Corrections

Summary form only given, as follows. In Vol. 12, no. 3 (Summer 2007), page 9, bottom of the left column, in 'Computer Architecture and Amdahl??s Law' by Gene Amdahl, the claim about invalidating Amdahl??s Law in 1988 came from a team at Sandia National Laboratories, and not Los Alamos. The correct text should read: "Several years later I was informed of a proof that Amdahl's Law was invalidated by someone at Sandia National Laboratories, where a number of computers interconnected as an Ncube by communication lines, but with each computer also connected to I/O devices for loading the operating system, initial data, and results." On page 20 of the same issue, in the second sentence of the diagram explanation note by Justin Rattner, the percentage figures for the sequential and the system coordination parts of the workload were interchanged. The correct version of this sentence should read: "assuming a fixed sized problem, Amdahl speculated that most programs would require at least 10% of the computation to be sequential (only one instruction executing at a time), with overhead due to interprocessor coordination averaging 25%."

Law, technology and water conflicts in developing societies: a case study of tank systems in Tamil Nadu

The study examines the relationship between law, technology and water conflicts from colonial days to the present in traditional (water) tank systems in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Tanks are man-made water systems developed for irrigation and many other purposes in semi-arid areas. The thesis adopts a historical approach to study the development of law, particularly property rights, and takes an empirical approach to investigate the tank conflicts. Archival documents on irrigation development, Case laws, Focus Group Discussions, Open ended Interviews and Field visits to selected tank chains are used as source material for the discussion. Case studies of conflicts are described and analyzed at three levels - Vaigai river basin for a macro level, Kothai Anicut system in Cauvery basin for a meso level, and twenty other interconnected tanks for a micro-level. The thesis deviates from the conventional understanding that tanks as traditional systems as simple and local technologies but considers them to be complex. It argues that the use of commonly held systems such as tanks within the colonial and post colonial laws as state ownership has been the source of many conflicts. In particular, it finds most tank conflicts are a product of progressive and absolute state control over water and the systems established using colonial land revenue administrative law. The law continues to treat tanks as pieces of landed property held by state and the individuals rather than as technology systems that presupposed the regime of property rights introduced after the colonial times. The modern interventions in water including the reservoir building, and altering the hydraulics of rivers and streams aggravate tank conflicts and lead to their further detriment. The study brings the focus to ground realities, and offers new perspectives on understanding tank systems in dynamic ways.