Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Robot Finds Mysterious Spheres in Ancient Temple
The Temple of the Feathered Serpent, also known as the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, is a six-level pyramid decorated with snake-like creatures.
Hundreds of mysterious spheres are discovered beneath the Temple of the Feathered Serpent, in the pre-Hispanic city of Teotihuacan, just 30 miles from Mexico City.
The enigmatic spheres were found during an archaeological dig using a camera-equipped robot at one of the most important buildings in the pre-Hispanic city of Teotihuacan.
"They look like yellow spheres, but we do not know their meaning. It's an unprecedented discovery," said Jorge Zavala, an archaeologist at Mexico's National Anthropology and History Institute.
PHOTOS: The Temple of the Feathered Serpent
The Mesoamerican ruins of Teotihuacan, a World Heritage Site, represent one of the largest urban centers of the ancient world. Thought to have been established around 100 B.C., the pyramid-filled city had more than 100,000 inhabitants at its peak, but was abandoned for mysterious reasons around 700 A.D. -- long before the Aztecs arrived in the 1300s.The excavation at the temple focused on a 330-foot-long tunnel which runs under the structure. The conduit was discovered in 2003 when heavy rain uncovered a hole a few feet from the pyramid.
Exploring the tunnel, which was deliberately filled with debris and ruins by the Teotihuacan people, required several years of preliminary work and planning.
"Finally, a few months ago we found two side chambers at 72 and 74 meters (236 and 242 feet) from the entrance. We called them North Chamber and South Chamber,” archaeologist Sergio Gómez Chávez, director of the Tlalocan Project, told Discovery News.
The archaeologists explored the tunnel with a remote-controlled robot called Tlaloc II-TC, which has an infrared camera and a laser scanner that generates 3D visualization of the spaces beneath the temple.
"The robot was able to enter in the part of the tunnel which has not yet been excavated yet and found three chambers between 100 and 110 meters (328 and 360 feet) from the entrance," Gómez Chávez said.
The mysterious spheres lay in both the north and south chambers. Ranging from 1.5 to 5 inches, the objects have a core of clay and are covered with a yellow material called jarosite.
Source: Discovery
Monday, April 29, 2013
Google reports record spike in government requests to remove content
Governments made a record number of requests for Google to remove political content in the last half of 2012, the search giant said on Thursday.
The number of official requests for content to be removed jumped 26% in the final six months of 2012 compared to the start of the year, according to the latest Google Transparency Report. Google received 2,285 government requests to remove 24,179 pieces of content – an increase from 1,811 requests to remove 18,070 pieces of content that the company received during the first half of 2012.
Requests were made to pull videos from YouTube, delete blog posts on Google's Blogger service and to remove items from Google search, making them harder to find.
There were sharp increases in requests from countries including Russia and in Brazil, where requests more than trebled during municipal elections. The controversial Innocence of Muslims video, which sparked deadly protests in Egypt and other countries, triggered inquiries from 20 countries worldwide, 17 of which requested removal. Google concluded the video was within its community guidelines but did restrict the video in several countries, temporarily in Egypt and Libya after violence broke out and in eight other countries due to local law.
In a blog post, Google said: "As we've gathered and released more data over time, it's become increasingly clear that the scope of government attempts to censor content on Google services has grown. In more places than ever, we've been asked by governments to remove political content that people post on our services. In this particular time period, we received court orders in several countries to remove blog posts criticizing government officials or their associates."
Photograph: Google
In Russia, requests to remove content leapt from six in the first half of 2012 to 114 in the second half, after a law was introduced that allows authorities to blacklist a site without trial. Officials said the legislation was designed to protect children from harmful content but the law has been criticised by human rights groups wary of censorship. Google said it restricted content from local view in response to about one-third of the 107 requests made under the new law, and removed content globally in response to more than half of the requests.
In Argentina, Google received a request to remove from YouTube a video by the band Rockadictos that allegedly defamed president Cristina Kirchner by depicting her "in a compromising position". The video shows Kirchner stripping in front of president Barack Obama as a crowd riots outside. Google age-restricted the video, in accordance with YouTube's community guidelines.
In Brazil, Google is fighting a number of legal battles over the removal of allegedly defamatory blog posts about local officials. The company received 316 requests for the removal of content related that allegedly violated the Brazilian electoral code. In one case, Google is fighting a court order to remove a blog post that was signed by the judge criticised in the article. Google removed content in response to 35 final court decisions. Google is appealing other cases, on the grounds that the content is protected by freedom of expression under the Brazilian constitution.
BitcoinATM Goes Live in California
Today, just over one month later, BitcoinATM is announcing its grand inauguration and launch press conference and reception. BitcoinATM will be unveiling its G6000 BitcoinATM at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, CA on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1pm.
Since announcing its technology, the company has received franchisee inquiries from 300 groups in over 30 countries spanning every continent on the globe except Antarctica. BitcoinATM is also in the process of closing a first round of fundraising expected to be in the $1-3 million range to handle growth and demand.
Max and Stacy are definitely invited.
There is a limited amount of space available for the afternoon gathering and a large amount of interest, so BitcoinATM asks all media and interested parties to send the company an e-mail to RSVP to justin@bitcoinatm.com. For more information on BitcoinATM you can go to www.bitcoinatm.com. Drinks will be provided by BitcoinATM.
Insecticide firms in secret bid to stop ban that could save bees
Bees are vital for pollination, and scientific studies have linked pesticides to huge losses in their numbers. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty
Europe is on the brink of a landmark ban on the world's most widely used insecticides, which have increasingly been linked to serious declines in bee numbers. Despite intense secret lobbying by British ministers and chemical companies against the ban, revealed in documents obtained by the Observer, a vote in Brussels on Monday is expected to lead to the suspension of the nerve agents.
Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. The plummeting numbers of pollinators in recent years has been blamed on disease, loss of habitat and, increasingly, the near ubiquitous use of neonicotinoid pesticides.
The prospect of a ban has prompted a fierce behind-the-scenes campaign. In a letter released to the Observer under freedom of information rules, the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, told the chemicals company Syngenta last week that he was "extremely disappointed" by the European commission's proposed ban. He said that "the UK has been very active" in opposing it and "our efforts will continue and intensify in the coming days".
Publicly, ministers have expressed concern for bees, with David Cameron saying: "If we do not look after our bee populations, very serious consequences will follow."
The chemical companies, which make billions from the products, have also lobbied hard, with Syngenta even threatening to sue individual European Union officials involved in publishing a report that found the pesticides posed an unacceptable risk to bees, according to documents seen by the Observer. The report, from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), led the commission to propose a two-year ban on three neonicotinoids. "EFSA has provided a strong, substantive and scientific case for the suspension," a commission spokesman said.
A series of high-profile scientific studies has linked neonicotinoids to huge losses in the number of queens produced and big increases in "disappeared" bees – those that fail to return from foraging trips. Pesticide manufacturers and UK ministers have argued that the science is inconclusive and that a ban would harm food production, but conservationists say harm stemming from dying pollinators is even greater.
"It's a landmark vote," said Joan Walley MP, chairwoman of parliament's green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, whose recent report on pollinators condemned the government's "extraordinary complacency". Walley said: "You have to have scientific evidence, but you also have to have the precautionary principle – that's the heart of this debate."
A ban has been supported by petitions signed by millions of people and Paterson has received 80,000 emails, an influx that he described as a "cyber-attack". "The impact of neonicotinoids on the massive demise of our bees is clear, yet Paterson seems unable to escape the haze of sloppy science and lobbying by powerful pesticide giants," said Iain Keith of the campaign group Avaaz. "Seventy per cent of British people want these poisons banned. Paterson must reconsider or send the bees to chemical Armageddon." Andrew Pendleton of Friends of the Earth said a ban would be "a historic moment in the fight to save our bees".
A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "As the proposal currently stands we could not support an outright ban. We have always been clear that a healthy bee population is our top priority, that's why decisions need to be taken using the best possible scientific evidence and we want to work with the commission to achieve this. Any action taken must be proportionate and not have any unforeseen knock-on effects."
"This plan is motivated by a quite understandable desire to save the beleaguered bee and concern about a serious decline in other important pollinator species," said the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, "but it is based on a misreading of the currently available evidence." He said the EC plan was a serious "mistake".
Julian Little, a spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, said: "Call me an optimist, but I still believe the commission will see sense. There is so much field evidence to demonstrate safe use [and] an increasing number of member states who reject the apparent drive towards museum agriculture in the European Union." However, Bulgaria is the only nation known to have changed its voting intention and it will reverse its opposition.
The chemical industry has mounted an increasingly desperate lobbying effort against a ban on neonicotinoids, which have been in use for more than a decade. In March the top producers, Syngenta and Bayer, proposed a plan to support bee health, including planting more flowering margins around fields and monitoring for neonicotinoids.
However, the private lobbying began much earlier with a series of letters, obtained by Corporate Europe Observatory and given to the Observer, which were sent to commissioners in the summer of 2012, after France had proposed a unilateral ban. One Syngenta executive, mentioning in passing his recent lunch with Barack Obama, claimed that "a small group of activists and hobby bee-keepers" were behind that campaign for a ban. Another letter claims, without citing evidence, that the production of key crops would fall by "up to 40%".
At that time, the European Crop Protection Association – of which Syngenta and Bayer are members – welcomed the continuing EFSA evaluation. But in January, as the EFSA prepared to issue the damning verdict of its experts, the industry immediately turned on it. Syngenta's lawyers demanded last-minute changes to a press release to prevent "serious damage to the integrity of our product and reputation" and threatened legal action.
The EFSA stood its ground, prompting Syngenta to demand all documents, including handwritten ones, relating to the EFSA's decision and the names of individuals involved. A month later, it told EFSA officials it was considering the "identity of specific defendants" for possible court action. On a more conciliatory note, Syngenta told the EFSA it was considering "large-scale" bee-monitoring studies to "close data gaps", despite previous claims its product had been introduced only after "the most stringent regulatory work". Critics have condemned companies for keeping trial data secret.
A spokesman for Syngenta said: "No evidence from the field has ever been presented that these pesticides actually damage bee health, with the case against them resting on a few studies which identify some highly theoretical risks. Regardless of the outcome, we will continue our work with anyone who shares our goal of improving bee health, which is vital for sustainable agriculture as well as the future of our business."
In the first commission vote in March, 13 countries supported a ban, nine opposed it and five, including the UK and Germany, abstained, which meant there was not a sufficient majority for or against under voting rules, which give larger nations more votes. The result is likely to be repeated on Monday, meaning that the commission would step in and it is determined to see a ban in place.The chemical industry has warned that a ban on neonicotinoids would lead to the return of older, more harmful pesticides and crop losses. But campaigners point out that this has not happened during temporary suspensions in France, Italy and Germany and that the use of natural pest predators and crop rotation can tackle problems.
Professor David Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex whose research has found harmful effects from neonicotinoids, said: "There is now a very substantial body of scientific evidence suggesting that this class of insecticides is impacting on health of wild bees, and perhaps other wildlife too. It is time for the EU's politicians to take a responsible position and support this ban."
California Proposes Soda Tax to Defray Costs of Obesity and Dental Disease
California Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, proposes a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks. KGO-TVreports that his controversial bill is currently on its way to the senate's Health Committee for discussion.
How much more expensive would a can of soda be if the tax goes into effect?
The price of each can of sweetened soda would increase by 12 cents.
Which types of beverages will this law affect?
As noted in SB-622, this tax affects all "bottled sweetened beverages" as well as concentrates if they contain more than 25 calories for every 12 ounces of content. Fruit and vegetable juices may also be affected when their natural fruit or vegetable content falls below 50 percent. Furthermore, this tax affects sports drinks, energy drinks and sweetened iced teas.
Which beverages are exempted?
Among the exemptions are concentrates of milk products and those containing "more than 50 percent natural fruit juice" or natural vegetables juice. A provision to exempt plant protein sources as a concentrate was taken out by lawmakers.
What happens to the money the state collects because of the California soda tax?
Monning proposes the creation of a "Children's Health Promotion Fund." The money may be spent on activities that prevent childhood obesity statewide. Examples include educational materials, policy making and public health campaigns. Some of the money would also benefit school nutrition programs, hiring of and training for physical education teachers and the construction of school facilities for recreational activities.
How did local soda tax proposals do in the past?
As noted by the Richmond Confidential, the Richmond city council in May 2012 voted 5-2 in favor of putting a soda tax proposal on the ballot. Council member Jeff Ritterman was instrumental in pushing this legislation. He intended to use the collected funds to "provide adequate sports fields and teams for our children as well as programs that fight against childhood obesity." The Contra Costa Times reported last November that 66.9 percent of voters rejected his soda tax.
Is there statewide voter approval for a one-cent soda tax?
The Bay Area News Group asserts that while only 40 percent of voters may actually support this tax, pollsters were successful in increasing this number to 68 percent when pointing out that the collected funds would benefit school nutrition programs. Health Day has a different set of poll numbers. Citing a Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll, this news outlet claims that about 58 percent of respondents oppose a soda tax.
What do critics say?
As noted by UT San Diego, critics of the soda tax state that there is no proof that collecting an additional tax will actually fight obesity. Claiming that this new tax will only serve to "send more money to Sacramento," critics remind Californians that an overconsumption of calories causes obesity, not sugary soft drinks.
Sylvia Cochran is a Los Angeles area resident with a firm finger on the pulse of California politics. Talk radio junkie, community volunteer and politically independent, she scrutinizes the good and the bad from both sides of the political aisle.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
FBI Documents Shine Light on Clandestine Cellphone Tracking Tool
What's more dangerous: a real stingray or the FBI's Stingray tool?
The FBI calls it a “sensitive investigative technique” that it wants to keep secret. But newly released documents that shed light on the bureau’s use of a controversial cellphone tracking technology called the “Stingray” have prompted fresh questions over the legality of the spy tool.
Functioning as a so-called “cell-site simulator,” the Stingray is a sophisticated portable surveillance device. The equipment is designed to send out a powerful signal that covertly dupes phones within a specific area into hopping onto a fake network. The feds say they use them to target specific groups or individuals and help track the movements of suspects in real time, not to intercept communications. But by design Stingrays, sometimes called “IMSI catchers,” collaterally gather data from innocent bystanders’ phones and can interrupt phone users’ service—which critics say violates a federal communications law.
The FBI has maintained that its legal footing here is firm. Now, though, internal documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, reveal the bureau appears well aware its use of the snooping gear is in dubious territory. Two heavily redacted sets of files released last month show internal Justice Department guidance that relates to the use of the cell tracking equipment, with repeated references to a crucial section of the Communications Act which outlines how “interference” with communication signals is prohibited.
It’s a small but significant detail. Why? Because it demonstrates that “there are clearly concerns, even within the agency, that the use of Stingray technology might be inconsistent with current regulations,” says EPIC attorney Alan Butler. “I don't know how the DOJ justifies the use of Stingrays given the limitations of the Communications Act prohibition.”
The FBI declined a request to comment on specific questions related to the legality of Stingrays, as it says the matter remains in litigation. Spokesman Christopher Allen told me by email that “in general the FBI cautions against drawing conclusions from redacted FOIA documents.”
A potential legal conflict, however, is not all the documents draw attention to. They disclose that the feds have procedures in place for loaning electronic surveillance devices (like the Stingray) to state police. This suggests the technology may have been used in cases across the United States, in line with a stellar investigation by LA Weekly last year, which reported that state cops in California, Florida, Texas, and Arizona had obtained Stingrays. More still, the trove offers a rare hint at the circumstances in which Stingrays are deployed. “Violent Gang Safe Street Task Forces Legal Issues" is the title of one newly released set of FBI presentation slides related to tracking tactics.
It’s likely that in the months ahead, a few more interesting nuggets of information will emerge. The FBI has told EPIC that it holds a mammoth 25,000 pages of documents that relate to Stingray tools, about 6,000 of which are classified. The Feds have been drip-releasing the documents month by month, and so far there have been four batches containing between 27 and 184 pages each. Though most of the contents—even paragraphs showing how the FBI is interpreting the law—have been heavy-handedly redacted, several eyebrow-raising details have made it through the cut. As I reported back in October, a previous release revealed the Feds have an internal manual called “GSM cellphone tracking for dummies.”
The release of the documents was first prompted last year after EPIC launched a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The suit was triggered after it emerged during a court case in 2011 that the feds had used a cell-site simulator in order to track down a suspect, with one agent admitting in an affidavit that the tool collaterally swept up data on “innocent, non-target devices” (U.S. v. Rigmaiden). The government has previously argued that tools like the Stingray are permissible without a search warrant—outside the search and seizure protections offered by the Fourth Amendment—because they use them to gather location data, not the content of communications. The Justice Department says cellphone users have no reasonable expectation of privacy over their location data—a claim that has incensed privacy and civil liberties groups.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Senate Committee Rejects CISPA Due to Privacy Concerns
Last week the alarm was raised when the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act or CISPA, which would essentially allow a free flow of information between private companies and the federal government. Fears were heightened, as those of us who live our lives online had some serious concerns about how this bill would destroy our right to privacy by allowing the government to have access to our private account information without our knowledge. After a seemingly endless barrage of tweets and status updates urging individuals to get angry, the bill was shelved today the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. It will mostly likely take months for a new cyber security bill to be drafted.
While Congress is adamant that file sharing is an integral and indeed crucial part of cyber security, it remains difficult, if not impossible for law makers to draft legislative language allowing for us to catch would be hackers without encroaching on individual privacy rights. Currently top American intelligence officials are warning that our nation is experiencing a greater threat from hackers than we are from traditional terrorists. This combined with more and more corporations lobbying for tougher anti-piracy legislation means that our elected officials are going to have to solve this conundrum sooner rather than later.
A large reason for the failure of CISPA to make it to a floor vote on the Senate was the threat of a veto by President Obama if the bill reached his desk. While the President should be keeping the issue of national security at the forefront of his mind, it's refreshing to think that in his second term Barack Obama is still focusing on the rights of the people. With legislation involving the internet having far more support among Republicans than Democrats I would not be surprised if the House waited a few more years before reattempting this legislation in the hopes that the odds will be more in their favor. Of course at the same time all it would take is one major cyber attack for the tides to turn in support of an online Big Brother.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Bitcoin: world's fastest growing currency migrates off the internet - video
In Kreuzberg, Berlin, virtual currency Bitcoin has expanded off the internet to become a favoured medium of exchange in real shops and bars. Joerg Platzer, the owner of bar Room 77 is helping to establish what he believes to be the world's first Bitcoin local economy
‘Lost’ report exposes Brazilian Indian genocide
Umutima shaman in 1957. In 1969 most of the Umutima were wiped out by a flu epidemic.
© José Idoyaga/Survival
A shocking report detailing horrific atrocities committed against Brazilian Indians in the 1940s, 50s and 60s has resurfaced – 45 years after it was mysteriously ‘destroyed’ in a fire.
The Figueiredo report was commissioned by the Minister of the Interior in 1967 and caused an international outcry after it revealed crimes against Brazil’s indigenous population at the hands of powerful landowners and the government’s own Indian Protection Service (SPI). The report led to the foundation of tribal rights organization Survival International two years later.
The 7,000-page document, compiled by public prosecutor Jader de Figueiredo Correia, detailed mass murder, torture, enslavement, bacteriological warfare, sexual abuse, land theft and neglect waged against Brazil’s indigenous population. Some tribes were completely wiped out as a result and many more were decimated.
The report was recently rediscovered in Brazil’s Museum of the Indian and will now be considered by Brazil’s National Truth Commission, which is investigating human rights violations which occurred between 1947 and 1988.
One of the many gruesome examples in the report describes the ‘massacre of the 11th parallel’, in which dynamite was thrown from a small plane onto the village of ‘Cinta Larga’ Indians below. Thirty Indians were killed – just two survived to tell the tale.
A Karajá couple with their baby, who has died of flu.
© Jesco von Puttkamer/ IGPA archive
Other examples include the poisoning of hundreds of Indians with sugar laced with arsenic, and severe methods of torture such as slowly crushing the victims’ ankles with an instrument known as the ‘trunk’.
Figueiredo’s findings led to an international outcry. In a 1969 article ‘Genocide’ in the British Sunday Times based on the report, writer Norman Lewis wrote, ‘From fire and sword to arsenic and bullets – civilisation has sent six million Indians to extinction.’ The article moved a small group of concerned citizens to set up Survival International the same year.
As a result of the report, Brazil launched a judicial enquiry, and 134 officials were charged with over 1,000 crimes. Thirty-eight officials were dismissed, but no-one was ever jailed for the atrocities.
The SPI was subsequently disbanded and replaced by FUNAI, Brazil’s National Indian Foundation. But while large swathes of Indian land have since been demarcated and protected, Brazil’s tribes continue to battle the invasion and destruction of their lands by illegal loggers, ranchers and settlers and the loss of land from the government’s aggressive growth program which aims to construct dozens of large hydroelectric dams and open up large-scale mining in their territories.
Survival International’s Director Stephen Corry said today, ‘The Figueiredo report makes gruesome reading, but in one way, nothing has changed: when it comes to the murder of Indians, impunity reigns. Gunmen routinely kill tribespeople in the knowledge that there’s little risk of being brought to justice – none of the assassins responsible for shooting Guarani and Makuxi tribal leaders have been jailed for their crimes. It’s hard not to suspect that racism and greed are at the root of Brazil’s failure to defend its indigenous citizens’ lives.’
Note to editors:
- Extracts from the report are available on request.
Photos available for download:
 | Umutima shaman in 1957. In 1969 most of the Umutima were wiped out by a flu epidemic. Download hi-res image Credit: © José Idoyaga/Survival |
 | Atrocities against the Cinta Larga tribe were exposed in the Figueiredo report. After shooting the head off her baby, the killers cut the mother in half. Download hi-res image Credit: © Survival |
IGPA archive"> | A Karajá couple with their baby, who has died of flu. Download hi-res image Credit: © Jesco von Puttkamer/ IGPA archive |
Researchers Discover That The Tulasi Plant Can Be Used To Remove Fluoride From Drinking Water
An exciting and new water treatment breakthrough has been announced that will now make the removal of fluoride from the drinking water supplies of the world’s poorest people more affordable than ever.
Researchers from Rajasthan University in India have discovered that the Tulasi plant, also known as Holy Basil, can be used to significantly reduce the amount of fluoride in drinking water.
At present, the most reliable methods used to remove excessive fluoride from drinking water are either too expensive or not suitable for the environments where they are needed most.
The method discovered by researchers from Rajasthan University is safe, cheap and readily available, making it an ideal alternative for communities who can’t afford to use the more advanced techniques of removing fluoride that are readily available in the West.
An experiment was conducted in the Yellareddyguda village of Narketpally Mandal. The researchers soaked 75mg of Tulasi leaves in 100ml of water that contained 7.4 parts per million of fluoride in the water.
After only soaking the Tulasi leaves for eight hours, it was discovered that the level of fluoride in the water was reduced from 7.4 parts per million, to only 1.1 parts per million.
At present, the World Health Organization recommends that the safe level of fluoride in drinking water is between 0.5 to 1 parts per million.
The dangers of drinking water that contains high levels of fluoride are well known. Some of the known side effects of drinking water that contains fluoride are dental fluorosis, reduced intelligence in children and a damaged nervous system.
This new water treatment option could now provide the world’s poorest people an opportunity to remove excessive fluoride from their drinking water supplies.
However, more research is still needed to identify and validate the effectiveness of using Tulasi leaves as a means of removing fluoride from drinking water supplies.
Considering the cost-prohibitive nature of other more reliable water treatment techniques, if the Tulasi plant is conclusively proven to be effective in removing fluoride from drinking water, then we may witness a revolution in water treatment, providing options to areas where none currently exist.
Source: Activist Post
5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars). The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges. The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale from “renewal” seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest.
The practice of using renewal seeds dates back to ancient times, but Monsanto seeks to collect massive royalties and put an end to the practice. Why? Because Monsanto owns the very patent to the genetically modified seed, and is charging the farmers not only for the original crops, but the later harvests as well. Eventually, the royalties compound and many farmers begin to struggle with even keeping their farm afloat. It is for this reason that India slammed Monsanto with groundbreaking ‘biopiracy’ charges in an effort to stop Monsanto from ‘patenting life’.
Jane Berwanger, a lawyer for the farmers who went on record regarding the case, told the Associted Press:
“Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect paying a private tax on production.”
The findings echo what thousands of farmers have experienced in particularly poor nations, where many of the farmers are unable to stand up to Monsanto. Back in 2008, the Daily Mail covered what is known as the ‘GM Genocide’, which is responsible for taking the lives of over 17,683 Indian farmers in 2009 alone. After finding that their harvests were failing and they started to enter economic turmoil, the farmers began ending their own lives — oftentimes drinking the very same insecticide that Monsanto provided them with.
As the information continues to surface on Monsanto’s crimes, further lawsuits will begin to take effect. After it was ousted in January that Monsanto was running illegal ‘slave-like’ working rings, more individuals became aware of just how seriously Monsanto seems to disregard their workers — so why would they care for the health of their consumers? In April, another group of farmers sued Monsanto for ‘knowingly poisoning’ workers and causing ‘devastating birth defects’.
Will endless lawsuits from millions of seriously affected individuals be the end of Monsanto?
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Samsung Demos a Tablet Controlled by Your Brain
An easy-to-use EEG cap could expand the number of ways to interact with your mobile devices.
One day, we may be able to check e-mail or call a friend without ever touching a screen or even speaking to a disembodied helper. Samsung is researching how to bring mind control to its mobile devices with the hope of developing ways for people with mobility impairments to connect to the world. The ultimate goal of the project, say researchers in the company’s Emerging Technology Lab, is to broaden the ways in which all people can interact with devices.
In collaboration with Roozbeh Jafari, an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas, Dallas, Samsung researchers are testing how people can use their thoughts to launch an application, select a contact, select a song from a playlist, or power up or down a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1. While Samsung has no immediate plans to offer a brain-controlled phone, the early-stage research, which involves a cap studded with EEG-monitoring electrodes, shows how a brain-computer interface could help people with mobility issues complete tasks that would otherwise be impossible.
Brain-computer interfaces that monitor brainwaves through EEG have already made their way to the market. NeuroSky’s headset uses EEG readings as well as electromyography to pick up signals about a person’s level of concentration to control toys and games (see “Next-Generation Toys Read Brain Waves, May Help Kids Focus”). Emotiv Systems sells a headset that reads EEG and facial expression to enhance the experience of gaming (see “Mind-Reading Game Controller”).
To use EEG-detected brain signals to control a smartphone, the Samsung and UT Dallas researchers monitored well-known brain activity patterns that occur when people are shown repetitive visual patterns. In their demonstration, the researchers found that people could launch an application and make selections within it by concentrating on an icon that was blinking at a distinctive frequency.
Robert Jacob, a human-computer interaction researcher at Tufts University, says the project fits into a broader effort by researchers to find more ways for communicating with small devices like smartphones. “This is one of the ways to expand the type of input you can have and still stick the phone in the pocket,” he says.
Finding new ways to interact with mobile devices has driven the project, says Insoo Kim, Samsung’s lead researcher. “Several years ago, a small keypad was the only input modality to control the phone, but nowadays the user can use voice, touch, gesture, and eye movement to control and interact with mobile devices,” says Kim. “Adding more input modalities will provide us with more convenient and richer ways of interacting with mobile devices.”
Still, it will take considerable research for a brain-computer interface to become a new way of interacting with smartphones, says Kim. The initial focus for the team was to develop signal processing methods that could extract the right information to control a device from weak and noisy EEG signals, and to get those methods to work on a mobile device.
Jafari’s research is addressing another challenge—developing more convenient EEG sensors. Classic EEG systems have gel or wet contact electrodes, which means a bit of liquid material has to come between a person’s scalp and the sensor. “Depending on how many electrodes you have, this can take up to 45 minutes to set up, and the system is uncomfortable,” says Jafari. His sensors, however, do not require a liquid bridge and take about 10 seconds to set up, he says. But they still require the user to wear a cap covered with wires.
The concept of a dry EEG is not new, and it can carry the drawback of lower signal quality, but Jafari says his group is improving the system’s processing of brain signals. Ultimately, if reliable EEG contacts were convenient to use and slimmed down, a brain-controlled device could look like “a cap that people wear all day long,” says Jafari.
Kim says the speed with which a user of the EEG-control system can control the tablet depends on the user. In the team’s limited experiments, users could, on average, make a selection once every five seconds with an accuracy ranging from 80 to 95 percent.
“It is nearly impossible to accurately predict what the future might bring,” says Kim, “but given the broad support for initiatives such as the U.S. BRAIN initiative, improvements in man-machine interfaces seem inevitable” (see “Interview with BRAIN Project Pioneer: Miyoung Chun”).
Monsanto vs. Mother Earth: Join the millions who have already signed the petition to take back nature from the biotech monsters
The world's most evil corporation, Monsanto, has taken a new interest in conventional food crops, which the company is currently trying to seize ownership of in Europe by exploiting a little-known loophole in European patent law. And a petition created by the human rights group Avaaz, which has already garnered nearly two million signatures in less than two weeks, may help stop this unscrupulous takeover of food by drawing global attention to it.
According to Avaaz, European patent law is currently written in such a way as to allow corporations the option to literally patent natural plant varieties and conventional plant breeding methods, even if they have been utilized by farmers and gardeners for centuries. As a result, Monsanto and others are beginning to file for these patents, which could allow them to eventually require farmers to pay royalties and buy seed every year for non-GMO, natural crops.
"Companies like Monsanto have found loopholes in European law to have exclusive rights over conventional seeds," explains the Avaaz petition. "Many farmers and politicians are already against this -- we just need to bring in people power to pressure these countries to keep Monsanto's hands off our food."
You can view and sign the Avaaz petition here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_loc/?tPQJleb
Coordinated effort required to stop Monsanto takeover of food supply
Avaaz is calling on powerful European nations like Germany, France and the Netherlands to take action now to stop this corporate takeover of the seeds of life. Since grassroots awareness of Monsanto's seed-seizing tactics is already strong in each of these countries, it would be prudent for them to collectively strike back against this affront to food freedom by voting to eliminate the patent law loopholes that could allow the biotech bullies to assume ownership of nature."As concerned citizens, we urge you to take the lead to fix European patent law by calling on the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization to close the loopholes that allow corporations to patent plant varieties and conventional breeding methods," states the petition, as directed specifically to the governments of France, Germany and the Netherlands, all of which are member states of the European Patent Convention.
"Clear and effective safeguards and prohibitions are needed to protect consumers, farmers and breeders from the corporate takeover of our food chain."
You can view and sign the Avaaz petition here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_loc/?tPQJleb
According to Avaaz, the petition went viral quickly after being established on April 9, 2013, achieving one million signatures in less than two days. And you can help keep the momentum strong by not only signing the petition yourself, but sharing it with your friends and family.
You can also participate in the official March Against Monsanto, a global grassroots effort to expose the truth about the dangers of GMOs; question the duplicitous complacency of governments with regards to the GMO issue; and advocate for a global boycott of Monsanto-owned companies. You can learn more about March Against Monsanto by visiting the group's Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/events/147274678766425/
Source: Natural News
Massive, uncontained leak at Fukushima is pouring over 710 billion becquerels of radioactive materials into atmosphere
The tsunami-caused nuclear accident at the Fukushima power station in Japan is the disaster that never ends, as new reports indicate that a wealth of new radioactive materials have been spewed into the atmosphere.
According to Singapore-based news outlet AsiaOne, the Tokyo Electric Power Co., which owns the multi-nuclear reactor power station at Fukushima, announced April 6 that some 120 tons of water that had been contaminated with radioactive substances had leaked from an underground storage facility at the No. 1 atomic power plant site.
Running out of storage room?
TEPCO officials announced the leak late in the day April 5, a Friday, "but said measures to address the problem had not been taken for two days because the cause had not been identified," AsiaOne reported. The company "assumed the water was still leaking."According to company officials TEPCO estimates that the leaked water contains about 710 billion becquerels of radioactive substances, making it the largest leak of radioactive materials ever at the plant. Discovery of the leak led the company to transfer about 13,000 tons of polluted, radioactive water in the questionable storage area to a neighboring underground storage unit.
That storage unit, TEPCO said, is 60 meters long, 53 meters wide and six meters deep. It is pool-like in structure and has a three-layer waterproof sheet with a concrete cover.
According to the company, water that has leaked from damaged nuclear reactors is run through filters and additional devices in order to remove radioactive elements. The water is then stored in facilities for low-level contaminated water.
TEPCO began using the storage facility Feb. 1. As of April 5, 13,000 tons of radioactive water was being stored there - very close to the 14,000-ton limit.
More leaking contamination
AsiaOne reported that water samples taken by TEPCO from soil surrounding the damaged facility a few days later showed 35 becquerels per cubic centimeter of radioactive substances, which is abnormal. "Safe" levels of becquerels is 300 per kilogram of water, according to New Scientist.However, TEPCO officials did not publicly announce their findings right away after not finding any other unusual changes in water quality data, such as chloride concentration.
On April 5, the report said, two days after the problem was first noticed, water with 6,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter of radioactive substances was located between the first and second layers of the waterproof sheet, which alerted TEPCO engineers and plant officials that a leak had occurred.
Per AsiaOne:
As the sheet's layers were joined when the facility was constructed, TEPCO assumed that the sheet may have been damaged, or that a mistake had been made during construction. An average of about 400 tons a day of groundwater seeped into buildings housing nuclear reactors and turbines, increasing the quantity of polluted water.
The latest problem will create a storage shortage; TEPCO officials said storage of polluted water at the facility will be reduced from 53,000 tons to 40,000 - a significant reduction. That will make it necessary for the power company to go over procedures for handling polluted water, which will include increasing the number of storage units.
The disaster that keeps on giving
TEPCO said earlier this month it expected the water transfer would take about five days to complete."As the height of the water storage facility is relatively low, we think it's unlikely that the polluted water mixed into underground water and reached the sea 800 meters away," said Masayuki Ono, the acting chief of TEPCO's nuclear facilities department, at a press conference April 6.
The plant was damaged by a huge earthquake-caused tsunami March 11, 2011. At the time of the incident, three of the plant's atomic reactors were shut down: No. 4 had been de-fueled and Nos. 5 and 6 were in cold shut-down for maintenance.
The remaining three automatically shut down at the time of the accident and emergency generators came on to keep coolant systems operating.
Source: Natural News
Biotech's latest creation: Franken-apples coming to a store near you
We hate to upset the biotech apple cart, but a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a possibly risky manipulation of RNA, doesn't deserve a place on our grocery shelves.
Thanks to the biotech industry's relentless quest to control our food, McDonald's, Burger King and even school cafeterias will soon be able to serve up apples that won't turn brown when they're sliced or bitten into. A new, almost entirely untested genetic modification technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), is responsible for this new food miracle. Scientists warn that this genetic manipulation poses health risks, as the manipulated RNA gets into our digestive systems and bloodstreams. The biotech industry claims otherwise.
Of course, like any non-organic apple, the new GMO Arctic® Apple will be drenched in toxic pesticide residues, untested by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA) and likely unlabeled. And of course these shiny new high-tech apples will be cheap, priced considerably lower than a pesticide-free, nutrient-dense, old-fashioned organic apple that turns a little brown after you slice it up.
When the Biotech Industry Organization gathers next week in Chicago for the 2013 BIO International Convention, BIOTECanada will present its "Gold Leaf Award for Early Stage Agriculture" to Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. (OSF), purveyor of the Arctic® Apple, slated for approval in the U.S. this year. We hate to upset the biotech apple cart, but a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a risky manipulation of RNA, doesn't deserve a place on our grocery shelves, much less in the agriculture hall of fame.
That said, the Arctic "Frankenapple" is expected to be approved this year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and diseases. It does not require approval by the FDA, which is responsible for human food and animal feed.
Just one more bad apple
Apples, that is, apples that haven't been certified organic, already are on the list of Should-Be-Forbidden fruits. They reliably top the Environmental Working Group's Dirty Dozen list, for both the volume and the stunning array of pesticides consistently found on them. According to the Pesticide Action Network's analysis of the most recent USDA data, apples tested positive for 42 pesticides, including organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides. Both are endocrine disruptors, both have suspected neurological effects, and both are considered especially toxic for children. (Organophosphates are the basis for nerve gases used in chemical warfare, and have been linked to the development of ADHD in kids.)
Given the grim report card of non-organic apples, some might say it really doesn't make any difference if we start tinkering with the apple's genetic RNA. After all, unlike the case with GMO corn or salmon, scientists aren't injecting pesticides or genes from foreign plants or animals into the genes of apples to create the Frankenapple. While most existing genetically engineered plants are designed to make new proteins, the Arctic Apple is engineered to produce a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The new dsRNA alters the way genes are expressed. The result, in the Arctic Apple's case, is a new double strand of RNA that genetically "silences" the apple's ability to produce polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the apple to turn brown when it's exposed to oxygen.
Harmless? The biotech industry, OSF and some scientists say yes. But others, including Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), say that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky. Recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists says otherwise. They point to evidence that the manipulated RNA finds its way into our digestive systems and bloodstreams, potentially damaging or silencing vital human genes.
There are indirect health consequences, too. Turns out the chemical compound that is shut off in the engineered fruit through RNA manipulation, in order to make it not oxidize or brown, is a chemical compound that also fights off plant pests. What happens when the apple's ability to fend off insects is compromised? Growers will need to spray greater amounts, of possibly even more toxic pesticides, on a crop already saturated with at least 42 types of pesticides. Those pesticides will eventually find their way into our bodies, either because we ingested the fruit, or breathed the air or drank the water where the pesticides were sprayed.
Testing? What testing?
So what's the trade-off? Non-organic apple growers will prosper as more moms buy more apples for more kids who will, the industry alleges, be the healthier for it. It makes for a good public relations story, but no matter how you wrap it up or slice it, taking apples that are already saturated in pesticides, and genetically engineering them for purely cosmetic purposes, does not a healthy snack make.
The pro- and anti-GMO movements will debate whether or not the GMO apple is safe for human consumption. The fact is, we'll never know until they are properly labeled and safety-tested. As with every other GMO food ingredient or product sold in the U.S., the Arctic Apple will undergo no independent safety testing by the FDA or the USDA. Instead, the USDA will rely on OSF's word that the apple is safe for human consumption. And without any state or federal mandatory GMO labeling laws in place, OSF will not be required to label its Frankenapple, meaning that consumers or children harmed by the dsRNA modified apple will have great difficulty identifying the mutant RNA that harmed them.
The controversy and debate surrounding dsRNA and the Arctic Apple has just begun. But there is no longer any debate about the dangers that pesticides and pesticide residues on non-organic apples pose to humans, whether we directly ingest these toxic residues by eating an apple, or whether we're exposed to them through contaminated air and groundwater as a result of acres of orchards being sprayed to control increasingly resistant insects and diseases.
What about the argument that a kid eating a few slices of apples can't consume enough of any one of these pesticides to cause any real risk to their health? Debunked. Recent studies reveal that during apple season, kids exhibit spikes in the level of pesticides found in their urine, spikes that exceed the U.S. government's "safe levels." Kids who live in apple-growing regions show even higher spikes. And those 42 varieties of pesticides? The government establishes "safe levels" for each one - but it doesn't test for the potential effect of ingesting 42 different pesticides, all chemically interacting with each other, and ingested all at once.
From biodiversity to monoculture
How did we get to the point where it takes 42 pesticides to keep an apple crop healthy? Michael Pollan best explains it in his book Botany of Desire. Turns out that apples have an extreme tendency toward something called heterozygosity, which means genetic variability. This trait accounts for how, left to its own devices, the apple can "make itself at home in places as different from one another as New England and New Zealand, Kazakhstan and California." Pollan writes:
"Wherever the apple tree goes, its offspring propose so many different variations on what it means to be an apple - at least five per apple, several thousand per tree - that a couple of these novelties are almost bound to have whatever qualities it takes to prosper in the tree's adopted home."Today, you'd have to visit the apple orchard museum in Geneva, New York, to find all the varieties of apples that used to thrive in the wild. Over time, in our quest to control the taste, texture and appearance of apples, we've eliminated all but a relative few varieties. We've gone too far, says Pollan. By relying on too few genes for too long, the apple has lost its ability to get along on its own, outdoors.
Enter the agro-chemical companies. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Agricultural Chemical Use Program, apple growers in states surveyed in 2011 applied carbaryl to 46 percent of their acreage, at an average rate of 1.566 pounds per acre for the crop year; chlorantraniliprole to 45 percent; and chlorpyrifos to 44 percent. Apple growers applied glyphosate isopropylamine salt to 25 percent of acres at an average of 1.604 pounds per acre for the crop year. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The Arctic Apple has been in development for over a decade, the company says. OSF submitted a petition for deregulation to the USDA in May 2010. The USDA, which must hold two public comment periods, concluded the first on Sept. 11, 2011. It's expected to open the second public comment period this spring or summer, and OSF hopes the GMO apple will be approved for growing and selling in the U.S. this year.
The Organic Consumers Association will hold a press conference and set up a picket line at the Biotechnology Industry Organization Convention in Chicago, at noon on April 23, to protest OSF's GMO apple.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Witness Gives Details of His Role in BP Oil Spill Cover-up
A former boat captain, Malcolm Coco, has come forward to reveal his role in setting fires in the Gulf following the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He details how local shrimp boats were hired to corral the oil, after which "homemade bombs" would ignite the oil creating fires the size of city blocks.
He was given no special physical protection during the hazardous operation, "The only equipment we were given was a fire jumpsuit ... not much protection from anything." He is suing BP for the personal health problems he has sustained since.
Malcolm also reveals apparent collusion between the Coast Guard and BP to keep those like himself who were involved in the cover-up from taking photos or video. He states that after he asked too many questions, he was sent home.
But it wasn't only those directly involved that have been put at risk. As he recalls, the Coast Guard and BP specifically told him: "Don't let anybody know what's going on out there." As a result, Coco asserts that the public has been thoroughly deceived about the full scale of the environmental disaster that took place 3 years ago. John Terret reports for Aljazeera:
He was given no special physical protection during the hazardous operation, "The only equipment we were given was a fire jumpsuit ... not much protection from anything." He is suing BP for the personal health problems he has sustained since.
Malcolm also reveals apparent collusion between the Coast Guard and BP to keep those like himself who were involved in the cover-up from taking photos or video. He states that after he asked too many questions, he was sent home.
But it wasn't only those directly involved that have been put at risk. As he recalls, the Coast Guard and BP specifically told him: "Don't let anybody know what's going on out there." As a result, Coco asserts that the public has been thoroughly deceived about the full scale of the environmental disaster that took place 3 years ago. John Terret reports for Aljazeera:
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Are Social Networking Websites Doomed?
Social networking was supposed to gradually take over more and more aspects of our lives, but instead it may peter out into a sea of old people “liking” promotional posts from corporations.
The answer to the question of what will be the next Facebook could be “nothing”, as younger people appear to be abandoning social networking sites for messaging apps like SnapChat, which doesn’t involve profiles, personal data, companies’ “sponsored stories”, or their parents. Via Buzzfeed:
Facebook is the “most important” social media site for about 10% fewer teenagers than it was a year ago, according to a new PiperJaffray survey of over 5,000 teenagers. The teens surveyed are less interested in Twitter, YouTube, Google+, Flickr, and Tumblr too.
This suggests something bigger than a shift away from Facebook; it hints at what could be the beginning of an across-the-board teen rejection of traditional social networking as a whole.
This data measures sentiment, not usage stats. If this data is solid, though, we should see it reflected in a teen exodus from traditional social networks.
Extraterrestrial Disclosure Coming to National Press Club
An event will be held in Washington, DC at the National Press Club from April 29 to May 3, 2013 in which a powerful group of researchers and military/agency witnesses will testify for 30 hours over five days before former members of the U.S. House and Senate - a Citizens' Hearing on Disclosure. The goal of this event/documentary is nothing less than ending the ET truth embargo in 2013.
www.citizenshearing.org
www.citizenshearing.org
1981 Article: 7,000 Tons of Gold Bullion Removed from Fort Knox From 1973-74!
The American Gold Commission in Washington will this week begin an examination of Treasury documents to decide whether 7000 tons of gold, enough to fill 300 lorries, has been stolen from Fort Knox, the world’s biggest and most protected bullion store.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Amendment Won't Stop Data Going to National Security Agency
Update: Note that the Hill article referenced below was working with an earlier draft of the amendment. The version introduced today was different from the version made available to the Hill.
An amendment to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) was just adopted on the House Floor. See the text attached.
Recent reporting of this amendment characterized it as a major privacy improvement, stating that this amendment "would ensure that the Homeland Security Department (DHS), a civilian agency, would be the first recipient of cyber threat data from companies."
This is false.
The amendment in question does not strike or amend the part of CISPA that actually deals with data flowing from companies to other entities, including the federal government. The bill still says that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes...share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government." The liability immunity provisions also remain.
While this amendment does change a few things about how that information is treated within the government, it does not amend the primary sharing section of the bill and thus would not prevent companies from sharing data directly with military intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency if they so choose.
The bill may be voted on at any time. This means there’s little time left to speak out. Please tell your Representative to vote no on the bill:
Files
Google Spy Drones For Street View?
Back in 2009, Google CEO and now Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, already under heavy fire for his company’s strategy to collect, store, and mine every shred of personal data out there, said on CNBC, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
It makes sense. Why worry about surveillance if you haven’t done anything wrong? This, in his unvarnished manner, is what he thinks about privacy. There is none. You don’t need it. You don’t want it. It’s not good for you. It just makes you appear guilty. It’s the philosophy under which police states operate.
Google has no compunction about reading emails of its Gmail users, browsing through user details in its social network services, tracking people throughout their searches, purchases, and reading patterns. It draws conclusions and combines it all with other data into a beautiful whole. For people with Android mobile devices, there is little Google doesn’t know.
Google isn’t the only data hog out there, and perhaps not even the one with the most intimate data – that would probably be Facebook – but it has some unique non-internet tools. Its Street View cars for example. They record visually what is going on in every neighborhood in the world – while also picking up wireless data from home or business networks. So when its new “privacy policy” took effect last year, it caused a lot of fretting. “Calling this a ‘privacy policy’ is Orwellian doublespeak,” lamented John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog. It should instead be called a “spy policy.” But the ruckus, like so many things, subsided after a few weeks.
But suddenly, Schmidt got all riled up about privacy issues of devices that Google doesn’t control through its software and that can access and record promising details of life: civilian drones. Including the toy-like “everyman” minidrones, such as multi-rotor helicopters. He wants them banned outright. And if they can’t be banned, he wants them regulated. To make his point, he dragged out an unfortunate example of a neighbor with an axe to grind:
“How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard,” he said. “It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?” He didn’t like that prospect. Not at all. “It’s got to be regulated,” he said, he whose company fights regulations wherever it encounters them. “It’s one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they’re doing, but have other people doing it … It’s not going to happen.”
An unfortunate example because an insidious and at once funny Google moment of this type erupted in a village in France. A guy was urinating in his yard. We know he did; just then a Street View car drove by. Its camera, mounted on a rooftop post, could see over the closed gate and the perimeter enclosure and caught the hapless dude in flagrante delicto.
He didn’t know it at the time. And he didn’t know it when the scene appeared on Street View. His neighbors discovered the photo of him in his yard, relieving himself, face slightly blurred. It was only after he’d become the laughingstock of his village that he learned about it. Sure, in Schmidt’s surveillance-state words, he “shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
So the difference between a Street View car and a drone is one of degrees. One can only capture what’s visible from its elevated equipment; the other can fly. One is an essential part of its business model; the other should be banned? Why his sudden handwringing about privacy when it comes to drones? Especially since Google is plowing a fortune into cars that drive themselves – road-bound drones, so to speak. The next step would be devices that fly. The mapping and control software would by then be on the shelf.
In a couple of years, the FAA will take up the delicate matter of drones used by civilians and companies. Perhaps by then, Google Ventures will fund a company that is developing the latest and greatest unmanned multi-rotor helicopters the size of a briefcase to replace the awkward Street View cars. They’d take pictures of the insides of homes, to show what a neighborhood is really like, beyond the facades. Users would love it. Software will blur the faces of the people inside to guard their “privacy,” very helpful, as the hapless dude in France found out. And then Google will oppose vigorously any regulation that doesn’t suit it. Because Airborne Street View would be the next leap forward for Google – and Schmidt must already be fantasizing about it.
Here are some tricks I use to maintain privacy and security on the internet – written in my own manner so that even I can follow the instructions: Windows 7, Internet Explorer, Silverlight, Flash Player, & Java Privacy Settings and Cleanup.
Nestlé chairman says water is not a human right
In a candid interview for the documentary We Feed the World, Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water isn’t a human right. He attacks the idea that nature is good, and says it is a great achievement that humans are now able to resist nature’s dominance. He attacks organic agriculture and says genetic modification is better.
Nestlé is the world’s biggest bottler of water. Brabeck claims – correctly – that water is the most important raw material in the world. However he then goes on to say that privatisation is the best way to ensure fair distribution. He claims that the idea that water is a human right comes from “extremist” NGOs. Water is a foodstuff like any other, and should have a market value.
He believes that the ultimate social responsibility of any Chairman is to make as much profit as possible, so that people will have jobs.
And just to underline what a lovely man he is, he also thinks we should all be working longer and harder.
Consequences of water privatisation
The consequences of water privatisation have been devastating on poor communities around the world. In South Africa, where the municipal workers’ union SAMWU fought a long battle against privatisation, there has been substantial research (pdf) about the effects. Water privatisation lead to a massive cholera outbreak in Durban in the year 2000.
The Nestlé boycott
Nestlé already has a very bad reputation among activists. There has been a boycott call since 1977. This is due to Nestlé’s aggressive lobbying to get women to stop breastfeeding – which is free and healthy – and use infant formula (sold by Nestlé) instead. Nestlé has lobbied governments to tell their health departments to promote formula. In poor countries, this has resulted in the deaths of babies, as women have mixed formula with contaminated water instead of breastfeeding.
Tell Nestlé they are wrong – water is a human right
There is Europe-wide campaign to tell the European Commission that water is a human right, and to ask them to enact legislation to ensure this is protected.
If you live in Europe, please sign the petition.
Original article published by Union Solidarity International.
Analysis Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic
Is GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity.
With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous GM crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.
Non-GMO Corn 20x Richer in Nutrition than GMO Corn
The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising. First, the report found that non-GMO corn has considerably more calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, iron, and zinc.
- Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.
- Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.
- Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 – non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.
- Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.
As far as energy content goes, non-GMO corn was found to ‘emit 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn’, as reported by NaturalNews. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.
Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Click for full-size version.
GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic
Not surprisingly, the report found what many of us already know – that GMO corn is highly toxic. While non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup), and other toxic substances, GMO corn is riddled with these toxins.
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations, the maximum amount of glyphosate allowed in drinking water is 700 parts per billion, which equates to .7 ppm. The amount is a set “level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems”. Europe allows even less glyphosate in water, at .2 ppm. The report found that GMO corn contains 13 ppm – that’s 18.5x the “safe amount” set by the EPA.
Similarly, GMO corn contains concerning levels of toxic formaldehyde, at 200 ppm. According to Dr. Don Huber, a respected expert on GMOs, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. The GMO corn was found to contain 200 times more formaldehyde than this ‘maximum’ safety amount.
Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Click for full-size version.
Biotech Giants Like Monsanto Caught Lying Again
Monsanto has been making the claim for years that genetically modified foods are equivalent or even of higher quality than non-GMOs, but nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown us the dangers of GMO foods such as GMO corn, along with the dangers of the massive amount of pesticides that accompany GMO crops. This 2012 report reminds us once again that corporations like Monsanto simply can not be trusted, and that the company will continue making false claims until the end of days in order to profit and slowly genetically engineer the world.
—
The 2012 report 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, was reportedly shared with the owners of MomsAcrossAmerica.com by De Dell Seed Company, the only non-GMO seed supplies in Canada. De Dell Seed Company received the document from a company called ProfitPro, based in Minnesota.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)