WHEN THE MEDIA IS CORRUPT,
WHEN THE POLLS ARE RIGGED...
many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment,
and will die here like rotten cabbages.
Be seeing you.
|Works only from Youtube page: Storyboard generated from video below using the Youtube Storyboard Bookmarklet.|
After New Jersey state troopers arrested Rebecca Musarra for remaining silent, they informed her, "You have the right to remain silent." That should have been a clue that something was amiss with their legal justification for hauling her off to jail.
According to a federal lawsuit filed by Musarra, a Philadelphia attorney, and dashcam footage recently obtained by NJ Advance Media, Trooper Matthew Stazzone pulled her over for speeding on October 16 and asked for her license, registration, and proof of insurance. She handed over the documents but did not respond when Stazzone asked her a question. He repeated the question several times, becoming increasingly agitated and warning her that she would be arrested if she did not answer. Here is the vitally important question that Stazzone kept asking: "Do you know why you're being pulled over tonight?"
|Letter-writing at a portable desk with quill, inkwell, seal and an open book bound with clasps on a reading stand ... and a clock and bell (Antwerp, 19th c.)|
One can voice whatever opinion one wishes on whatever topic. I suggest that if you want to keep not only your cannabis, but also your vitamins - and maybe even see your government continue to get its head out of wherever it has been and start responding ethically and humanely, that then "you" are that "one."
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Mr. Adams.
|"The Little Bird Brings The Message" (Alternate Title: "Great Good fortune") |
a faustian original, dedicated to Alexandra Elbakyan: Right On, Sister.
Elsevier's backpedalling not stopping scientist strike
What do we want? Open science access
Iain Thomson for The Register
Dutch publishing house Elsevier is facing increasing pressure from the scientific community, with the company's 2,000 journals now being blacklisted by over 8,600 academics.
In January, following an angry blog post by British mathematician Tom Gowers, academics started to sign a public petition refusing to submit, edit, or approve articles for publication in Elsevier's extensive stable of titles, which includes The Lancet and Cell.
The petition protested against the high prices Elsevier charges for its journals, its practice of requiring subscribers to buy bundles of publications rather than individual subscriptions, and the company's support for the Research Works Act (RWA) in the US Congress, which would close access to publicly-funded research.
The movement quickly caught on with academics, and within days over a thousand of them had signed up. Elsevier relies on academics to submit papers for publications, as well as others to proof, edit and peer-review research, so the strike struck at the heart of the publisher's business model.
Expensive Journals Drive Academics To Break Copyright Law
HEATHER JOSEPH: Thank you for having me.
WERTHEIMER: So how do the academic journals that are charging a lot of money for what - for their subscriptions, what is their justification?
JOSEPH: Well, the justification I think is a good one for nonprofit organizations like Scholarly Societies that really do operate on pretty much a cost recovery model. The commercial ventures, though, that have the profit margins in the 30 and 40 percent range, there really is no justification. They're profit-maximizing businesses, which is fine. The question is, should such businesses be built around information that's vital to the public's good and the public's health?
WERTHEIMER: When these scholars do articles, who gets - do they get any of that money?
JOSEPH: They're unpaid. The authors of these articles traditionally contribute the work of writing the articles, the work of reviewing and verifying the information, and they're not paid....
|click to view image; |
for hyperlinked document
please visit http://custodians.online/
|Aaron Swartz at the Freedom to Connect conference,|
Washington, DC area May 21-22, 2012, less than seven
nonths before his death.
EXCLUSIVE: Robin Hood neuroscientist behind Sci-Hub research-pirate site talks to RT
This infamy led to popular scientific publisher Elsevier filing a lawsuit, which was successful late last year in getting a temporary injunction against Sci-Hub’s activities. This was after in 2012, a large community of scientists boycotted it; so much so that even Harvard University complained it didn’t have enough funds to keep paying Elsevier.
The publisher estimated its losses to be in the area of $75,000-150,000, court records stated. It now wants this figure paid out for each and every pirated article. There are hundreds of thousands. Its reasoning is that monetizing access to academic knowledge helps bring in funding for academic research. But Elbakyan and others say most study authors don’t actually get paid for published work – and that is why Sci-Hub is so different from some illegal music or movie download service.
Currently, Elbakayn says she’s been served with a temporary injunction. It could still go either way for Sci-Hub, but it is unlikely that a US court would rule in favor of free information, she believes.
After Elsevier’s court victory last year, many scientists who had already previously boycotted the publisher wrote an open letter in support of Sci-Hub and the Netherlands-based Library Genesis.
More than seven years ago Aaron Swartz, who spared no risk in standing up for what we here urge you to stand up for too, wrote: "We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?"
We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices.
Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.
Either way, American courts can’t really cause much more damage to Sci-Hub than ruling in Elsevier’s favor. Firstly, because Sci-Hub servers are outside the US, in Russia. The New York district court can’t prosecute Elbakyan, because she has no US assets; secondly, because an ever-growing body of scientists actually support the initiative and increasingly turn against the capitalizing publishers; and third – because even if someone tried to target Sci-Hub, they couldn’t: its servers have moved to the dark net– that concealed corner of the internet normally reserved for buying drugs, ordering hits on people or trading in child pornography.
“Even if legal access to [Sci-Hub] is blocked, the user can still get in through the TOR network and immediately gain access to all the articles. However, we intent to fight for free access to all information. After all, using TOR still provides obstacles. And I believe there should be no obstacles on the way to scientific knowledge.”
Sci-Hub provides readers with articles without requiring a subscription or payment. An average of 200,000 users visited Sci-Hub per day in January 2016. Before the project's original domain, Sci-Hub.org, was blocked, the website had an average of 80,000 visitors per day. The site can gain access to papers on demand in two ways: first, it will check whether the requested paper is available at LibGen, a similar website hosted in Russia. If the paper isn't available there, Sci-hub will then pass through the corresponding paywall and retrieve the document from the original publisher's website. Sci-hub is able to achieve this thanks to a collection of subscription credentials that anonymous academics from around the world have donated. Sci-hub has credentials to access papers published at JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, among others. If a paper is retrieved that was not previously available at LibGen, Sci-hub will share a copy of the document with LibGen for future use.
Meet the Robin Hood of Science
by SIMON OXENHAM
The efficiency of the system is really quite astounding, working far better than the comparatively primitive modes of access given to researchers at top universities, tools that universities must fork out millions of pounds for every year. Users now don’t even have to visit the Sci-Hub website at all; instead, when faced with a journal paywall they can simply take the Sci-Hub URL and paste it into the address bar of a paywalled journal article immediately after the “.com” or “.org” part of the journal URL and before the remainder of the URL. When this happens, Sci-Hub automatically bypasses the paywall, taking the reader straight to a PDF without the user ever having to visit the Sci-Hub website itself.
If, at first pass the network fails to gain access to the paper, the system automatically tries different institutions’ credentials until it gains access. In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access — literally a world of knowledge. This is important now more than ever in a world where even Harvard University can no longer afford to pay skyrocketing academic journal subscription fees, while Cornell axed many of its Elsevier subscriptions over a decade ago. For researchers outside the US' and Western Europe’s richest institutions, routine piracy has long been the only way to conduct science, but increasingly the problem of unaffordable journals is coming closer to home.
|His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Akihito, and Former Prime Ministers Morihiro Hosokawa, Junichirō Koizumi, and Naoto Kan.|
Why did Japanese TV channels cut Emperor Akihito's address on the one-year anniversary of the Fukushima crisis?
There is a particularly sensitive accusation reverberating through online discussion boards and social media in Japan: that Emperor Akihito's speech on the one year anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami was censored on TV for his comments about the nuclear disaster at Fukushima.
The 78-year-old Emperor Akihito had insisted on attending the memorial service, though he had been released from the hospital for heart bypass surgery less than a week earlier. While the emperor is technically just a figurehead, he is still deeply revered here. Many Japanese see him a source of guidance in times of political difficulty, which have been many in the last 20 years. His speech was highly anticipated. Unlike Prime Minister Noda, who never mentioned the nuclear crisis in his speech on the anniversary, the Emperor addressed it directly.
As this earthquake and tsunami caused the nuclear power plant accident, those living in areas designated as the danger zone lost their homes and livelihoods and had to leave the places they used to live. In order for them to live there again safely, we have to overcome the problem of radioactive contamination, which is a formidable task.
While this statement may seem more obvious than radical to outsiders, underneath the Imperial-grade Japanese understatement were two ideas that have become quietly explosive. First, he seemed to suggest that the nuclear crisis is not over, a "formidable task" yet to be overcome. This noticeably contradicts the government's official stance that Fukushima has achieved a cold shutdown and, for all practical purposes, the crisis is over. Second, it implies that it is not yet safe for people to return to areas stricken with high levels of radiation, at least not before the "formidable task" is "overcome." This, again, contradicts the government's position that it is now safe for people to return to almost all areas and that neither Tokyo Electric Power Company nor the national government are obliged to assist in long term evacuations.
Hosokawa eyes no nukes by 2020
-- The Japan Times
Former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa will pledge in his campaign for the Feb. 9 Tokyo gubernatorial election to set out a road map for Japan to break with nuclear power generation by 2020, according to a close aide.
“By making 2020 his target year, he will change Tokyo and Japan, with the focus on a complete end to nuclear energy,” Shusei Tanaka, who was a special adviser to Hosokawa during his 1993-1994 prime ministership, said Friday in an interview.
With Tokyo slated to host the Olympics in 2020, Hosokawa, if elected, will “present (the road map) at the Olympics as an example” to the international community, Tanaka said.
Also in the event of a Hosokawa victory, “Japan will never be able to restart nuclear reactors,” Tanaka said, adding, “No restart of reactors means ‘zero’ nuclear power generation.”
Japan: Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s call for a “zero nuclear” policy
-- Europe Solidaire Sans Frontieres
Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s call for a “zero nuclear” policy has been causing a stir among lawmakers and top government officials.
The opposition camp has been buoyed by Koizumi’s recent remarks calling for the government to phase out nuclear power generation. Social Democratic Party (SDP) leader Tadatomo Yoshida held talks with Koizumi in Tokyo on Oct. 29. At the meeting, Yoshida and Koizumi agreed on the importance of eliminating the use of nuclear power. Koizumi, however, rejected the SDP’s call for him to ally with the opposition party in pushing for a nuclear phase-out. The ruling camp is poised to take a wait-and-see stance as it supports Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government, which places a policy of maintaining nuclear power generation as a pillar of its growth strategy. Such being the case, Koizumi’s “zero nuclear” remarks have so far remained only as a “ripple.”
“The government can make a political decision toward a nuclear phase-out by changing public opinion,” Koizumi said during the meeting for about 45 minutes with Yoshida at a think tank, to which Koizumi himself serves as adviser. Koizumi vowed to continue to make remarks calling for Japan to eliminate the use of nuclear powe
Former Japanese PM Naoto Kan: 'Fukushima radically changed my perspective' -- DW.com
Prior to the Fukushima disaster, many Japanese believed that nuclear energy was inexpensive and safe. But since the accident, it's become clear that nuclear power plants are dangerous and the cost of running them is high compared to other forms of energy. This realization should have led the country to abandon nuclear power.
However, the industry has not been willing to give up its existing privileges and profit margins. It therefore tries to influence politicians and the media by organizing campaigns in favor of nuclear energy.
Claims by the nuclear power lobbyists that atomic energy is cheaper than oil or natural gas are simply false
Although more than 50 percent of the Japanese population support phasing out nuclear energy, such a proposition still lacks the backing of a majority in the Japanese parliament. I want to change this and be at the forefront of efforts to curb the power of the nuclear lobby....
Published on Feb 8, 2016
...And as a perhaps unintended bit of added entertainment:Incidents at Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl raise concerns about nuclear safety. Experts address the state of nuclear safety today along with radiation health effects, waste storage and the consequences of aging plants.
Moderator, Roger Witherspoon, freelance journalist
David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists
John Keeley, Nuclear Energy Institute
David Ropeik, Harvard University
Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear
Larry Criscione, nuclear industry whistleblower
Scott Burnell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
For more information, please visit the conference website: http://muconf.missouri.edu/nuclearwor...