Excellent. I see it fit to change the URL to this one. On a tangential note, the NYT article has no extra information and sources this openly accessible link.

Excellent. I see it fit to change the URL to this one. On a tangential note, the NYT article has no extra information and sources this openly accessible link. I think it's outrageous the Times has the guts to put this article behind a paywall (if you're over the 10 article limit per month) given that there is so little extra to see. Don't get me wrong -- I understand paywalls but semi-blatant copy/pasting and then asking for money is not the way to go IMHO. That said, go read the original if you haven't (not directed at revelation) it's much better and more detailed.