for France and Germany, it recommends the management of the networks by a third party. ) Properly independent managers of Europe's energy networks would have a strong incentive to build interconnecting pipelines and power lines across borders. For the gas market another means of ensuring competition and security would be finding a more diverse range of suppliers, for example by building more terminals for the import of liquified natural gas. It would also be likely to mean lower prices, if the example of liberalised Britain over the past ten years is anything to go by. Whether any of this is likely to happen soon, however, is another matter. The Commission is also calling for European governments to agree on a common effort to reduce carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If America is willing to play ball, the Commission proposes to reduce emissions by as much as 30%. Achieving either target would mean promoting cleaner cars, a more effective emissions-trading system for Europe, wider use of public transport and a sharp increase in the use of renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power. All that is laudable enough, but will also require political horse-trading as governmentsEuropes leaders are due to meet in March to discuss the various energy proposalstry to avoid commitments that may hurt domestic energy companies or make European firms less competitive than rivals in America, Asia and elsewhere. | Europes energy companies have funded the construction of the distribution network. | contradiction |
id_5153 | Seeking an energy holy trinity NEELIE KROES, the European Unions competition commissioner, did not mince her words when reporting on Europes energy markets on Wednesday January 10th. Europes energy firms have failed to invest in networks and so customers are suffering. Those vertically integrated energy companies such as Electricite de France (EDF) or Germanys E. ON, widely dubbed as national champions, are effectively behaving like local monopolies. Shy of competition, eager for artificially high prices, they are helping to block the efficient generation, transmission and distribution of energy on the continent. Energy prices vary wildly across Europe. Ms Kroes wants to see cheaper energy, and intends to push suppliers to divest their distribution network and to get them to invest more in transportation systems so that more energyin the form of gas, or electricity, for examplecan flow easily over borders. It is remarkably hard, for example, for gas-poor Germany to import from the neighbouring, gas-rich Netherlands. Companies that dominate national markets have, so far, had little interest in improving the interconnections which would mean lower prices for consumers across the continent. Ms Kroes, of course, will struggle to get her way. The European Commission, which on the same day presented its recommendation for improving EU energy policy, also wants to see the unbundling of ownership, the legal separation of energy suppliers and transporters, something that the integrated energy companies and interested governments, notably in France and Germany, are bound to oppose ferociously. Complicating the matter is an argument over the security of energy supply in Europe. Much has been made of the risk for western Europe of depending too heavily on Russian exports of gas. Russia under Vladimir Putin is prone to using energy exports as a blunt tool of foreign policy, especially when trying to bully countries in its hinterland. Last year Russia interrupted gas deliveries to Ukraine, affecting supplies in central and western Europe too. This week it blocked oil exports passing via Belarus to Europe, though that spat was soon resolved. The risk is that concerns about security of supply may be used spuriously by those in Europe who oppose the sort of liberalisation encouraged by Ms Kroes. The likes of E. ON and EDF may claim that only protected national champions are able to secure supply, by striking long-term deals with powerful foreign suppliers. The Commission disagrees. Such deals are too often politically motivated and far from transparent. Protection has been tried for long enough and evidently has not worked for the internal market, nor have these companies secured the best deals for consumers from the Russians. In contrast, the Commission's new policy proposes, ideally, a break-up of these companies into suppliers and distributors. (As a second best solution, especially for France and Germany, it recommends the management of the networks by a third party. ) Properly independent managers of Europe's energy networks would have a strong incentive to build interconnecting pipelines and power lines across borders. For the gas market another means of ensuring competition and security would be finding a more diverse range of suppliers, for example by building more terminals for the import of liquified natural gas. It would also be likely to mean lower prices, if the example of liberalised Britain over the past ten years is anything to go by. Whether any of this is likely to happen soon, however, is another matter. The Commission is also calling for European governments to agree on a common effort to reduce carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If America is willing to play ball, the Commission proposes to reduce emissions by as much as 30%. Achieving either target would mean promoting cleaner cars, a more effective emissions-trading system for Europe, wider use of public transport and a sharp increase in the use of renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power. All that is laudable enough, but will also require political horse-trading as governmentsEuropes leaders are due to meet in March to discuss the various energy proposalstry to avoid commitments that may hurt domestic energy companies or make European firms less competitive than rivals in America, Asia and elsewhere. | Gas-poor Germany has to pay a price higher than average to import gas from its neighbour. | neutral |
id_5154 | Seeking an energy holy trinity NEELIE KROES, the European Unions competition commissioner, did not mince her words when reporting on Europes energy markets on Wednesday January 10th. Europes energy firms have failed to invest in networks and so customers are suffering. Those vertically integrated energy companies such as Electricite de France (EDF) or Germanys E. ON, widely dubbed as national champions, are effectively behaving like local monopolies. Shy of competition, eager for artificially high prices, they are helping to block the efficient generation, transmission and distribution of energy on the continent. Energy prices vary wildly across Europe. Ms Kroes wants to see cheaper energy, and intends to push suppliers to divest their distribution network and to get them to invest more in transportation systems so that more energyin the form of gas, or electricity, for examplecan flow easily over borders. It is remarkably hard, for example, for gas-poor Germany to import from the neighbouring, gas-rich Netherlands. Companies that dominate national markets have, so far, had little interest in improving the interconnections which would mean lower prices for consumers across the continent. Ms Kroes, of course, will struggle to get her way. The European Commission, which on the same day presented its recommendation for improving EU energy policy, also wants to see the unbundling of ownership, the legal separation of energy suppliers and transporters, something that the integrated energy companies and interested governments, notably in France and Germany, are bound to oppose ferociously. Complicating the matter is an argument over the security of energy supply in Europe. Much has been made of the risk for western Europe of depending too heavily on Russian exports of gas. Russia under Vladimir Putin is prone to using energy exports as a blunt tool of foreign policy, especially when trying to bully countries in its hinterland. Last year Russia interrupted gas deliveries to Ukraine, affecting supplies in central and western Europe too. This week it blocked oil exports passing via Belarus to Europe, though that spat was soon resolved. The risk is that concerns about security of supply may be used spuriously by those in Europe who oppose the sort of liberalisation encouraged by Ms Kroes. The likes of E. ON and EDF may claim that only protected national champions are able to secure supply, by striking long-term deals with powerful foreign suppliers. The Commission disagrees. Such deals are too often politically motivated and far from transparent. Protection has been tried for long enough and evidently has not worked for the internal market, nor have these companies secured the best deals for consumers from the Russians. In contrast, the Commission's new policy proposes, ideally, a break-up of these companies into suppliers and distributors. (As a second best solution, especially for France and Germany, it recommends the management of the networks by a third party. ) Properly independent managers of Europe's energy networks would have a strong incentive to build interconnecting pipelines and power lines across borders. For the gas market another means of ensuring competition and security would be finding a more diverse range of suppliers, for example by building more terminals for the import of liquified natural gas. It would also be likely to mean lower prices, if the example of liberalised Britain over the past ten years is anything to go by. Whether any of this is likely to happen soon, however, is another matter. The Commission is also calling for European governments to agree on a common effort to reduce carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If America is willing to play ball, the Commission proposes to reduce emissions by as much as 30%. Achieving either target would mean promoting cleaner cars, a more effective emissions-trading system for Europe, wider use of public transport and a sharp increase in the use of renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power. All that is laudable enough, but will also require political horse-trading as governmentsEuropes leaders are due to meet in March to discuss the various energy proposalstry to avoid commitments that may hurt domestic energy companies or make European firms less competitive than rivals in America, Asia and elsewhere. | There has been a wide range of energy prices within Europe. | entailment |
id_5155 | Seen as a new player in the global economy, Bitcoin has been the focus of serious debate in the past few years. Although not acknowledged by any country as an official currency, Bitcoin is recognized and used as a currency in e-trading worldwide, with a cap of 21 million Bitcoin units total. Authorities and financial experts alike have been dumbfounded by the arrival of this new element and are currently struggling to adjust their mindset and to devise appropriate regulations to deal with it. How can a country properly tax gains accrued on a non-official currency? How can an expert make a prediction regarding Bitcoin when there is no consensus regarding its status? These are just a few of the questions that arise regarding the issue. Bitcoin has been the cause of great concern on the part of banks as well, due to its potential status as a competing currency. Most of the problems facing these various players in the economy are compounded by the potential of criminal elements dealing in e-trade, a matter that has brought about the adoption of new legislation. | Once they had acknowledged its presence, authorities were able to devise an appropriate method of dealing with Bitcoin. | contradiction |
id_5156 | Seen as a new player in the global economy, Bitcoin has been the focus of serious debate in the past few years. Although not acknowledged by any country as an official currency, Bitcoin is recognized and used as a currency in e-trading worldwide, with a cap of 21 million Bitcoin units total. Authorities and financial experts alike have been dumbfounded by the arrival of this new element and are currently struggling to adjust their mindset and to devise appropriate regulations to deal with it. How can a country properly tax gains accrued on a non-official currency? How can an expert make a prediction regarding Bitcoin when there is no consensus regarding its status? These are just a few of the questions that arise regarding the issue. Bitcoin has been the cause of great concern on the part of banks as well, due to its potential status as a competing currency. Most of the problems facing these various players in the economy are compounded by the potential of criminal elements dealing in e-trade, a matter that has brought about the adoption of new legislation. | The potentially infinite number of Bitcoins hinders attempts at regulating e-trading. | contradiction |
id_5157 | Seen as a new player in the global economy, Bitcoin has been the focus of serious debate in the past few years. Although not acknowledged by any country as an official currency, Bitcoin is recognized and used as a currency in e-trading worldwide, with a cap of 21 million Bitcoin units total. Authorities and financial experts alike have been dumbfounded by the arrival of this new element and are currently struggling to adjust their mindset and to devise appropriate regulations to deal with it. How can a country properly tax gains accrued on a non-official currency? How can an expert make a prediction regarding Bitcoin when there is no consensus regarding its status? These are just a few of the questions that arise regarding the issue. Bitcoin has been the cause of great concern on the part of banks as well, due to its potential status as a competing currency. Most of the problems facing these various players in the economy are compounded by the potential of criminal elements dealing in e-trade, a matter that has brought about the adoption of new legislation. | Bitcoin is used as a currency. | entailment |
id_5158 | Sehwag is a good batsman. Batsmen are physically powerful. | Sehwag is physically powerful. | entailment |
id_5159 | Sehwag is a good batsman. Batsmen are physically powerful. | All physically powerful are Batsmen. | contradiction |
id_5160 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | All music can be easily played on non-iPod music devices from Sony or Microsoft without too much fiddling. | neutral |
id_5161 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | If DRM was cancelled, Sony would certainly dominate the international digital music market. | neutral |
id_5162 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Apple has been criticized by European regulators since it has refused to grant a license FairPlay to other firms. | entailment |
id_5163 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Lack of standardization in DRM makes songs bought for one kind of music player may not function on another. | entailment |
id_5164 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | DRM is a government decree issued with a purpose to protect downloaded music from theft by consumers. | contradiction |
id_5165 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Apple enjoys a controlling position in digital music market with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. | entailment |
id_5166 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldn't it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Apple depends far more on DRM rather than branding for its dominance of the digital music devices. | contradiction |
id_5167 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | If DRM was cancelled, Sony would certainly dominate the international digital music market. | neutral |
id_5168 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Apple depends far more on DRM rather than branding for its dominance of the digital music devices. | contradiction |
id_5169 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Apple enjoys a controlling position in digital music market with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. | entailment |
id_5170 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | DRM is a government decree issued with a purpose to protect downloaded music from theft by consumers. | contradiction |
id_5171 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Lack of standardization in DRM makes songs bought for one kind of music player may not function on another. | entailment |
id_5172 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | Apple has been criticized by European regulators since it has refused to grant a license FairPlay to other firms. | entailment |
id_5173 | Selling Digital Music without Copy-protection Makes Sense It was uncharacteristically low-key for the industrys greatest showman. But the essay published this week by Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, on his firms website under the unassuming title Thoughts on Music has nonetheless provoked a vigorous debate about the future of digital music, which Apple dominates with its iPod music-player and iTunes music-store. At issue is digital rights management (DRM)the technology guarding downloaded music against theft. Since there is no common standard for DRM, it also has the side-effect that songs purchased for one type of music-player may not work on another. Apples DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread. So it came as a surprise when Mr. Jobs called for DRM for digital music to be abolished. This is a change of tack for Apple. It has come under fire from European regulators who claim that its refusal to license FairPlay to other firms has locked in customers. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least not without a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a device made by a rival firm, such as Sony or Microsoft. When French lawmakers drafted a bill last year compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals, the company warned of state-sponsored piracy. Only DRM, it implied, could keep the pirates at bay. This week Mr. Jobs gave another explanation for his former defence of DRM: the record companies made him do it. They would make their music available to the iTunes store only if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM. They can still withdraw their catalogues if the DRM system is compromised. Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them to produce security fixes promptly. All DRM does is restrict consumer choice and provide a barrier to entry, says Mr Jobs; without it there would be far more stores and players, and far more innovation. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell music unprotected? This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, he declares, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs seems chiefly concerned with getting Europes regulators off his back. Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned. Mr Jobs also hopes to paint himself as a consumer champion. Apple resents accusations that it has become the Microsoft of digital music. Apple can afford to embrace open competition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and the best store, and at the moment that still means Apples. Mr Jobs is evidently unfazed by rivals to the iPod. Since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used on other players today, he notes. (And even the protected tracks can be burned onto a CD and then re-ripped. ) So Apples dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related lock in. The music giants are trying DRM-free downloads. Lots of smaller labels already sell music that way. Having seen which way the wind is blowing, Mr Jobs now wants to be seen not as DRMs defender, but as a consumer champion who helped in its downfall. Wouldnt it lead to a surge in piracy? No, because most music is still sold unprotected on CDs, people wishing to steal music already can do so. Indeed, scrapping DRM would probably increase online-music sales by reducing confusion and incompatibility. With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobss argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right. | All music can be easily played on non-iPod music devices from Sony or Microsoft without too much fiddling. | neutral |
id_5174 | Shakespeare: The Authorship Question If one were asked to name the greatest writer in the English language, few would hesitate in answering, William Shakespeare. Although he dabbled in poetry, his central claim to fame is his plays, almost 40 of them. Extensively studied, constantly performed, adapted, and reinterpreted into modern contexts, Shakespeares plays remain as popular as ever. But did he write them, that is the question? The immediate reaction is to wonder why anyone would even ask this. Although there is little documentary evidence of Shakespeares life, what does exist unequivocally identifies him as the author of the plays. His name appears on title pages of a few publications, printing orders, and theatrical documents, and is mentioned by contemporary commentators and a fellow playwright, both publicly and in private memoirs, in every case in a way that is consistent with Shakespeare being the author. Consequently, for hundreds of years, no one held any doubts whatsoever on the matter. There it would have remained, had Shakespeares post-humous reputation not reached such lofty heights. With the widespread acceptance of his dramatic genius, apparent inconsistencies were perceived. Chief among these was how such literature could originate from, as viewed by some, a humble ill-educated country bumpkin and bawdy stage entrepreneur, about whom so little was known. Details of Shakespeares schooling and upbringing in the small market town of Stratford-Upon-Avon are non-existent, but among his surviving children there is no evidence of strong education or even basic literacy skills. No original written texts have ever been found, and Shakespeares six surviving signatures are all unsteady, showing inconsistent style and spelling. Most tellingly for some are the circumstances of Shakespeares death. Firstly, there is his will, a commonplace and unpoetic document, making no mention whatsoever of the considerable body of papers, reference books, and miscellaneous plays, poetry, and writings that one would expect a playwright of Shakespeares stature to possess. Apparently he was unconcerned about the rights to both his own plays (many of which remained unpublished at that time) and his own literary heritage. The second fact is that, upon his death, there were no eulogies, mourning notices, or testimonies from those who knew him. All this seems very perplexing for a playwright and poet who, whilst not necessarily considered the most polished, professional, or learned by his peers, had nevertheless achieved considerable wealth, respect, and fame, even in his own lifetime. Such thoughts first became public in the mid-19th century and have never really slopped, developing the grand title, The Shakespeare authorship question, and dividing those interested into two sides: the Stratfordians: those who support Shakespeare as the author, and the anti-Stratfordians: those who do not. For the latter body, the only way to overcome the documentary evidence in support of Shakespeares authorship is to assume a conspiracy existed among a select group of people, perhaps including Shakespeare himself, in order to protect the real authors identity. So who was he (and in those times, it goes without saying that it could not be a she)? The anti-Stratfordians search for a university-educated, upper-class candidate someone who would inevitably have had knowledge of aristocratic manners and mores, and familiarity with the proceedings and politics of the royal court, all of which so often appear in the plays themselves. The reason for the conspiracy is that producing such works, full with themes of royal revenge and murder, intrigue and assassination, mob rule and rebellion, could render a nobleman liable to the dangerous charge of subversion. Some have also argued that, at that time, it was considered socially unacceptable for the upper-class to publish creative literature for monetary gain, being instead confined to circulating their writings among their peers, or seeing them performed among courtly audiences. There are four leading contenders. Sir Francis Bacon was the first nominated, and certainly had the best intellectual credentials, being well-versed in law, philosophy, essay writing, and science. However, since the 1920s, Edward de Vere, an aristocratic earl who patronised and sponsored actors and the arts, has become the leading contender. Only slightly less favoured is a fellow playwright, Christopher Marlowe. Born into the same social class as Shakespeare, he at least went to university, although his early death in a tavern brawl presents difficulties unless one assumes his demise was fabricated to allow him to continue writing under Shakespeares name. Finally, there is William Stanley, another aristocratic earl. Contemporary accounts attest to the fact that he wrote plays for the common people, and throughout his life he displayed interest and support for the theatre. And the evidence? Mere historical and literary conjecture, vague similarities in writing styles, and loose coincidences between the lives and travels of these contenders when compared to the scenes and settings of many of the plays in question. In other words, nothing solid at all. The case is so flimsy that reputable scholars barely discuss it, and rightly so. Although capable of attracting public interest and selling books, unless some real evidence emerges, I would say that the authorship question is not questionable at all. | He was well-educated. | neutral |
id_5175 | Shakespeare: The Authorship Question If one were asked to name the greatest writer in the English language, few would hesitate in answering, William Shakespeare. Although he dabbled in poetry, his central claim to fame is his plays, almost 40 of them. Extensively studied, constantly performed, adapted, and reinterpreted into modern contexts, Shakespeares plays remain as popular as ever. But did he write them, that is the question? The immediate reaction is to wonder why anyone would even ask this. Although there is little documentary evidence of Shakespeares life, what does exist unequivocally identifies him as the author of the plays. His name appears on title pages of a few publications, printing orders, and theatrical documents, and is mentioned by contemporary commentators and a fellow playwright, both publicly and in private memoirs, in every case in a way that is consistent with Shakespeare being the author. Consequently, for hundreds of years, no one held any doubts whatsoever on the matter. There it would have remained, had Shakespeares post-humous reputation not reached such lofty heights. With the widespread acceptance of his dramatic genius, apparent inconsistencies were perceived. Chief among these was how such literature could originate from, as viewed by some, a humble ill-educated country bumpkin and bawdy stage entrepreneur, about whom so little was known. Details of Shakespeares schooling and upbringing in the small market town of Stratford-Upon-Avon are non-existent, but among his surviving children there is no evidence of strong education or even basic literacy skills. No original written texts have ever been found, and Shakespeares six surviving signatures are all unsteady, showing inconsistent style and spelling. Most tellingly for some are the circumstances of Shakespeares death. Firstly, there is his will, a commonplace and unpoetic document, making no mention whatsoever of the considerable body of papers, reference books, and miscellaneous plays, poetry, and writings that one would expect a playwright of Shakespeares stature to possess. Apparently he was unconcerned about the rights to both his own plays (many of which remained unpublished at that time) and his own literary heritage. The second fact is that, upon his death, there were no eulogies, mourning notices, or testimonies from those who knew him. All this seems very perplexing for a playwright and poet who, whilst not necessarily considered the most polished, professional, or learned by his peers, had nevertheless achieved considerable wealth, respect, and fame, even in his own lifetime. Such thoughts first became public in the mid-19th century and have never really slopped, developing the grand title, The Shakespeare authorship question, and dividing those interested into two sides: the Stratfordians: those who support Shakespeare as the author, and the anti-Stratfordians: those who do not. For the latter body, the only way to overcome the documentary evidence in support of Shakespeares authorship is to assume a conspiracy existed among a select group of people, perhaps including Shakespeare himself, in order to protect the real authors identity. So who was he (and in those times, it goes without saying that it could not be a she)? The anti-Stratfordians search for a university-educated, upper-class candidate someone who would inevitably have had knowledge of aristocratic manners and mores, and familiarity with the proceedings and politics of the royal court, all of which so often appear in the plays themselves. The reason for the conspiracy is that producing such works, full with themes of royal revenge and murder, intrigue and assassination, mob rule and rebellion, could render a nobleman liable to the dangerous charge of subversion. Some have also argued that, at that time, it was considered socially unacceptable for the upper-class to publish creative literature for monetary gain, being instead confined to circulating their writings among their peers, or seeing them performed among courtly audiences. There are four leading contenders. Sir Francis Bacon was the first nominated, and certainly had the best intellectual credentials, being well-versed in law, philosophy, essay writing, and science. However, since the 1920s, Edward de Vere, an aristocratic earl who patronised and sponsored actors and the arts, has become the leading contender. Only slightly less favoured is a fellow playwright, Christopher Marlowe. Born into the same social class as Shakespeare, he at least went to university, although his early death in a tavern brawl presents difficulties unless one assumes his demise was fabricated to allow him to continue writing under Shakespeares name. Finally, there is William Stanley, another aristocratic earl. Contemporary accounts attest to the fact that he wrote plays for the common people, and throughout his life he displayed interest and support for the theatre. And the evidence? Mere historical and literary conjecture, vague similarities in writing styles, and loose coincidences between the lives and travels of these contenders when compared to the scenes and settings of many of the plays in question. In other words, nothing solid at all. The case is so flimsy that reputable scholars barely discuss it, and rightly so. Although capable of attracting public interest and selling books, unless some real evidence emerges, I would say that the authorship question is not questionable at all. | Shakespeares name appears on many documents. | contradiction |
id_5176 | Shakespeare: The Authorship Question If one were asked to name the greatest writer in the English language, few would hesitate in answering, William Shakespeare. Although he dabbled in poetry, his central claim to fame is his plays, almost 40 of them. Extensively studied, constantly performed, adapted, and reinterpreted into modern contexts, Shakespeares plays remain as popular as ever. But did he write them, that is the question? The immediate reaction is to wonder why anyone would even ask this. Although there is little documentary evidence of Shakespeares life, what does exist unequivocally identifies him as the author of the plays. His name appears on title pages of a few publications, printing orders, and theatrical documents, and is mentioned by contemporary commentators and a fellow playwright, both publicly and in private memoirs, in every case in a way that is consistent with Shakespeare being the author. Consequently, for hundreds of years, no one held any doubts whatsoever on the matter. There it would have remained, had Shakespeares post-humous reputation not reached such lofty heights. With the widespread acceptance of his dramatic genius, apparent inconsistencies were perceived. Chief among these was how such literature could originate from, as viewed by some, a humble ill-educated country bumpkin and bawdy stage entrepreneur, about whom so little was known. Details of Shakespeares schooling and upbringing in the small market town of Stratford-Upon-Avon are non-existent, but among his surviving children there is no evidence of strong education or even basic literacy skills. No original written texts have ever been found, and Shakespeares six surviving signatures are all unsteady, showing inconsistent style and spelling. Most tellingly for some are the circumstances of Shakespeares death. Firstly, there is his will, a commonplace and unpoetic document, making no mention whatsoever of the considerable body of papers, reference books, and miscellaneous plays, poetry, and writings that one would expect a playwright of Shakespeares stature to possess. Apparently he was unconcerned about the rights to both his own plays (many of which remained unpublished at that time) and his own literary heritage. The second fact is that, upon his death, there were no eulogies, mourning notices, or testimonies from those who knew him. All this seems very perplexing for a playwright and poet who, whilst not necessarily considered the most polished, professional, or learned by his peers, had nevertheless achieved considerable wealth, respect, and fame, even in his own lifetime. Such thoughts first became public in the mid-19th century and have never really slopped, developing the grand title, The Shakespeare authorship question, and dividing those interested into two sides: the Stratfordians: those who support Shakespeare as the author, and the anti-Stratfordians: those who do not. For the latter body, the only way to overcome the documentary evidence in support of Shakespeares authorship is to assume a conspiracy existed among a select group of people, perhaps including Shakespeare himself, in order to protect the real authors identity. So who was he (and in those times, it goes without saying that it could not be a she)? The anti-Stratfordians search for a university-educated, upper-class candidate someone who would inevitably have had knowledge of aristocratic manners and mores, and familiarity with the proceedings and politics of the royal court, all of which so often appear in the plays themselves. The reason for the conspiracy is that producing such works, full with themes of royal revenge and murder, intrigue and assassination, mob rule and rebellion, could render a nobleman liable to the dangerous charge of subversion. Some have also argued that, at that time, it was considered socially unacceptable for the upper-class to publish creative literature for monetary gain, being instead confined to circulating their writings among their peers, or seeing them performed among courtly audiences. There are four leading contenders. Sir Francis Bacon was the first nominated, and certainly had the best intellectual credentials, being well-versed in law, philosophy, essay writing, and science. However, since the 1920s, Edward de Vere, an aristocratic earl who patronised and sponsored actors and the arts, has become the leading contender. Only slightly less favoured is a fellow playwright, Christopher Marlowe. Born into the same social class as Shakespeare, he at least went to university, although his early death in a tavern brawl presents difficulties unless one assumes his demise was fabricated to allow him to continue writing under Shakespeares name. Finally, there is William Stanley, another aristocratic earl. Contemporary accounts attest to the fact that he wrote plays for the common people, and throughout his life he displayed interest and support for the theatre. And the evidence? Mere historical and literary conjecture, vague similarities in writing styles, and loose coincidences between the lives and travels of these contenders when compared to the scenes and settings of many of the plays in question. In other words, nothing solid at all. The case is so flimsy that reputable scholars barely discuss it, and rightly so. Although capable of attracting public interest and selling books, unless some real evidence emerges, I would say that the authorship question is not questionable at all. | When he died, not all the plays had been published. | entailment |
id_5177 | Shakespeare: The Authorship Question If one were asked to name the greatest writer in the English language, few would hesitate in answering, William Shakespeare. Although he dabbled in poetry, his central claim to fame is his plays, almost 40 of them. Extensively studied, constantly performed, adapted, and reinterpreted into modern contexts, Shakespeares plays remain as popular as ever. But did he write them, that is the question? The immediate reaction is to wonder why anyone would even ask this. Although there is little documentary evidence of Shakespeares life, what does exist unequivocally identifies him as the author of the plays. His name appears on title pages of a few publications, printing orders, and theatrical documents, and is mentioned by contemporary commentators and a fellow playwright, both publicly and in private memoirs, in every case in a way that is consistent with Shakespeare being the author. Consequently, for hundreds of years, no one held any doubts whatsoever on the matter. There it would have remained, had Shakespeares post-humous reputation not reached such lofty heights. With the widespread acceptance of his dramatic genius, apparent inconsistencies were perceived. Chief among these was how such literature could originate from, as viewed by some, a humble ill-educated country bumpkin and bawdy stage entrepreneur, about whom so little was known. Details of Shakespeares schooling and upbringing in the small market town of Stratford-Upon-Avon are non-existent, but among his surviving children there is no evidence of strong education or even basic literacy skills. No original written texts have ever been found, and Shakespeares six surviving signatures are all unsteady, showing inconsistent style and spelling. Most tellingly for some are the circumstances of Shakespeares death. Firstly, there is his will, a commonplace and unpoetic document, making no mention whatsoever of the considerable body of papers, reference books, and miscellaneous plays, poetry, and writings that one would expect a playwright of Shakespeares stature to possess. Apparently he was unconcerned about the rights to both his own plays (many of which remained unpublished at that time) and his own literary heritage. The second fact is that, upon his death, there were no eulogies, mourning notices, or testimonies from those who knew him. All this seems very perplexing for a playwright and poet who, whilst not necessarily considered the most polished, professional, or learned by his peers, had nevertheless achieved considerable wealth, respect, and fame, even in his own lifetime. Such thoughts first became public in the mid-19th century and have never really slopped, developing the grand title, The Shakespeare authorship question, and dividing those interested into two sides: the Stratfordians: those who support Shakespeare as the author, and the anti-Stratfordians: those who do not. For the latter body, the only way to overcome the documentary evidence in support of Shakespeares authorship is to assume a conspiracy existed among a select group of people, perhaps including Shakespeare himself, in order to protect the real authors identity. So who was he (and in those times, it goes without saying that it could not be a she)? The anti-Stratfordians search for a university-educated, upper-class candidate someone who would inevitably have had knowledge of aristocratic manners and mores, and familiarity with the proceedings and politics of the royal court, all of which so often appear in the plays themselves. The reason for the conspiracy is that producing such works, full with themes of royal revenge and murder, intrigue and assassination, mob rule and rebellion, could render a nobleman liable to the dangerous charge of subversion. Some have also argued that, at that time, it was considered socially unacceptable for the upper-class to publish creative literature for monetary gain, being instead confined to circulating their writings among their peers, or seeing them performed among courtly audiences. There are four leading contenders. Sir Francis Bacon was the first nominated, and certainly had the best intellectual credentials, being well-versed in law, philosophy, essay writing, and science. However, since the 1920s, Edward de Vere, an aristocratic earl who patronised and sponsored actors and the arts, has become the leading contender. Only slightly less favoured is a fellow playwright, Christopher Marlowe. Born into the same social class as Shakespeare, he at least went to university, although his early death in a tavern brawl presents difficulties unless one assumes his demise was fabricated to allow him to continue writing under Shakespeares name. Finally, there is William Stanley, another aristocratic earl. Contemporary accounts attest to the fact that he wrote plays for the common people, and throughout his life he displayed interest and support for the theatre. And the evidence? Mere historical and literary conjecture, vague similarities in writing styles, and loose coincidences between the lives and travels of these contenders when compared to the scenes and settings of many of the plays in question. In other words, nothing solid at all. The case is so flimsy that reputable scholars barely discuss it, and rightly so. Although capable of attracting public interest and selling books, unless some real evidence emerges, I would say that the authorship question is not questionable at all. | He was considered a genius even in his lifetime. | contradiction |
id_5178 | Shark Deterrent Wetsuits The words shark attack stroke fear in beachgoers surfers, swimmers, driers and others who enjoy a dip in the ocean. After seven people died from fatal attacks off the coast of Western Austral. ; (WA) between 2010 and 2013, the state government reacted by capturing and shooting large sharks (of the great white, tiger and bull varieties) near swimming beaches. This shark culling policy caused an outcry amongst environmentalists. The existence of the white shark is already threatened; it is at a vulnerable status at high risk of becoming an endangered species. For this reason, it is fully protected in some counties, but the WA government had this species made exempt from protection in Australia, despite there being no scientific evidence to suggest an increase in white shark numbers. Sharks are apex predators, key to maintaining the balance of prey populations by removing sick or weak individuals and regulating the well-being of the marine ecosystem. They are very slow to reproduce and, with about 100 million sharks being killed every year as a result of fishing and hunting, the global population has been reduced by more than 70% in the last twenty years. The WA government policy of killing large sharks takes out the mature breeding stock of the species, hastening the eventual extinction. Protesters argue that the culling is extreme and unnecessary because the actual risk of death by shark is very slim, and the practice of tagging sharks and equipping them with transmitters is enough to alert swimmers when sharks are near. When a tagged shark come within one kilometre of a beach it tweets a message (via the Surf Lifesaving WA Twitter feed) giving its type (e. g. bull shark), location, date and tens. Scientists at Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SANS), in collaboration with the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia, have cane up with a novel and pragmatic solution to the shark problem: a shark deterrent wetsuit. The good news is that it is simple, affordable, and the technology can also be applied to surfboards. The scientific breakthrough came about after observation of how other species protect themselves from shark attacks. In this research, particular attention was given to the pilot fish, which has a mutualistic association with sharks, swimming alongside them devoting their harmful parasites and keeping them clean. The pilot fish are relatively small (about 30-60 cm) and are easily recognised by their patterning. This consists of five to seven transverse bands of a darker colour than the rest of the body, which is dark blue or blackish-silver. These bands are also seen on the poisonous banded sea snake. Folklore claims that some Pacific island tribes used to paint themselves in bands to simulate the appearance of this snake and thus to ward off the shark gods. It is known that sharks use a range of sensors when they prepare for attack, but apparently the sight sensor is what they use to identify their target, especially when they get close up. Experts in shark vision and shark neurology confirmed that sharks see in black and white, or greyscale. The SAMS scientists, in collaboration with others, then mapped the physical characteristics of the eyes of the three main predatory sharks, genetically and anatomically. Next, they used complex computer modelling to figure out what the sharks eye could see at different depths and distances, and in different light situations and water clarity conditions. From that, they were able to identify what patterns and shapes would essentially hide a potential target or at least create confusion for the shark; and what patterns and shapes might break up the profile of a person so that he was not mistaken for shark prey. Once the science was converted into practical wetsuit design, two ideas emerged. The first model, using the banding concept, presents a highly disruptive profile to the shark, and depicts the wearer as dangerous and unpalatable. This one is suitable for swimmers/surfers on the surface where they would otherwise provide a tempting, backlit silhouette. The second model, the cryptic wetsuit, consists of three panels on the suit, one or more matching the reflective spectra of the water and the other creating a confusing profile. This one is better suited to scuba enthusiasts, making them virtually indiscernible in the water column. It was very difficult to test these wetsuits because, for obvious reasons, the researchers could not use humans or even humanoid shapes as bait. Therefore, they wrapped perforated drums full of bait in the newly designed neoprene skins and used underwater cameras to watch how the sharks interacted with the prototype. As a control model, they used a rig wrapped in plain black neoprene just like a normal wetsuit. They were able to record a tiger shark circling and hunting the test rig for six minutes, trying to find what it could smell and sense but not see. Then the shark gave up and ripped into the control rig as soon as it encountered it. They watched a great white shark encounter a control rig, go to the bottom, then come straight up and strike it, whereas it was more apprehensive and reluctant to go for the test rig. It is hoped that these shark-deterrent designs, by disrupting a sharks visual perception, will protect swimmers either by deterring attack or at least delaying it sufficiently to allow the user time to get out of the water. | Great white sharks have more confidence than tiger sharks. | neutral |
id_5179 | Shark Deterrent Wetsuits The words shark attack stroke fear in beachgoers surfers, swimmers, driers and others who enjoy a dip in the ocean. After seven people died from fatal attacks off the coast of Western Austral. ; (WA) between 2010 and 2013, the state government reacted by capturing and shooting large sharks (of the great white, tiger and bull varieties) near swimming beaches. This shark culling policy caused an outcry amongst environmentalists. The existence of the white shark is already threatened; it is at a vulnerable status at high risk of becoming an endangered species. For this reason, it is fully protected in some counties, but the WA government had this species made exempt from protection in Australia, despite there being no scientific evidence to suggest an increase in white shark numbers. Sharks are apex predators, key to maintaining the balance of prey populations by removing sick or weak individuals and regulating the well-being of the marine ecosystem. They are very slow to reproduce and, with about 100 million sharks being killed every year as a result of fishing and hunting, the global population has been reduced by more than 70% in the last twenty years. The WA government policy of killing large sharks takes out the mature breeding stock of the species, hastening the eventual extinction. Protesters argue that the culling is extreme and unnecessary because the actual risk of death by shark is very slim, and the practice of tagging sharks and equipping them with transmitters is enough to alert swimmers when sharks are near. When a tagged shark come within one kilometre of a beach it tweets a message (via the Surf Lifesaving WA Twitter feed) giving its type (e. g. bull shark), location, date and tens. Scientists at Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SANS), in collaboration with the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia, have cane up with a novel and pragmatic solution to the shark problem: a shark deterrent wetsuit. The good news is that it is simple, affordable, and the technology can also be applied to surfboards. The scientific breakthrough came about after observation of how other species protect themselves from shark attacks. In this research, particular attention was given to the pilot fish, which has a mutualistic association with sharks, swimming alongside them devoting their harmful parasites and keeping them clean. The pilot fish are relatively small (about 30-60 cm) and are easily recognised by their patterning. This consists of five to seven transverse bands of a darker colour than the rest of the body, which is dark blue or blackish-silver. These bands are also seen on the poisonous banded sea snake. Folklore claims that some Pacific island tribes used to paint themselves in bands to simulate the appearance of this snake and thus to ward off the shark gods. It is known that sharks use a range of sensors when they prepare for attack, but apparently the sight sensor is what they use to identify their target, especially when they get close up. Experts in shark vision and shark neurology confirmed that sharks see in black and white, or greyscale. The SAMS scientists, in collaboration with others, then mapped the physical characteristics of the eyes of the three main predatory sharks, genetically and anatomically. Next, they used complex computer modelling to figure out what the sharks eye could see at different depths and distances, and in different light situations and water clarity conditions. From that, they were able to identify what patterns and shapes would essentially hide a potential target or at least create confusion for the shark; and what patterns and shapes might break up the profile of a person so that he was not mistaken for shark prey. Once the science was converted into practical wetsuit design, two ideas emerged. The first model, using the banding concept, presents a highly disruptive profile to the shark, and depicts the wearer as dangerous and unpalatable. This one is suitable for swimmers/surfers on the surface where they would otherwise provide a tempting, backlit silhouette. The second model, the cryptic wetsuit, consists of three panels on the suit, one or more matching the reflective spectra of the water and the other creating a confusing profile. This one is better suited to scuba enthusiasts, making them virtually indiscernible in the water column. It was very difficult to test these wetsuits because, for obvious reasons, the researchers could not use humans or even humanoid shapes as bait. Therefore, they wrapped perforated drums full of bait in the newly designed neoprene skins and used underwater cameras to watch how the sharks interacted with the prototype. As a control model, they used a rig wrapped in plain black neoprene just like a normal wetsuit. They were able to record a tiger shark circling and hunting the test rig for six minutes, trying to find what it could smell and sense but not see. Then the shark gave up and ripped into the control rig as soon as it encountered it. They watched a great white shark encounter a control rig, go to the bottom, then come straight up and strike it, whereas it was more apprehensive and reluctant to go for the test rig. It is hoped that these shark-deterrent designs, by disrupting a sharks visual perception, will protect swimmers either by deterring attack or at least delaying it sufficiently to allow the user time to get out of the water. | The tiger shark waited before attacking the control rig. | contradiction |
id_5180 | Shark Deterrent Wetsuits The words shark attack stroke fear in beachgoers surfers, swimmers, driers and others who enjoy a dip in the ocean. After seven people died from fatal attacks off the coast of Western Austral. ; (WA) between 2010 and 2013, the state government reacted by capturing and shooting large sharks (of the great white, tiger and bull varieties) near swimming beaches. This shark culling policy caused an outcry amongst environmentalists. The existence of the white shark is already threatened; it is at a vulnerable status at high risk of becoming an endangered species. For this reason, it is fully protected in some counties, but the WA government had this species made exempt from protection in Australia, despite there being no scientific evidence to suggest an increase in white shark numbers. Sharks are apex predators, key to maintaining the balance of prey populations by removing sick or weak individuals and regulating the well-being of the marine ecosystem. They are very slow to reproduce and, with about 100 million sharks being killed every year as a result of fishing and hunting, the global population has been reduced by more than 70% in the last twenty years. The WA government policy of killing large sharks takes out the mature breeding stock of the species, hastening the eventual extinction. Protesters argue that the culling is extreme and unnecessary because the actual risk of death by shark is very slim, and the practice of tagging sharks and equipping them with transmitters is enough to alert swimmers when sharks are near. When a tagged shark come within one kilometre of a beach it tweets a message (via the Surf Lifesaving WA Twitter feed) giving its type (e. g. bull shark), location, date and tens. Scientists at Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SANS), in collaboration with the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia, have cane up with a novel and pragmatic solution to the shark problem: a shark deterrent wetsuit. The good news is that it is simple, affordable, and the technology can also be applied to surfboards. The scientific breakthrough came about after observation of how other species protect themselves from shark attacks. In this research, particular attention was given to the pilot fish, which has a mutualistic association with sharks, swimming alongside them devoting their harmful parasites and keeping them clean. The pilot fish are relatively small (about 30-60 cm) and are easily recognised by their patterning. This consists of five to seven transverse bands of a darker colour than the rest of the body, which is dark blue or blackish-silver. These bands are also seen on the poisonous banded sea snake. Folklore claims that some Pacific island tribes used to paint themselves in bands to simulate the appearance of this snake and thus to ward off the shark gods. It is known that sharks use a range of sensors when they prepare for attack, but apparently the sight sensor is what they use to identify their target, especially when they get close up. Experts in shark vision and shark neurology confirmed that sharks see in black and white, or greyscale. The SAMS scientists, in collaboration with others, then mapped the physical characteristics of the eyes of the three main predatory sharks, genetically and anatomically. Next, they used complex computer modelling to figure out what the sharks eye could see at different depths and distances, and in different light situations and water clarity conditions. From that, they were able to identify what patterns and shapes would essentially hide a potential target or at least create confusion for the shark; and what patterns and shapes might break up the profile of a person so that he was not mistaken for shark prey. Once the science was converted into practical wetsuit design, two ideas emerged. The first model, using the banding concept, presents a highly disruptive profile to the shark, and depicts the wearer as dangerous and unpalatable. This one is suitable for swimmers/surfers on the surface where they would otherwise provide a tempting, backlit silhouette. The second model, the cryptic wetsuit, consists of three panels on the suit, one or more matching the reflective spectra of the water and the other creating a confusing profile. This one is better suited to scuba enthusiasts, making them virtually indiscernible in the water column. It was very difficult to test these wetsuits because, for obvious reasons, the researchers could not use humans or even humanoid shapes as bait. Therefore, they wrapped perforated drums full of bait in the newly designed neoprene skins and used underwater cameras to watch how the sharks interacted with the prototype. As a control model, they used a rig wrapped in plain black neoprene just like a normal wetsuit. They were able to record a tiger shark circling and hunting the test rig for six minutes, trying to find what it could smell and sense but not see. Then the shark gave up and ripped into the control rig as soon as it encountered it. They watched a great white shark encounter a control rig, go to the bottom, then come straight up and strike it, whereas it was more apprehensive and reluctant to go for the test rig. It is hoped that these shark-deterrent designs, by disrupting a sharks visual perception, will protect swimmers either by deterring attack or at least delaying it sufficiently to allow the user time to get out of the water. | Sharks do not regard banded wetsuits as good to eat. | entailment |
id_5181 | Shark Deterrent Wetsuits The words shark attack stroke fear in beachgoers surfers, swimmers, driers and others who enjoy a dip in the ocean. After seven people died from fatal attacks off the coast of Western Austral. ; (WA) between 2010 and 2013, the state government reacted by capturing and shooting large sharks (of the great white, tiger and bull varieties) near swimming beaches. This shark culling policy caused an outcry amongst environmentalists. The existence of the white shark is already threatened; it is at a vulnerable status at high risk of becoming an endangered species. For this reason, it is fully protected in some counties, but the WA government had this species made exempt from protection in Australia, despite there being no scientific evidence to suggest an increase in white shark numbers. Sharks are apex predators, key to maintaining the balance of prey populations by removing sick or weak individuals and regulating the well-being of the marine ecosystem. They are very slow to reproduce and, with about 100 million sharks being killed every year as a result of fishing and hunting, the global population has been reduced by more than 70% in the last twenty years. The WA government policy of killing large sharks takes out the mature breeding stock of the species, hastening the eventual extinction. Protesters argue that the culling is extreme and unnecessary because the actual risk of death by shark is very slim, and the practice of tagging sharks and equipping them with transmitters is enough to alert swimmers when sharks are near. When a tagged shark come within one kilometre of a beach it tweets a message (via the Surf Lifesaving WA Twitter feed) giving its type (e. g. bull shark), location, date and tens. Scientists at Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SANS), in collaboration with the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia, have cane up with a novel and pragmatic solution to the shark problem: a shark deterrent wetsuit. The good news is that it is simple, affordable, and the technology can also be applied to surfboards. The scientific breakthrough came about after observation of how other species protect themselves from shark attacks. In this research, particular attention was given to the pilot fish, which has a mutualistic association with sharks, swimming alongside them devoting their harmful parasites and keeping them clean. The pilot fish are relatively small (about 30-60 cm) and are easily recognised by their patterning. This consists of five to seven transverse bands of a darker colour than the rest of the body, which is dark blue or blackish-silver. These bands are also seen on the poisonous banded sea snake. Folklore claims that some Pacific island tribes used to paint themselves in bands to simulate the appearance of this snake and thus to ward off the shark gods. It is known that sharks use a range of sensors when they prepare for attack, but apparently the sight sensor is what they use to identify their target, especially when they get close up. Experts in shark vision and shark neurology confirmed that sharks see in black and white, or greyscale. The SAMS scientists, in collaboration with others, then mapped the physical characteristics of the eyes of the three main predatory sharks, genetically and anatomically. Next, they used complex computer modelling to figure out what the sharks eye could see at different depths and distances, and in different light situations and water clarity conditions. From that, they were able to identify what patterns and shapes would essentially hide a potential target or at least create confusion for the shark; and what patterns and shapes might break up the profile of a person so that he was not mistaken for shark prey. Once the science was converted into practical wetsuit design, two ideas emerged. The first model, using the banding concept, presents a highly disruptive profile to the shark, and depicts the wearer as dangerous and unpalatable. This one is suitable for swimmers/surfers on the surface where they would otherwise provide a tempting, backlit silhouette. The second model, the cryptic wetsuit, consists of three panels on the suit, one or more matching the reflective spectra of the water and the other creating a confusing profile. This one is better suited to scuba enthusiasts, making them virtually indiscernible in the water column. It was very difficult to test these wetsuits because, for obvious reasons, the researchers could not use humans or even humanoid shapes as bait. Therefore, they wrapped perforated drums full of bait in the newly designed neoprene skins and used underwater cameras to watch how the sharks interacted with the prototype. As a control model, they used a rig wrapped in plain black neoprene just like a normal wetsuit. They were able to record a tiger shark circling and hunting the test rig for six minutes, trying to find what it could smell and sense but not see. Then the shark gave up and ripped into the control rig as soon as it encountered it. They watched a great white shark encounter a control rig, go to the bottom, then come straight up and strike it, whereas it was more apprehensive and reluctant to go for the test rig. It is hoped that these shark-deterrent designs, by disrupting a sharks visual perception, will protect swimmers either by deterring attack or at least delaying it sufficiently to allow the user time to get out of the water. | A deep sea diver wearing a cryptic wetsuit is almost invisible to sharks. | entailment |
id_5182 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | The biggest reason for the decline of sharks is the demand for shark fins. | neutral |
id_5183 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | Sharks will become extinct in the near future. | neutral |
id_5184 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | Shark attacks are a statistically improbable cause of death for humans. | entailment |
id_5185 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | Sharks live in groups. | contradiction |
id_5186 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | The shark is able to protect itself in all circumstances. | contradiction |
id_5187 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | People are afraid to implement regulations safeguarding sharks. | entailment |
id_5188 | Sharks Face Extinction Professor Robert Law, bead of Marine Biological Ltd, which monitors the ocean environment, and a leading governmental advisor on marine pollution, is claiming today that sharks are in danger of extinction. Professor Laws main point is that worldwide the number of sharks of most species is dropping rapidly. Exact figures about these elusive creatures are hard to come by, but the general consensus is that certain kinds of shark population have decreased by up to 75% in the last 30 years. The great white and tiger sharks have seen the greatest drop in numbers, down by as much as 90% from 20 years ago. Smaller sharks are also under threat the populations of makos, hammerheads, even common dogfish are being decimated. Estimates suggest that British dogfish numbers have halved in the last decade alone. And this decline is worldwide. The big sharks congregate mainly in the warmer waters of the Pacific and Caribbean, but cold water areas such as the Atlantic and the North Sea have their own species and these too are in danger. The reasons for the decline in numbers are not hard to see. One huge reason is the continued demand for shark fins in South-East Asia, where they are used to make soup and as ingredients in medicines. Most sharks that are killed commercially in the West are processed for the oil that comes from their livers. Sharks are also victims of fear, since they are routinely killed by fishermen when they are landed with other catches. Sharks have no protection. writes Professor Law. They are not outside the law most countries have laws protecting the species which are most under threat but the problem is that people are so frightened of them that the laws are not enforced. There are perhaps five marine biologists in Europe actively involved in attempts to save shark species, although there is greater awareness in America and Australia. Sharks have an image problem. Nobody associates them with needing to be saved simply because they are such fearsome predators. But the market demand for shark products has always been high. The real reason why shark stocks have plummeted is the same as the reason why other fish species are in decline. Modern fishing technology the use of sonar and deep-netting in particular has made the sharks natural defences useless. Charles Starkling, author of Jaws: the Myth of the Sea, agrees. The equipment the shark has to defend itself is perfect in the right environment. Against other sharks, humans, fish, all the normal dangers, the shark is virtually invincible. But Starkling adds that no animal, no matter how large and dangerous on its own, can fight against steel nets. The nets that are put out to protect swimmers dont just keep sharks away. They kill them. A shark which is caught in a net dies, because sharks cant stop swimming. Without a swim bladder, the shark drowns as soon as it stops moving. Starkling says it is common practice for sharks to have their fins cut off by fishermen and then to be dropped back in the ocean alive. They die by drowning. And the ecology of sharks makes them especially vulnerable. Sharks are top-of-the-chain predators, feeding on virtually anything else in the water, and consequently they are quite rare. For every million herring in the Atlantic, there will be one mako. Sharks are solitary and territorial, with unimaginably vast areas. The larger sharks also reproduce slowly, giving birth to live young one at a time. Most people are afraid of sharks, but without good reason. You are many thousands of times more likely to be run over or die from smoking even death by lightning or drowning in your bath are more likely than to be attacked by a shark, and even then most shark attack victims survive. Recent research suggests that most sharks kill by mistake after taking an exploratory bite humans are not sharks chosen food. But time is running out for these ancient predators of the deeps. When their populations have gone below a certain level, no amount of legislation will protect them. Professor Law points out that most sharks cannot be kept in zoos, like tigers, and that once they are gone they will be gone forever. He counsels that sharks urgently need protection by law if they are to continue to grace the seas. | We know precisely how much shark populations have declined. | contradiction |
id_5189 | Shaun Greene aged 15, was arrested at his mothers home on the Fernbrook Estate on Tuesday 10 June on suspicion of taking a motorcar without the owners permission on the afternoon of the previous day. He protested his inno- cence and claimed that he had been at college at the time in question. The following facts are also known: The attendance register showed that Shaun was absent from college on both Monday 9 and Tuesday 10 June. Shauns parents are separated and plan to get a divorce. When told about the arrest, Shauns father insisted that Shaun must be innocent because he couldnt drive. Shauns mother admitted that she had allowed him and his elder brother to take her car to some waste ground close to her house. The Principal said that Shaun lacks the motivation to succeed, often misbehaves in class and is frequently absent from college. When he was younger Shaun had been cautioned for shoplifting. | Shauns parents are separated and he lives with his mother at her home on the Fernbrook Estate. | neutral |
id_5190 | Shaun Greene aged 15, was arrested at his mothers home on the Fernbrook Estate on Tuesday 10 June on suspicion of taking a motorcar without the owners permission on the afternoon of the previous day. He protested his inno- cence and claimed that he had been at college at the time in question. The following facts are also known: The attendance register showed that Shaun was absent from college on both Monday 9 and Tuesday 10 June. Shauns parents are separated and plan to get a divorce. When told about the arrest, Shauns father insisted that Shaun must be innocent because he couldnt drive. Shauns mother admitted that she had allowed him and his elder brother to take her car to some waste ground close to her house. The Principal said that Shaun lacks the motivation to succeed, often misbehaves in class and is frequently absent from college. When he was younger Shaun had been cautioned for shoplifting. | The father was lying to protect his son when he said that Shaun couldnt drive a car. | neutral |
id_5191 | Shaun Greene aged 15, was arrested at his mothers home on the Fernbrook Estate on Tuesday 10 June on suspicion of taking a motorcar without the owners permission on the afternoon of the previous day. He protested his inno- cence and claimed that he had been at college at the time in question. The following facts are also known: The attendance register showed that Shaun was absent from college on both Monday 9 and Tuesday 10 June. Shauns parents are separated and plan to get a divorce. When told about the arrest, Shauns father insisted that Shaun must be innocent because he couldnt drive. Shauns mother admitted that she had allowed him and his elder brother to take her car to some waste ground close to her house. The Principal said that Shaun lacks the motivation to succeed, often misbehaves in class and is frequently absent from college. When he was younger Shaun had been cautioned for shoplifting. | The motorcar in question was taken without the owners consent on the afternoon of Monday 9 June. | entailment |
id_5192 | Shaun Greene aged 15, was arrested at his mothers home on the Fernbrook Estate on Tuesday 10 June on suspicion of taking a motorcar without the owners permission on the afternoon of the previous day. He protested his inno- cence and claimed that he had been at college at the time in question. The following facts are also known: The attendance register showed that Shaun was absent from college on both Monday 9 and Tuesday 10 June. Shauns parents are separated and plan to get a divorce. When told about the arrest, Shauns father insisted that Shaun must be innocent because he couldnt drive. Shauns mother admitted that she had allowed him and his elder brother to take her car to some waste ground close to her house. The Principal said that Shaun lacks the motivation to succeed, often misbehaves in class and is frequently absent from college. When he was younger Shaun had been cautioned for shoplifting. | The college could not corroborate Shauns explanation of where he was on the afternoon of Tuesday 10 June. | entailment |
id_5193 | Shaun Greene aged 15, was arrested at his mothers home on the Fernbrook Estate on Tuesday 10 June on suspicion of taking a motorcar without the owners permission on the afternoon of the previous day. He protested his inno- cence and claimed that he had been at college at the time in question. The following facts are also known: The attendance register showed that Shaun was absent from college on both Monday 9 and Tuesday 10 June. Shauns parents are separated and plan to get a divorce. When told about the arrest, Shauns father insisted that Shaun must be innocent because he couldnt drive. Shauns mother admitted that she had allowed him and his elder brother to take her car to some waste ground close to her house. The Principal said that Shaun lacks the motivation to succeed, often misbehaves in class and is frequently absent from college. When he was younger Shaun had been cautioned for shoplifting. | Shaun has not previously been in trouble with the law. | contradiction |
id_5194 | Shedding light on it There are three main types of light bulb for lighting a room: incandescent, fluorescent and, more recently, the light emitting diode (LED) bulb. All three bulbs have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to purchase price, running costs and environmental impact. The traditional incandescent bulb has been in use for more than 100 years. It is made by suspending a fine coil of tungsten wire between two electrodes. When a current flows through the wire it reaches a temperature of more than 2,000C and glows white hot. The bulb is filled with argon, an inert gas, to prevent the wire from evaporating. Traditional light bulbs are not very efficient, converting less than 10% of the energy into light with the rest as heat, making them too hot to handle. Most household light bulbs are rated at 40, 60 or 100 Watts. Mass production of fluorescent lights began in the 1940s. The standard size is 1.2 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter. The tube contains a small amount of mercury and the inside surface of the glass has a phosphor coating. There are two electrodes, one at each end of the tube, but there is no wire in between. Instead, mercury atoms absorb the electrical energy and emit ultraviolet (UV); this light is invisible until it hits the phosphor coating on the glass, which emits a visible white light. Fluorescent lights are about five times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. A 20 Watt fluorescent tube will produce a similar amount of light to a 100 Watt bulb and runs much cooler, which helps to give it 10 times the life expectancy of a bulb. The bright light produced by standard fluorescent lights makes them an ideal choice for offices and factories, rather than homes, where the incandescent bulb has traditionally reigned supreme. However, the newer compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) look likely to make the old bulbs extinct. Global warming is the main reason. Compared with an incandescent bulb, a single energy-saving fluorescent lamp will save about one tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions over its lifetime, as well as reduce the consumers electricity costs. Not everybody likes the new CFLs, which have the following disadvantages: they are ten times the price of the traditional bulbs; flickering can occur with dimmer switches; they need to warm up to give full brightness; and they emit a bluish, less natural light that can strain the eye. Traditional bulbs are safer to dispose of because they are free from mercury, which is a neurotoxin. The mercury is safe inside a sealed CFL but it is released into the atmosphere if the bulb is broken. Mercury can accumulate in the body to attack the brain and central nervous system. The reduced carbon footprint of CFLs in comparison with traditional bulbs may have been overstated. Whilst it is true that traditional bulbs convert 90% of the electricity into heat instead of light, this heat is not wasted. The bulb helps to keep the house warm so less fuel is burnt; for example, less gas or oil. If you change all your bulbs to CFLs it could prove very expensive in the short term and save less energy than you might imagine if your home is properly insulated or you live in a cold climate. If you live in a warm climate, then changing to CFLs will reduce your carbon footprint and the cost of your electricity bills, but the savings will be less than you might expect if the daylight hours are long and the nights are short. CFLs are themselves under threat from the latest generation of light emitting diodes (LEDs). The LED has been in existence since the 1920s but they have only recently been made bright enough for room lighting. The most common applications to date have been traffic lights, solar garden lights and car brake lights; infrared LEDs are used in television remote controls. LEDs are electronic components that emit photons of light when the current is switched on. Lights for the home are made by clustering several LEDs into a single bulb. Though more expensive than CFLs, LEDs last up to six times longer and are twice as efficient, producing the same amount of light from half the electrical power (half the carbon emissions). Other advantages of LED lighting include: an instant on, meaning that there is no warm-up time; no problems with frequent on/off switching, which shortens the life of fluorescent lights; no glass to break because the LED is made from a hard transparent plastic; and they are free from toxic mercury. | Traditional bulbs may waste less energy than they appear to. | entailment |
id_5195 | Shedding light on it There are three main types of light bulb for lighting a room: incandescent, fluorescent and, more recently, the light emitting diode (LED) bulb. All three bulbs have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to purchase price, running costs and environmental impact. The traditional incandescent bulb has been in use for more than 100 years. It is made by suspending a fine coil of tungsten wire between two electrodes. When a current flows through the wire it reaches a temperature of more than 2,000C and glows white hot. The bulb is filled with argon, an inert gas, to prevent the wire from evaporating. Traditional light bulbs are not very efficient, converting less than 10% of the energy into light with the rest as heat, making them too hot to handle. Most household light bulbs are rated at 40, 60 or 100 Watts. Mass production of fluorescent lights began in the 1940s. The standard size is 1.2 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter. The tube contains a small amount of mercury and the inside surface of the glass has a phosphor coating. There are two electrodes, one at each end of the tube, but there is no wire in between. Instead, mercury atoms absorb the electrical energy and emit ultraviolet (UV); this light is invisible until it hits the phosphor coating on the glass, which emits a visible white light. Fluorescent lights are about five times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. A 20 Watt fluorescent tube will produce a similar amount of light to a 100 Watt bulb and runs much cooler, which helps to give it 10 times the life expectancy of a bulb. The bright light produced by standard fluorescent lights makes them an ideal choice for offices and factories, rather than homes, where the incandescent bulb has traditionally reigned supreme. However, the newer compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) look likely to make the old bulbs extinct. Global warming is the main reason. Compared with an incandescent bulb, a single energy-saving fluorescent lamp will save about one tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions over its lifetime, as well as reduce the consumers electricity costs. Not everybody likes the new CFLs, which have the following disadvantages: they are ten times the price of the traditional bulbs; flickering can occur with dimmer switches; they need to warm up to give full brightness; and they emit a bluish, less natural light that can strain the eye. Traditional bulbs are safer to dispose of because they are free from mercury, which is a neurotoxin. The mercury is safe inside a sealed CFL but it is released into the atmosphere if the bulb is broken. Mercury can accumulate in the body to attack the brain and central nervous system. The reduced carbon footprint of CFLs in comparison with traditional bulbs may have been overstated. Whilst it is true that traditional bulbs convert 90% of the electricity into heat instead of light, this heat is not wasted. The bulb helps to keep the house warm so less fuel is burnt; for example, less gas or oil. If you change all your bulbs to CFLs it could prove very expensive in the short term and save less energy than you might imagine if your home is properly insulated or you live in a cold climate. If you live in a warm climate, then changing to CFLs will reduce your carbon footprint and the cost of your electricity bills, but the savings will be less than you might expect if the daylight hours are long and the nights are short. CFLs are themselves under threat from the latest generation of light emitting diodes (LEDs). The LED has been in existence since the 1920s but they have only recently been made bright enough for room lighting. The most common applications to date have been traffic lights, solar garden lights and car brake lights; infrared LEDs are used in television remote controls. LEDs are electronic components that emit photons of light when the current is switched on. Lights for the home are made by clustering several LEDs into a single bulb. Though more expensive than CFLs, LEDs last up to six times longer and are twice as efficient, producing the same amount of light from half the electrical power (half the carbon emissions). Other advantages of LED lighting include: an instant on, meaning that there is no warm-up time; no problems with frequent on/off switching, which shortens the life of fluorescent lights; no glass to break because the LED is made from a hard transparent plastic; and they are free from toxic mercury. | Fluorescent light can cause headaches and migraines. | neutral |
id_5196 | Shedding light on it There are three main types of light bulb for lighting a room: incandescent, fluorescent and, more recently, the light emitting diode (LED) bulb. All three bulbs have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to purchase price, running costs and environmental impact. The traditional incandescent bulb has been in use for more than 100 years. It is made by suspending a fine coil of tungsten wire between two electrodes. When a current flows through the wire it reaches a temperature of more than 2,000C and glows white hot. The bulb is filled with argon, an inert gas, to prevent the wire from evaporating. Traditional light bulbs are not very efficient, converting less than 10% of the energy into light with the rest as heat, making them too hot to handle. Most household light bulbs are rated at 40, 60 or 100 Watts. Mass production of fluorescent lights began in the 1940s. The standard size is 1.2 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter. The tube contains a small amount of mercury and the inside surface of the glass has a phosphor coating. There are two electrodes, one at each end of the tube, but there is no wire in between. Instead, mercury atoms absorb the electrical energy and emit ultraviolet (UV); this light is invisible until it hits the phosphor coating on the glass, which emits a visible white light. Fluorescent lights are about five times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. A 20 Watt fluorescent tube will produce a similar amount of light to a 100 Watt bulb and runs much cooler, which helps to give it 10 times the life expectancy of a bulb. The bright light produced by standard fluorescent lights makes them an ideal choice for offices and factories, rather than homes, where the incandescent bulb has traditionally reigned supreme. However, the newer compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) look likely to make the old bulbs extinct. Global warming is the main reason. Compared with an incandescent bulb, a single energy-saving fluorescent lamp will save about one tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions over its lifetime, as well as reduce the consumers electricity costs. Not everybody likes the new CFLs, which have the following disadvantages: they are ten times the price of the traditional bulbs; flickering can occur with dimmer switches; they need to warm up to give full brightness; and they emit a bluish, less natural light that can strain the eye. Traditional bulbs are safer to dispose of because they are free from mercury, which is a neurotoxin. The mercury is safe inside a sealed CFL but it is released into the atmosphere if the bulb is broken. Mercury can accumulate in the body to attack the brain and central nervous system. The reduced carbon footprint of CFLs in comparison with traditional bulbs may have been overstated. Whilst it is true that traditional bulbs convert 90% of the electricity into heat instead of light, this heat is not wasted. The bulb helps to keep the house warm so less fuel is burnt; for example, less gas or oil. If you change all your bulbs to CFLs it could prove very expensive in the short term and save less energy than you might imagine if your home is properly insulated or you live in a cold climate. If you live in a warm climate, then changing to CFLs will reduce your carbon footprint and the cost of your electricity bills, but the savings will be less than you might expect if the daylight hours are long and the nights are short. CFLs are themselves under threat from the latest generation of light emitting diodes (LEDs). The LED has been in existence since the 1920s but they have only recently been made bright enough for room lighting. The most common applications to date have been traffic lights, solar garden lights and car brake lights; infrared LEDs are used in television remote controls. LEDs are electronic components that emit photons of light when the current is switched on. Lights for the home are made by clustering several LEDs into a single bulb. Though more expensive than CFLs, LEDs last up to six times longer and are twice as efficient, producing the same amount of light from half the electrical power (half the carbon emissions). Other advantages of LED lighting include: an instant on, meaning that there is no warm-up time; no problems with frequent on/off switching, which shortens the life of fluorescent lights; no glass to break because the LED is made from a hard transparent plastic; and they are free from toxic mercury. | Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) last about 10 years. | neutral |
id_5197 | Shedding light on it There are three main types of light bulb for lighting a room: incandescent, fluorescent and, more recently, the light emitting diode (LED) bulb. All three bulbs have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to purchase price, running costs and environmental impact. The traditional incandescent bulb has been in use for more than 100 years. It is made by suspending a fine coil of tungsten wire between two electrodes. When a current flows through the wire it reaches a temperature of more than 2,000C and glows white hot. The bulb is filled with argon, an inert gas, to prevent the wire from evaporating. Traditional light bulbs are not very efficient, converting less than 10% of the energy into light with the rest as heat, making them too hot to handle. Most household light bulbs are rated at 40, 60 or 100 Watts. Mass production of fluorescent lights began in the 1940s. The standard size is 1.2 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter. The tube contains a small amount of mercury and the inside surface of the glass has a phosphor coating. There are two electrodes, one at each end of the tube, but there is no wire in between. Instead, mercury atoms absorb the electrical energy and emit ultraviolet (UV); this light is invisible until it hits the phosphor coating on the glass, which emits a visible white light. Fluorescent lights are about five times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. A 20 Watt fluorescent tube will produce a similar amount of light to a 100 Watt bulb and runs much cooler, which helps to give it 10 times the life expectancy of a bulb. The bright light produced by standard fluorescent lights makes them an ideal choice for offices and factories, rather than homes, where the incandescent bulb has traditionally reigned supreme. However, the newer compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) look likely to make the old bulbs extinct. Global warming is the main reason. Compared with an incandescent bulb, a single energy-saving fluorescent lamp will save about one tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions over its lifetime, as well as reduce the consumers electricity costs. Not everybody likes the new CFLs, which have the following disadvantages: they are ten times the price of the traditional bulbs; flickering can occur with dimmer switches; they need to warm up to give full brightness; and they emit a bluish, less natural light that can strain the eye. Traditional bulbs are safer to dispose of because they are free from mercury, which is a neurotoxin. The mercury is safe inside a sealed CFL but it is released into the atmosphere if the bulb is broken. Mercury can accumulate in the body to attack the brain and central nervous system. The reduced carbon footprint of CFLs in comparison with traditional bulbs may have been overstated. Whilst it is true that traditional bulbs convert 90% of the electricity into heat instead of light, this heat is not wasted. The bulb helps to keep the house warm so less fuel is burnt; for example, less gas or oil. If you change all your bulbs to CFLs it could prove very expensive in the short term and save less energy than you might imagine if your home is properly insulated or you live in a cold climate. If you live in a warm climate, then changing to CFLs will reduce your carbon footprint and the cost of your electricity bills, but the savings will be less than you might expect if the daylight hours are long and the nights are short. CFLs are themselves under threat from the latest generation of light emitting diodes (LEDs). The LED has been in existence since the 1920s but they have only recently been made bright enough for room lighting. The most common applications to date have been traffic lights, solar garden lights and car brake lights; infrared LEDs are used in television remote controls. LEDs are electronic components that emit photons of light when the current is switched on. Lights for the home are made by clustering several LEDs into a single bulb. Though more expensive than CFLs, LEDs last up to six times longer and are twice as efficient, producing the same amount of light from half the electrical power (half the carbon emissions). Other advantages of LED lighting include: an instant on, meaning that there is no warm-up time; no problems with frequent on/off switching, which shortens the life of fluorescent lights; no glass to break because the LED is made from a hard transparent plastic; and they are free from toxic mercury. | Fluorescent tubes are the best lights for workplaces. | entailment |
id_5198 | Shedding light on it There are three main types of light bulb for lighting a room: incandescent, fluorescent and, more recently, the light emitting diode (LED) bulb. All three bulbs have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to purchase price, running costs and environmental impact. The traditional incandescent bulb has been in use for more than 100 years. It is made by suspending a fine coil of tungsten wire between two electrodes. When a current flows through the wire it reaches a temperature of more than 2,000C and glows white hot. The bulb is filled with argon, an inert gas, to prevent the wire from evaporating. Traditional light bulbs are not very efficient, converting less than 10% of the energy into light with the rest as heat, making them too hot to handle. Most household light bulbs are rated at 40, 60 or 100 Watts. Mass production of fluorescent lights began in the 1940s. The standard size is 1.2 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter. The tube contains a small amount of mercury and the inside surface of the glass has a phosphor coating. There are two electrodes, one at each end of the tube, but there is no wire in between. Instead, mercury atoms absorb the electrical energy and emit ultraviolet (UV); this light is invisible until it hits the phosphor coating on the glass, which emits a visible white light. Fluorescent lights are about five times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. A 20 Watt fluorescent tube will produce a similar amount of light to a 100 Watt bulb and runs much cooler, which helps to give it 10 times the life expectancy of a bulb. The bright light produced by standard fluorescent lights makes them an ideal choice for offices and factories, rather than homes, where the incandescent bulb has traditionally reigned supreme. However, the newer compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) look likely to make the old bulbs extinct. Global warming is the main reason. Compared with an incandescent bulb, a single energy-saving fluorescent lamp will save about one tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions over its lifetime, as well as reduce the consumers electricity costs. Not everybody likes the new CFLs, which have the following disadvantages: they are ten times the price of the traditional bulbs; flickering can occur with dimmer switches; they need to warm up to give full brightness; and they emit a bluish, less natural light that can strain the eye. Traditional bulbs are safer to dispose of because they are free from mercury, which is a neurotoxin. The mercury is safe inside a sealed CFL but it is released into the atmosphere if the bulb is broken. Mercury can accumulate in the body to attack the brain and central nervous system. The reduced carbon footprint of CFLs in comparison with traditional bulbs may have been overstated. Whilst it is true that traditional bulbs convert 90% of the electricity into heat instead of light, this heat is not wasted. The bulb helps to keep the house warm so less fuel is burnt; for example, less gas or oil. If you change all your bulbs to CFLs it could prove very expensive in the short term and save less energy than you might imagine if your home is properly insulated or you live in a cold climate. If you live in a warm climate, then changing to CFLs will reduce your carbon footprint and the cost of your electricity bills, but the savings will be less than you might expect if the daylight hours are long and the nights are short. CFLs are themselves under threat from the latest generation of light emitting diodes (LEDs). The LED has been in existence since the 1920s but they have only recently been made bright enough for room lighting. The most common applications to date have been traffic lights, solar garden lights and car brake lights; infrared LEDs are used in television remote controls. LEDs are electronic components that emit photons of light when the current is switched on. Lights for the home are made by clustering several LEDs into a single bulb. Though more expensive than CFLs, LEDs last up to six times longer and are twice as efficient, producing the same amount of light from half the electrical power (half the carbon emissions). Other advantages of LED lighting include: an instant on, meaning that there is no warm-up time; no problems with frequent on/off switching, which shortens the life of fluorescent lights; no glass to break because the LED is made from a hard transparent plastic; and they are free from toxic mercury. | Ultraviolet light (UV) can be seen with the naked eye. | contradiction |
id_5199 | Shedding light on it There are three main types of light bulb for lighting a room: incandescent, fluorescent and, more recently, the light emitting diode (LED) bulb. All three bulbs have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to purchase price, running costs and environmental impact. The traditional incandescent bulb has been in use for more than 100 years. It is made by suspending a fine coil of tungsten wire between two electrodes. When a current flows through the wire it reaches a temperature of more than 2,000C and glows white hot. The bulb is filled with argon, an inert gas, to prevent the wire from evaporating. Traditional light bulbs are not very efficient, converting less than 10% of the energy into light with the rest as heat, making them too hot to handle. Most household light bulbs are rated at 40, 60 or 100 Watts. Mass production of fluorescent lights began in the 1940s. The standard size is 1.2 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter. The tube contains a small amount of mercury and the inside surface of the glass has a phosphor coating. There are two electrodes, one at each end of the tube, but there is no wire in between. Instead, mercury atoms absorb the electrical energy and emit ultraviolet (UV); this light is invisible until it hits the phosphor coating on the glass, which emits a visible white light. Fluorescent lights are about five times more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. A 20 Watt fluorescent tube will produce a similar amount of light to a 100 Watt bulb and runs much cooler, which helps to give it 10 times the life expectancy of a bulb. The bright light produced by standard fluorescent lights makes them an ideal choice for offices and factories, rather than homes, where the incandescent bulb has traditionally reigned supreme. However, the newer compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) look likely to make the old bulbs extinct. Global warming is the main reason. Compared with an incandescent bulb, a single energy-saving fluorescent lamp will save about one tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions over its lifetime, as well as reduce the consumers electricity costs. Not everybody likes the new CFLs, which have the following disadvantages: they are ten times the price of the traditional bulbs; flickering can occur with dimmer switches; they need to warm up to give full brightness; and they emit a bluish, less natural light that can strain the eye. Traditional bulbs are safer to dispose of because they are free from mercury, which is a neurotoxin. The mercury is safe inside a sealed CFL but it is released into the atmosphere if the bulb is broken. Mercury can accumulate in the body to attack the brain and central nervous system. The reduced carbon footprint of CFLs in comparison with traditional bulbs may have been overstated. Whilst it is true that traditional bulbs convert 90% of the electricity into heat instead of light, this heat is not wasted. The bulb helps to keep the house warm so less fuel is burnt; for example, less gas or oil. If you change all your bulbs to CFLs it could prove very expensive in the short term and save less energy than you might imagine if your home is properly insulated or you live in a cold climate. If you live in a warm climate, then changing to CFLs will reduce your carbon footprint and the cost of your electricity bills, but the savings will be less than you might expect if the daylight hours are long and the nights are short. CFLs are themselves under threat from the latest generation of light emitting diodes (LEDs). The LED has been in existence since the 1920s but they have only recently been made bright enough for room lighting. The most common applications to date have been traffic lights, solar garden lights and car brake lights; infrared LEDs are used in television remote controls. LEDs are electronic components that emit photons of light when the current is switched on. Lights for the home are made by clustering several LEDs into a single bulb. Though more expensive than CFLs, LEDs last up to six times longer and are twice as efficient, producing the same amount of light from half the electrical power (half the carbon emissions). Other advantages of LED lighting include: an instant on, meaning that there is no warm-up time; no problems with frequent on/off switching, which shortens the life of fluorescent lights; no glass to break because the LED is made from a hard transparent plastic; and they are free from toxic mercury. | Incandescent bulbs convert more energy to heat than light. | entailment |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.