cooking times of food and food safety

cooking times of food and food safety

The father of www finally gets his due

By Victoria Shannon International Herald Tribune
Monday, June 14, 2004
If Tim Berners-Lee had decided to patent his idea in 1989, the Internet would be a different place.
Instead, the World Wide Web became free to anyone who could make use of it. Many of those who did became rich: Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com), Jerry Yang (Yahoo), Pierre Omidyar (eBay) and Marc Andreessen (Netscape)

But not Berners-Lee, 49, a British scientist working at a Geneva research lab at the time

That is why some people think it is fitting — or about time — that he finally becomes wealthy, with the award Tuesday of the world's largest technology prize, the Millennium Technology Prize from the Finnish Technology Award Foundation. The €1 million, or $1.2 million, prize for outstanding technological achievements that raised the quality of life is supported by the Finnish government and private contribution

"It was a very nice surprise," Berners-Lee said in an interview Sunday as three days of ceremonies began here
Pekka Tarjanne, the former director general of the International Telecommunication Union who led the awards selection committee, said it was "surprisingly easy" to settle on Berners-Lee as the prize's first recipient, despite the 78 nominations and the eight judges on the committee.

The Internet has many fathers: Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn, who came up with a system to allow different computer networks to interconnect and communicate; Ray Tomlinson, the creator of e-mail who also was the first to use the @ symbol in addresses; Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext; and scores of others.

But only one who conceived of the World Wide Web (originally, Berners-Lee called it a "mesh" before changing it to a "web").
Before him, there were no browsers; there was no hypertext markup language, no "www" in any Internet address, no URLs and no uniform resource locators

Because he and his colleague, Robert Cailliau, a Belgian, insisted on a license-free technology, today a Gateway computer with a Linux operating system and a browser made by Netscape can see the same Web page as any other personal computer, system software or Internet browser.

If his then-employer, CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Geneva, had sought royalties, Berners-Lee said he believed the world would have 16 different "webs" on the Internet today.

"Goodness knows, there were plenty of hypertext systems before that didn't interoperate," he said.

"There would have been a CERN Web, a Microsoft one, there would have been a Digital one, Apple's HyperCard would have started reaching out Internet roots. And all of these things would have been incompatible."

.

Software patenting today, Berners-Lee says, has run amok. In April, Microsoft was awarded a U.S. patent for the use of short, long or double-clicks on the same button of a hand-held computer to launch applications, according to a report earlier this month on eWeek.com.

.

At the same time, Microsoft said last week it was appealing a $521 million judgment — the second-biggest patent-infringement award — won by a Chicago company called Eolas Technologies over plug-in applications in Internet browers.

.

In 2000, BT Group tried to pursue royalties on "hyperlinking," and in 2002, Amazon.com patented a way to shop online with one click of a mouse button.

.

"The problem now is someone can write something out of their own creativity, and a lawyer can look over their shoulder later and say, 'Actually, I'm sorry, but lines 35 to 42 we own, even though you wrote it,"' said Berners-Lee, who is director of the World Wide Web Consortium based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

.

"What's at stake here is the whole spirit in which software has been developed to date," he said. "If you can imagine a computer doing it, then you can write a computer program to do it. That spirit has been behind so many wonderful developments.

.

"And when you connect that to the spirit of the Internet, the spirit of openness and sharing, it's terribly stifling to creativity. It's stifling to the academic side of doing research and thinking up new ideas, it's stifling to the new industry and the new enterprises that come out of that."

.

In Europe, software patenting has drawn fierce debate for more than a year.

.

The original proponent of a law to harmonize European Union patent rules is reportedly now ready to withdraw it.

.

The chief executives of some of Europe's biggest technology companies — Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Philips and Alcatel — warned the EU last fall that €15 billion of their combined annual research and development spending could be wasted if software is not patentable.

.

Berners-Lee takes the position of many academics in this debate.

.

"It's really important that they put tremendous restrictions on or complete abolition of software patents," he said of the European Parliament's deliberations.

.

"If there really is a patent for something that is software, the bar for novelty should be serious," he said. "The idea that a patent is awarded by default because the patent office is overwhelmed, which happens in the United States, is tremendously damaging."

.

In America, the fact that the federal Patent and Trademark Office issued a preliminary finding in March that would invalidate the Eolas patent claim, he said, "is a very important step. Now we have to look at the general system. In the States, the situation will need a huge change."

.

Despite his strong opinions on the subject, Berners-Lee doesn't want to take on patent reform as his cause.

.

His work on the next iteration of the World Wide Web — the so-called semantic Web, which will categorize links and searches so that they are relevant — takes most of his time.

.

James Fallows, a national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and a frequent writer on technology, wrote a couple of years ago that it was a "scandal" that Berners-Lee never became rich from his creation.

.

In an interview Sunday, Fallows said, "I don't know if he feels scandalized" — Berners-Lee said he does not — "but he's certainly the notable exception to the general rule. He's the classic example of somebody putting the public interest before his own."

.

The Millennium Technology Prize is more than twice the amount of the Japan Prize or the Kyoto Prize, each worth ¥50 million, or $450,000. Tarjanne said the Finns wanted it to be on the same order of magnitude as the Nobel prizes, worth 10 million kronor, or $1.3 million each and awarded annually in neighboring Sweden.

.

But Berners-Lee said the money would not change anything now.

.

"I don't think we're going to do anything crazy with it," said Berners-Lee, who is also scheduled to be knighted in Britain later this year. "We'll keep it for boring suburban things like the education of our children and that sort of thing. And we've needed a new kitchen for a long time." If Tim Berners-Lee had decided to patent his idea in 1989, the Internet would be a different place.

.

Instead, the World Wide Web became free to anyone who could make use of it. Many of those who did became rich: Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com), Jerry Yang (Yahoo), Pierre Omidyar (eBay) and Marc Andreessen (Netscape).

.

But not Berners-Lee, 49, a British scientist working at a Geneva research lab at the time.

.

That is why some people think it is fitting — or about time — that he finally becomes wealthy, with the award Tuesday of the world's largest technology prize, the Millennium Technology Prize from the Finnish Technology Award Foundation. The €1 million, or $1.2 million, prize for outstanding technological achievements that raised the quality of life is supported by the Finnish government and private contributors.

.

"It was a very nice surprise," Berners-Lee said in an interview Sunday as three days of ceremonies began here.

.

Pekka Tarjanne, the former director general of the International Telecommunication Union who led the awards selection committee, said it was "surprisingly easy" to settle on Berners-Lee as the prize's first recipient, despite the 78 nominations and the eight judges on the committee.

.

The Internet has many fathers: Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn, who came up with a system to allow different computer networks to interconnect and communicate; Ray Tomlinson, the creator of e-mail who also was the first to use the @ symbol in addresses; Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext; and scores of others.

.

But only one who conceived of the World Wide Web (originally, Berners-Lee called it a "mesh" before changing it to a "web").

.

Before him, there were no browsers; there was no hypertext markup language, no "www" in any Internet address, no URLs and no uniform resource locators.

.

Because he and his colleague, Robert Cailliau, a Belgian, insisted on a license-free technology, today a Gateway computer with a Linux operating system and a browser made by Netscape can see the same Web page as any other personal computer, system software or Internet browser.

.

If his then-employer, CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Geneva, had sought royalties, Berners-Lee said he believed the world would have 16 different "webs" on the Internet today.

.

"Goodness knows, there were plenty of hypertext systems before that didn't interoperate," he said.

.

"There would have been a CERN Web, a Microsoft one, there would have been a Digital one, Apple's HyperCard would have started reaching out Internet roots. And all of these things would have been incompatible."

.

Software patenting today, Berners-Lee says, has run amok. In April, Microsoft was awarded a U.S. patent for the use of short, long or double-clicks on the same button of a hand-held computer to launch applications, according to a report earlier this month on eWeek.com.

.

At the same time, Microsoft said last week it was appealing a $521 million judgment — the second-biggest patent-infringement award — won by a Chicago company called Eolas Technologies over plug-in applications in Internet browers.

.

In 2000, BT Group tried to pursue royalties on "hyperlinking," and in 2002, Amazon.com patented a way to shop online with one click of a mouse button.

.

"The problem now is someone can write something out of their own creativity, and a lawyer can look over their shoulder later and say, 'Actually, I'm sorry, but lines 35 to 42 we own, even though you wrote it,"' said Berners-Lee, who is director of the World Wide Web Consortium based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

.

"What's at stake here is the whole spirit in which software has been developed to date," he said. "If you can imagine a computer doing it, then you can write a computer program to do it. That spirit has been behind so many wonderful developments.

.

"And when you connect that to the spirit of the Internet, the spirit of openness and sharing, it's terribly stifling to creativity. It's stifling to the academic side of doing research and thinking up new ideas, it's stifling to the new industry and the new enterprises that come out of that."

.

In Europe, software patenting has drawn fierce debate for more than a year.

.

The original proponent of a law to harmonize European Union patent rules is reportedly now ready to withdraw it.

.

The chief executives of some of Europe's biggest technology companies — Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Philips and Alcatel — warned the EU last fall that €15 billion of their combined annual research and development spending could be wasted if software is not patentable.

.

Berners-Lee takes the position of many academics in this debate.

.

"It's really important that they put tremendous restrictions on or complete abolition of software patents," he said of the European Parliament's deliberations.

.

"If there really is a patent for something that is software, the bar for novelty should be serious," he said. "The idea that a patent is awarded by default because the patent office is overwhelmed, which happens in the United States, is tremendously damaging."

.

In America, the fact that the federal Patent and Trademark Office issued a preliminary finding in March that would invalidate the Eolas patent claim, he said, "is a very important step. Now we have to look at the general system. In the States, the situation will need a huge change."

.

Despite his strong opinions on the subject, Berners-Lee doesn't want to take on patent reform as his cause.

.

His work on the next iteration of the World Wide Web — the so-called semantic Web, which will categorize links and searches so that they are relevant — takes most of his time.

.

James Fallows, a national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and a frequent writer on technology, wrote a couple of years ago that it was a "scandal" that Berners-Lee never became rich from his creation.

.

In an interview Sunday, Fallows said, "I don't know if he feels scandalized" — Berners-Lee said he does not — "but he's certainly the notable exception to the general rule. He's the classic example of somebody putting the public interest before his own."

.

Food That Travels Well

THE term “food miles” — how far food has traveled before you buy it — has entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in Europe, are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life” contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping and flying food from distant parts of the globe.

There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste, community cohesion and preserving open space — but none of these benefits compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals, shrink our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.

On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem. In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it seems, is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.

But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment? Researchers at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe’s push for “food miles labeling,” recently published a study challenging the premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling evidence suggests that there is more — or less — to food miles than meets the eye.

It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of measuring a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln University scientists expanded their equations to include other energy-consuming aspects of production — what economists call “factor inputs and externalities” — like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs.

Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.

These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand’s most prominent environmental research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that localism “is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than during transport.” The British government’s 2006 Food Industry Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental costs “across the life cycle of the produce,” not just in transportation.

“Eat local” advocates — a passionate cohort of which I am one — are bound to interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn’t. Not only do life cycle analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local philosophy.

Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the world to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food production — food will always have to travel; asking people to move to more fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers living in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices beyond what the season has to offer.

Given these problems, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop obsessing over food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages? And what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according to fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn’t we create development incentives for regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce for the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might it be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food production and distribution, with the hubs in a food system’s naturally fertile hot spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting them while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?

As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts. We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of awareness.