Showing posts with label Facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facts. Show all posts

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

Iraq Options Paper: March 8, 2002 Memo from Overseas and Defence Secretariat

Taken From


* Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD,. although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD; and
* Saddam’s brutal regime remains in power and destablises the Arab and wider Islamic world.
We have two options. We could toughen the existing containment policy. This would increase the pressure on Saddanm [sic]. It would not reintegrate Iraq into the international community.
The US administration has lot faith in containment and is now considering regime change. The end states could either be a Sunni strongman or a representative government.
Lets take the WMD saga. Who sold Saddam the WMD?

US Senate's committee in 1992 said in a report that Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia and botulism until 1992.


On top of that our UK gov sold Pralidoxine which can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

But there is a question??? Will chemicals last for all of until 2002?  I am no boffin. 

In March 1988 Saddam gasses 5000 souls in Kurdish Halabja. the trans-shipment of these did not stop.

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'. 
 Read this for the whole article

* Saddam’s brutal regime remains in power and destablises the Arab and wider Islamic world.

Well we made Middle East  more stable after taking Saddam, Gadaffi etc etc etc etc ...ha ha.

Check this for a another view by Scott Ritter

Sunday, 11 October 2015

A stupid fella

So this not very nice man was out of prison for two weeks. He voluntarily asked the police to be tagged. Then he went to 8 properties and burgled them. Well you can guess the rest. Stupid bugger went inside for 2 years. On top of it he dragged around a mate , who was recognised by the Police, in a shop video. Doh! he went to prison for 3 years. Yes this is not a story, but really happened.

Thursday, 10 September 2015

Just a thought about creation

The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated from Greek γένεσις, meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bərēšīṯ, "In [the] beginning") is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament.[1][2]
The basic narrative expresses the central theme: God creates the world (along with creating the first man and woman) and appoints man as his regent, but man proves disobedient and God destroys his world through the Flood.

And so forth in the article  as i am not that  intelligent to know the bible and the cration. But lets look at other religions. Hinduism for instance. Even though Hinduism do not realy there was only one creation but creation after another creation, Some hindu texts say this:

..........Vishnu spoke to his servant: "It's time to begin", Brahma vowed. Vishnu commanded: "Create the world". A wind swept the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished...........

Read the rest here  

Now we go to Islam

Surely, your Lord is Allah. Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods; then He settled Himself on the Throne. He makes the night cover the day, pursuing it swiftly. He has created the sun and the moon and the stars, all made subservient by His command…
He it is Who sends the winds… Good land brings forth vegetation plentifully by the command of the Lord.
Surah 7:55-59
I have created men, high and low, that they may worship Me. I desire no support from them, nor do I desire that they should feed Me. Surely, it is Allah who is the Great Sustainer, the Lord of Power, the Strong.
Surah 51:56

 taken from    

ow how about an middle eastern Judaism going back few millennia before Jesus


.........The Creation
The word of G-d brought everything into being: heaven and earth, mountains and rivers, and every living thing. In the beginning, G-d called into existence the heaven and earth. Within six days He shaped a world of order and beauty.
The First Day
On the first day, G-d said, “Let there be Light” -- and there was Light.
The Second Day
On the second day G-d made the sky, and called it Heaven.
The Third Day
On the third da.........

Read the rest here

Some of you will say, Yeah but....". The genesis says different.

here

[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 
I do not question or dispute the above statements of the idea of creation by various religions of the world. My question is how many religious leaders have told the scientists to keep the creation theory in line with the religions. Hold on m8, I know Pope invited all the prominent scientists one time in '60s or '70s (1900 of course) for an audience. He ordered them not to research beyond Big Bang. Wonder why?

Then i wonder how many other denominations of religious leaders said the same.

I do not believe in the Big Bang. I do not think that the speed of electromagnetic waves have a limit. We can measure all frequencies of waves by the limited capacity of our tools. They all depend on the speed of light. Lasers etc. Ok I am not a physicist but I am a logician.I see the whole world in a very different spectrum of waves. Gravity is a wave. Now we know it as a fact. Did we put gravity into equations to verify the light emitted by the light sources from the so called edge of the universe.

When I was little I heard that the universe was 5 billion years old as: that was as far as they could see. Now they say it is 13.5 billion years. That is if the centre of the universe is us the fecking Earth. So we can easily say, if we are not the centre, then there is more to it. The scientists are keeping us in the dark. Why?

My feeling is that the scientists want to make money. They want to understand and learn an antiquated system of mathematics, which has been fudged and updated. remember the latin and greek texts of the bible? And the pali and sanskrit gathas of buddhism? They all were made difficult to understand by priests. Now we have learned boffins, who say we do not understand. Shit init?, 

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Home grown terrorism in US



Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as “a massive casualty producing event” on American soil, (a Second 9/11) . Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the “global war on terrorism”.
“[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003, emphasis added)
While the Boston bombings are of an entirely different nature to the “catastrophic event” alluded to by General Tommy Franks, the administration appears, nonetheless, to be committed to the logic of “militarizing our country” as a means to “protecting democracy.”
The Boston events are already being used to galvanize public support for an extended domestic based counter-terrorism apparatus. The latter would be implemented alongside extrajudicial assassinations against so-called “homegrown self radicalized terrorists”:

Read abot how in http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-truth-the-chechen-connection-al-qaeda-and-the-boston-marathon-bombings/5332337 .

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Funny Stuff from Oplympics' Commentators

My earlier report on Olympics London 2012

Did they really say that???????
Here are the top nine comments made by NBC sports commentators so far during the Olympics that they would like to take back:
.....
1. Weight-lifting commentator: 'This is Gregorieva from
Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing.'
......
2. Dressage commentator: 'This is really a lovely horse and I speak from personal experience since I once mounted her mother.'
.....
3. Paul Hamm, Gymnast: 'I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father.'
.....
4. Boxing Analyst: 'Sure there have been injuries, and even some deaths in boxing, but none of them really that serious.'
......
5. Softball announcer: 'If history repeats itself, I should think we can expect the same thing again.'
......
6. Basketball analyst: 'He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like it. In fact you can see it all over their faces.'
......
7. At the rowing medal ceremony: 'Ah, isn't that nice, the wife of the IOC president is hugging the cox of the British crew.'
.....
8. Soccer commentator: 'Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like they've got eleven Dicks on the field.'
.....
9. Tennis commentator: 'One of the reasons Andy is playing so well is that, before the final round, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them... Oh my God, what have I just said?'

Friday, 17 August 2012

Olympics In London

It was a very nice experience we all in UK had during the Olympics time. One timeonly ticket for me as I am getting older now and cannot envisage another Olympics in this country. There was only one little incident the media tried to put it down as one of those things. Yeah but it did happen. The finals of the 100m race. The finalists were all lined up and all set to go....In the silence an empty bottle was thrown right behind the athletes.Luckily no one heard it except the USA own man Gatlin the bronze winner. But he never thought about it. This is the photo of the incident.

Bottle shown with the black arrow in lane 5

In BBC or any UK news of the action where the person was arrested was not shown. But on sky news I saw it, which I did not record. I am not sure whether the person in a white top sitting behind the athletes, threw the bottle. But in my memory it looked like him on Sky News. Check it.

White arrow?

See my funny commentators' gaffs here

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

Greenland Ice Cap

It is doom and gloom for all of us according to the scientists. The ice cap in Greenland has melted 97% unprecedently or is it as predicted. The ice cap melts every 150 years, last time was in 1889. The rest is unknown.



For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.


On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.



 
This I got from Nasa website.  To understand about Greenland and it's ice cap i went to wikipedia. Nice reading for a person who lives on higher ground. But for people who live in the areas near the sea it is a very tense situation. The numbers wiki gives about the amount of water stored in the ice cap is not something to laugh at. The people who laughed at climatic scientists will have to sink their heads in shame. wiki says this. but the data is not upto data, as the information above came out yesterday.

Positioned in the Arctic, the Greenland ice sheet is especially vulnerable to climate change. Arctic climate is now rapidly warming and much larger Arctic shrinkage changes are projected. The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years and is likely to contribute substantially to sea level rise as well as to possible changes in ocean circulation in the future. The area of the sheet that experiences melting has increased about 16% from 1979 (when measurements started) to 2002 (most recent data). The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records. The number of glacial earthquakes at the Helheim Glacier and the northwest Greenland glaciers increased substantially between 1993 and 2005. In 2006, estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometers (57 cu mi) per year. A more recent study, based on reprocessed and improved data between 2003 and 2008, reports an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers (47 cu mi) per year.These measurements came from the US space agency's GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, launched in 2002, as reported by BBC. Using data from two ground-observing satellites, ICESAT and ASTER, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters (September 2008) shows that nearly 75 percent of the loss of Greenland's ice can be traced back to small coastal glaciers.

Please go here to read the rest.

THen I came across an article written some time ago (as I could not find the date of URL: reader's project; find the date please and comment ta), and the article is not very informative but the comment is just ha ha ha. Here it is.

Craig Dillon 4 months ago

The big problem is that we don't really know the processes involved in the melting of such a large ice sheets. If it was just a big block of ice, we could just calculate how long it would take considering different projections of air temperature. But that is NOT the case. Ice sheets are under geologic stresses that make them fracture and flow. Already atmospheric CO2 is at a level not seen since the pliocene, much higher than it was during the Eemian period. Within this century, we will have achieved CO2 levels not seen since the Cretaceous. Greenland will NOT melt in isolation. Antarctica will also melt to some degree.
If we could be confident that it would take 20,000 years to achieve sea level rises of 20 to 80 feet, then we could be complacent about the future. The process would be so slow that cities could easily creep inland as oceans slowly rose.
From what we are seeing now, that does not seem likely. Don't paleoclimate studies show that climate changes have occurred in remarkable short periods? Don't current observations indicate large and growing methane emissions from Arctic Ocean clathrates, which has not happened since the Eocene?

In my lifetime, I have seen Lake Michigan become 10 degrees fahrenheit warmer.
Your optimism is charming, but does not consider significant and profound factors. Considering you are a paleoclimatologist, I can only wonder how much you are receiving from the Cato, Heartland, or other Koch backed institutes to write such a puff piece.

Something in this blogging website is not working. I could not get the bloody "quote" function to work. Since Google took over this lark it has more functions but hilariously But, anyhow, here is the link to the above .
We all believe in what the boffins say. Here is first few paragraphs from,what they said last august.

The entire ice mass of Greenland will disappear from the world map if temperatures rise by as little as 2C, with severe consequences for the rest of the world, a panel of scientists told Congress today.

Greenland shed its largest chunk of ice in nearly half a century last week, and faces an even grimmer future, according to Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University
"Sometime in the next decade we may pass that tipping point which would put us warmer than temperatures that Greenland can survive," Alley told a briefing in Congress, adding that a rise in the range of 2C to 7C would mean the obliteration of Greenland's ice sheet.

The fall-out would be felt thousands of miles away from the Arctic, unleashing a global sea level rise of 23ft (7 metres), Alley warned. Low-lying cities such as New Orleans would vanish.

Bloody awful init? Now read the rest if you want to get more depressed. Here I can give you a website with facts etc.





Friday, 5 August 2011

Cockroache

Cockroaches, like all insects, breathe through a system of tubes called tracheae. The tracheae of insects are attached to the spiracles, excluding the head. Thus cockroaches, like all insects, are not dependent on the mouth and windpipe to breathe. The valves open when the CO2 level in the insect rises to a high level; then the CO2 diffuses out of the tracheae to the outside and fresh O2 diffuses in. Unlike in vertebrates that depend on blood for transporting O2 and CO2, the tracheal system brings the air directly to cells, the tracheal tubes branching continually like a tree until their finest divisions, tracheoles, are associated with each cell, allowing gaseous oxygen to dissolve in the cytoplasm lying across the fine cuticle lining of the tracheole. CO2 diffuses out of the cell into the tracheole.

While cockroaches do not have lungs and thus do not actively breathe in the vertebrate lung manner, in some very large species the body musculature may contract rhythmically to forcibly move air out and in the spiracles; this may be considered a form of breathing.

The US-Al Qaeda Alliance: Bosnia, Kosovo and Now Libya. Washington’s On-Going Collusion with Terrorists

........But there have been other interventions in which Americans have used al-Qaeda as a resource to increase their influence, for example Azerbaijan in 1993. There a pro-Moscow president was ousted after large numbers of Arab and other foreign mujahedin veterans were secretly imported from Afghanistan, on an airline hastily organized by three former veterans of the CIA’s airline Air America. (The three, all once detailed from the Pentagon to the CIA, were Richard Secord, Harry Aderholt, and Ed Dearborn.)2 This was an ad hoc marriage of convenience: the mujahedin got to defend Muslims against Russian influence in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Americans got a new president who opened up the oilfields of Baku to western oil companies........

......Meanwhile in 1994 the French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL) traveled to Bosnia and fervently endorsed the case for intervention in Bosnia; in 2011 February BHL traveled to Benghazi and reprised his interventionist role for Libya.......

............Americans and Europeans are still less likely to learn from their media that among the groups in the Benghazi transitional coalition, certainly the most battle-seasoned, are veterans of the Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG). The importance of the LIFG contingent in the TNC has been downplayed in a recent issue of the International Business Times:

The LIFG is a radical Islamic group which has been fighting small scale guerrilla warfare against Gaddafi for almost a decade. Much of the LIFG leadership came from soldiers who fought against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan, as part of the Mujahedeen. Since the beginning of the uprising reports said that some of the LIFG has joined the TNC rebel movement on the ground, and many accused the fighters of having links to Al-Qaeda, which the LIFG has since denied.

Previously however, the LIFG had stated that its ultimate goal is to install an Islamic state inside Libya, which given the fact that many of its fighters are now on the side of the TNC is quite worrying. However as the LIFG is reported to have a fighting force of no more than a few thousand men, it is believed it will not be able to cause much trouble within the opposition.17

It remains to be seen whether a victorious TNC would be able to contain the Islamist aspirations of the ruthless jihadist veterans in their ranks.

There are those who fear that, from their years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the battle-hardened LIFG, although probably not dominant in the Benghazi coalition today, will come to enjoy more influence if Benghazi ever gets to distribute the spoils of victory. In February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security in Iraq] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include ... the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."18 In 2007 a West Point study reported on “the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007."19....

......Although Britain and the US were well aware of the West Point assessment of the hard-core LIFG in the Benghazi TNC coalition, their special forces nevertheless secretly backed the Benghazi TNC, even before the launch of NATO air support:

The bombing of the country came as it was revealed that hundreds of British special forces troops have been deployed deep inside Libya targeting Colonel Gaddafi’s forces – and more are on standby....

In total it is understood that just under 250 UK special forces soldiers and their support have been in Libya since before the launch of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone against Gaddafi’s forces.20

There are also reports that U.S. Special Forces were also sent into Libya on February 23 and 24, 2011, almost a month before the commencement of NATO bombing.21

UK support for the fundamentalist LIFG was in fact at least a decade old:

Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi's] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain.... The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG's next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler.22

David Shayler’s detailed account has been challenged, but many other sources reveal that UK support for Libyan jihadists long antedates the present conflict.23

Even more ominous for the future than the nationalistic LIFG may be the fighters from the more internationalist Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) who have seized the opportunity presented by the war to enter the conflict, and equip themselves from Gaddafi’s looted armories.24 AQIM presents a special concern because of recent reports that, like other al Qaeda associates from Afghanistan to Kosovo, it is increasingly financed by payoffs from regional drug traffickers.25

In short, the NATO campaign in Libya is in support of a coalition in which the future status of present and former al-Qaeda allies is likely to be strengthened.26 And western forces have been secretly supporting them from the outset......

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25829

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Friday, 1 April 2011

Nuclear Weapons US

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24049


The B61-11 earth-penetrating weapon with a nuclear warhead
The Department of Defense had developed a new generation of bunker buster tactical nuclear weapons for use in the Middle East and Central Asia:


"Military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories [had] urged the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons... which could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations." (Federation of American Scientists, 2001, emphasis added)


The B61-11 can penetrate and detonate below the earth's surface, creating a massive shock wave capable of destroying underground targets. In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth, even when dropped from altitudes above 40,000 feet. But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan.


Five months after [Assistant Defense Secretary] Harold Smith called for an acceleration of the B61-11 production schedule, he went public with an assertion that the Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. "We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons," Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 "would be the nuclear weapon of choice," he told Jane's Defence Weekly.

Smith gave the statement during a breakfast interview with reporters after Defense Secretary William Perry had earlier told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on chemical or biological weapons that the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries armed with chemical and biological weapons. (http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm, emphasis added)


Nukes and Mini-Nukes: Iraq and Afghanistan

The US military contends that "mini-nukes" are "humanitarian bombs" which minimize "collateral damage". According to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon, they are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground",

The B61-11 is a bon fide thermonuclear bomb, a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the real sense of the word.

Military documents distinguish between the Nuclear Earth Penetrator (NEP) and the "mini-nuke", which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or seventy times a Hiroshima bomb.

This distinction between mini-nukes and the NEP is in many regards misleading. In practice there is no dividing line. We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several "available yields", ranging from "low yields" of less than one kiloton, to mid-range, and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb.

In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several "available yields".

What is contemplated for theater use is the "low yield" 10 kt bomb, two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Tony Blair

The moral authority of the West is rapidly collapsing. When Russia, Asia, and South America look at Europe, Australia and Canada, they see American puppet states that contribute troops to the aggressive wars of the Empire. The French president, the British prime minister, the “president” of Georgia, and the rest are merely functionaries of the American Empire. The puppet rulers routinely sell out the interests and welfare of their peoples in behalf of American hegemony. And they are well rewarded for their service. One year out of office former British prime minister Tony Blair had a net worth of $30 million.

From

Monday, 21 March 2011

Chernobyl disaster

"It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow."

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Iraq Oil Deals

The following are the signed deals, listed in order of the size of the reservoirs involved, and others still in the works:


* RUMAILA

Britain's BP Plc (BP.L) and China's CNPC signed the first major post-U.S. invasion oil deal in November for supergiant Rumaila field, with estimated reserves of 17 billion barrels. The two companies aim to boost production to 2.85 million bpd from around 1.066 million bpd currently, and have accepted a remuneration fee of $2 per barrel.

BP said it would invest around $15 billion. BP has a 38 percent stake and its partner CNPC has 37 percent while Iraq holds 25 percent.


* WEST QURNA PHASE TWO

Russian energy giant Lukoil (LKOH.MM) and Norway's Statoil (STL.OL) sealed a deal for the supergiant, 12.9-billion-barrel oilfield in Iraq's south on Jan. 31. The partners agreed a remuneration fee of $1.15 per barrel and pledged to take production to a plateau of 1.8 million bpd.

Iraq holds a 25 percent stake, Lukoil 56.25 percent and Statoil 18.75 percent. Statoil has said it would invest $1.4 billion over 4-5 years. Lukoil put total investment at more than $30 billion. The firms would start recovering costs when output reaches 120,000 bpd.


* MAJNOON

The massive 12.6-billion-barrel Majnoon oilfield was taken by Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L), Europe's largest oil company, and Malaysia's Petronas [PETR.UL], which inked the final pact on Jan. 17. Shell officials have said the firms would invest "tens of billions" of dollars.

Shell has a 45 percent share, with partner Petronas holding 30 percent and Iraq 25 percent. The firms will receive a remuneration fee of $1.39 per barrel for boosting output to a plateau production target of 1.8 million bpd from current output of just under 50,000 bpd. Firms can start recovering costs once output hits 175,000 bpd.

* WEST QURNA PHASE ONE

West Qurna Phase One found no bidders in the first auction, but a subsequent competition behind closed doors led to a deal with Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) and Shell. The companies inked the final pact on Jan. 25.

The field has reserves of 8.7 billion barrels. The consortium aims to boost output to 2.325 million bpd after setting baseline production at 244,000 bpd. [ID:nRAS832007]

The group accepted a fee of $1.90 per barrel. Exxon has a 60 percent interest in the consortium, with Iraq holding 25 percent and Shell the remainder. An Exxon executive said on July 19 that the group aims to raise production by 10 percent by the end of the first quarter of 2011.


* HALFAYA

China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), France's Total (TOTF.PA) and Petronas clinched the final contract for Halfaya on Jan. 27, with a fee of $1.40 per barrel and a plateau production target of 535,000 bpd from a current 3,100 bpd.

Total holds an 18.75 percent interest in the consortium, and CNPC with 37.5 percent, Petronas 18.75 percent and Iraq 25 percent. Halfaya, situated in southern Iraq, has estimated reserves of 4.1 billion barrels of oil. The firms would start recovering costs when output hits 70,000 bpd.

On April 22, Total said it is considering a bigger stake in the Halfaya oilfield. [ID:nLDE63L107]


* ZUBAIR

Italy's Eni (ENI.MI) sealed the final contract with Iraq on Jan. 22 for the 4-billion-barrel Zubair oilfield. Eni and partners, U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum Corp (OXY.N) and KOGAS, set an output target of 1.2 million bpd. The group agreed with Iraq to set the baseline production level at 183,000 bpd. [ID:nRAS832007]

The consortium planned to invest over $20 billion and accepted a remuneration fee of $2 a barrel. Eni has a 32.81 percent stake, Oxy 23.44 percent, KOGAS 18.75 percent and Iraq's Missan Oil Company 25 percent.


* MAYSAN

Iraq signed a final deal on May 17 with China's CNOOC (0883.HK) and state-run Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) for a service contract for the 2.5- billion-barrel, three-oilfield Maysan complex.

The fields were offered in the first auction of oilfield contracts but not awarded. According to Iraqi officials, CNOOC accepted the proposed remuneration fee of $2.30 for every additional barrel of oil produced, compared with more than $20 per barrel it and its old partner China's Sinochem -- which pulled out of the deal -- had originally sought.

CNOOC and TPAO set a plateau target for the oilfields at 450,000 bpd after six years. CNOOC said it will hold a 63.75 percent stake in the venture while TPAO holds 11.25 percent. Maysan comprises three fields -- Bazargan, Abu Gharab and Fakka in southern Maysan province.


* AL-AHDAB

CNPC started work last March on the al-Ahdab oilfield in southeastern Wasit province after successfully renegotiating an old development deal that dated back to Saddam Hussein's government.

CNPC hopes to pump 110,000-130,000 bpd from the field, which has estimated reserves of 1 billion barrels.


* GHARAF

A smaller oilfield with 900 million in reserves, Gharaf was won by Petronas and the Japan Petroleum Exploration Co (Japex) (1662.T) in a fierce competition in the second bidding round, and the deal was signed on Jan. 18.

Petronas will hold 45 percent, Japex 40 percent and Iraq 25 percent, and will receive a fee of $1.49 per barrel. Gharaf has a production target of 230,000 bpd. The consortium expects to invest $7-$8 billion. The firms can start recovering costs once output reaches 35,000 bpd

Monday, 31 January 2011

Arabs

Out of roughly 352 million Arabs, 190 million are under the age of 24, with nearly three-quarters of them unemployed.

Wednesday, 1 September 2010

GM Foods At the Moment

How to Avoid GM Food

There are currently eight major GM food crops on the market, so memorizing this list will help you avoid any and all food products that might contain GMO’s:

1.Soy
2.Corn
3.Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)
4.Canola (canola oil)
5.Sugar from sugar beets
6.Hawaiian papaya
7.Some varieties of zucchini
8.Crookneck squash
You’ll also want to avoid any kind of derivative of these, such as high fructose corn syrup, for example.


From

Tuesday, 31 August 2010

Churchill

As Churchill confessed: the ‘loss’ of India was one of “my greatest personal losses” And no doubt his lugubrious whine must be grasped in this context when he saidthat it was not only an irreparable‘loss’ for the British Empire but for humanity as a whole and “ a personal loss that will never cease to gnaw at my soul.”Abstracted from the bogus rhetorical outburst it simply meant that the lush pickings of empire flowed in his blood stream.And as you know he was a subaltern in the Indian imperial army. He was also a major shareholder in British tea plantations in Assam and the the South African gold mines of his friend Cecil Rhodes.



On his father’s side (his Mother was American industrial heiress) his family’s extensive pickings harked back to the East India Company to be vastly compounded in his own lifetime. These investments embraced large land holdings in the Punjab, commodity trading, mines, shipping and insuranceand a wide variety of other assets. Here was the assemblage of the personification of capital wedded to Big Politics. The two moved in easy consonance. Plunder is seldom faceless and in the case of India and the Empire Churchill, like members ofhis social caste, personified the scale of its parasitism.

Sunday, 21 February 2010

Digital Books and Your Rights: A Checklist for Readers

https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-books-and-your-rights#privacy
Saved in Gmail



III. EFF Digital Book Checklist: The Extended Version1.

Does it protect your privacy? ^
Why it matters:

The ability to read privately and anonymously is essential to freedom of expression, thought and inquiry. In the world of physical books, bookstores, libraries, and individuals have long fought against the chilling effect of someone, especially someone from the government, looking over your shoulder as you read. As Pulitzer Prize-winning author Michael Chabon stated when he joined EFF's efforts to insist that Google Books provide adequate protections for reader privacy:

If there is no privacy of thought — which includes implicitly the right to read what one wants, without the approval, consent or knowledge of others — then there is no privacy, period.1


Unfortunately, reader privacy has often been attacked. At the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, people were questioned on whether they had read Marx and Lenin. They were asked whether their spouses or associates had books by or about Stalin and Lenin on their bookshelves.2 And these efforts did not end with the McCarthy era. Between 2001 and 2005, libraries were contacted by law enforcement seeking information on patrons at least 200 times.3

Physical books have many natural protections for reader anonymity. For example, you can:

•browse through the stacks of your local library or bookstore without anyone tracking what you are looking at, what you pull off of the shelves as you browse or what pages you review;
•walk into a store and buy a book with cash, thereby avoiding any record of your purchase;
•hide a book under your bed so no one knows you're reading it;
•throw a book away after reading it and no one will ever know you had it;
•give a book to someone else without anyone knowing it;
•read a key part of a book that you own or borrow from the library multiple times, or not at all, with no one knowing.
Digital book practices may threaten these traditional protections. Digital book providers have the potential to track, aggregate, analyze, and disclose reader activity to an extent far beyond anything possible with physical books. Both book download services (like the Kindle) and those like Google Book Search (where the user accesses a book stored on a server) can continue tracking during and after the initial transaction, as well as maintain records of every book purchased over the lifetime of the reader. That means digital book providers can collect data on what books you search for, what books you browse, what pages you view, and for how long — and they can keep that data for a very long time. Most of this tracking is something bookstores and libraries could never do short of hiring an agent to follow patrons around the stacks and then into their homes.

What to look for:

Readers considering whether book products, tools or services adequately protect privacy should ask:

a.Does it limit the tracking of you and your reading?
Just as readers may anonymously browse books in a library or bookstore, readers should be able to search, browse, and preview digital books without being forced to identify themselves. To see whether a digital book provider is limiting tracking, ask whether it:

•Ensures that searching and browsing of books do not require user registration or the affirmative disclosure of any personal information;
•Connects any information collected from an individual reader with any other information the digital provider may know about the same individual from other sources without specific, informed, opt-in consent. This is especially important for book providers like Google that have multiple services collecting other information about users;
•Purges all logging or other information related to individual uses as soon as practicable, which in most instances should be no less than every 30 days. This purge should ensure that this information cannot be used to connect particular books viewed to particular computers or users;4 and
•Where possible, allows you to use anonymity providers, such as Tor, proxy servers, and anonymous VPN providers, when interacting with the service.

b.Does it protect you against disclosure of your reading habits?
Readers should be able to read and purchase books without worrying that the government or a third party may be effectively reading over their shoulder. To ensure that any stored information linking readers to the books they view or purchase is not disclosed to the government or third parties without proper protections, ask whether the provider will:

•Commit that it will not disclose information about you to government entities or others absent a warrant or court order unless required to do so by law;
•Notify you prior to complying with any government or third party request for your information (unless forbidden to do so by law or court order), and provide you with sufficient time to seek court review of the request; and
•Guarantee that it will not tell any business partners, or affiliates which books you purchased.

c.Does it give you control over the information it collects about you?
Readers of paper books can control information collected about them by, for example, buying books with cash. That freedom should not disappear as books go digital. Readers who want to assert some control over their own information should consider whether the provider will:

•Allow you to delete your books and ensure that this deletion removes any record of the purchase;
•Allow you to control what other local or remote computer users can see about your reading, possibly through the use of separate password-protected "bookshelves" or other technical means; and
•Establish a method to allow private reading of purchased books and private giving of books, such as allowing you to anonymously transfer or "gift" purchases to someone else (including transfer to other accounts you control), with no record of the fact of the original purchase.

d.Does it tell you what it's doing with the information it collects and can you enforce its commitments to you?
A provider committed to ensuring both transparency and enforceability in the protection of reader privacy will do some or all of the following:

•Provide a robust, easy-to-read notice of privacy provisions and policies;
•Ensure that any commitments it makes to protect reader privacy are legally enforceable by readers;
•Store all reader information exclusively in countries that have strong privacy protecting laws, especially as against demands for disclosure by law enforcement and private third parties;
•Ensure that any watermarks or other marking technologies used do not contain identifying information about users in a format that third parties can read or decipher. Any watermarks with personally identifying information about users should be disclosed to users sufficiently to alert them to the existence of such marks and the type of information they include; and
•Annually publish online, in a conspicuous and easily accessible area of its website, the type and number of information requests it receives from government entities or third parties.

2. Transparency: Does it tell you what it's doing? ^
Why it matters:

In the physical world, it's relatively simple to know everything you need to about the consequences of searching, buying, selling, and reading. You buy a book — in cash if you like — take it home, read it at your leisure, put it on the shelf, pass it on, or throw it away. Although, if you buy the book with a credit card you don't always know what information booksellers are keeping, or for how long, for the most part it's a simple, transparent process.

Not so for digital books. Some electronic books come laden with DRM, as well as any number of other "features" that may or may not be disclosed. For example, in 2009 Kindle users were shocked to learn that their readers included a feature that let Amazon delete their books remotely.5

We've seen where loading unexpected features onto consumer products can lead. In 2005, music fans learned (as a result of the independent effort of computer researchers) that Sony BMG had included copy-protection software in millions of music CDs that could create serious security and privacy problems on personal computers. The software actually did much more than just preventing copying, including reporting customer listening habits. This all happened to customers without appropriate notice and consent.6

Readers of digital books have little reason to trust the private companies that sell them their books and devices, and they shouldn't have to. Readers need to know what they are getting, so that they can make good choices about what to buy and how to use their books.

What to look for:

a.How clear are the disclosures? Will they be updated, and if so, how?

Your vendor should tell you, in advance and in plain, prominent language, what the device or service will be doing and how it will be doing it, especially if it is interacting with your computer or other device or service. What's more, that disclosure should be an ongoing obligation; if practices change, your vendor must make sure you can find out about it (and opt for a different provider, if need be).

b.Does it let you or others investigate to confirm that the product, device or service is actually functioning as promised?
Many companies limit users' ability to tinker with the technology they buy, via contractual terms, technological measures, or legal threats against reverse engineering and security audits. Others have cracked down on customers who publish reports about bugs and security flaws. As with any other digital device, a provider should allow customers to test and tinker with their devices and services to ensure that the device is actually working in the way it was promised.

3. What happens to your additions to the book like annotations, highlights, and commentary? ^
Why it matters:

Readers are accustomed to annotating physical books in any number of ways. They make notes in the margin, "dog-ear" the pages, lard them up with sticky notes, cut out favorite images, and frame them, etc. When they are done, the original book may be significantly altered and possibly more valuable.7 At the same time, those notes — which can provide an important window into a reader's thoughts — need not be shared with others if the reader prefers to keep them private.

Unfortunately, annotations to books kept "in the cloud" may disappear. An e-book provider might decide it no longer wants to retain the information. Upgrades to the service may interfere with your ability to access old notes. And e-book providers may limit your ability to share your notes with others.

On the flip side, as long as a provider keeps information about you, that information could be subject to disclosure. That means you may not be able to control whether your notes are made available to law enforcement, your boss, or the general public.

What to look for:

a.Can you keep your additions?
•Are annotations and additions kept "in the cloud" or locally where you can always have access to them?
•Can you make a local backup of annotations in usable form (note that for some e-books readers like the Kindle that have unique pagination and similar differences from physical or other e-books, this would likely require a local backup of the book plus annotations)?
•What happens if the provider's servers go down?8
•What happens if the provider decides that it is simply too expensive to support the additional material?9
•What happens if the vendor decides not to provide the book any longer?

b.Can you control who has access to your additions?
•Can you share your notes with others?
•Can your provider use your notes for other purposes (such as behavioral advertising)?
•Are annotations and additions shared with third parties by the provider either through marketing agreements or other partner arrangements?
•If your notes are stored remotely with the service provider, will the provider require a warrant or court order before turning those notes over to third parties?

4. Do you own the book? ^
Why it matters:

Purchasers of physical books always have the book and can lend or sell the book whenever and however they would like. They don't risk losing their book if they fail to pay an ongoing fee, violate the terms of a license agreement, or if the vendor simply decides not to continue the service. Their reading and use of the book is not — and without undue difficulty cannot be — monitored in the name of ensuring they stay within the terms of a license or for any other reason.

Ownership of books provides many protections like these. It protects readers from censorship, fosters secondary markets (i.e., used bookstores) that help protect us from price gouging, and helps less popular authors find new fans. It also ensures that your books stay yours: once you've purchased a book no one from the bookstore can come to your house later and demand the book back or hit a remote kill switch and do the same.

Perhaps most importantly, thanks to copyright's first sale doctrine, once you have lawfully obtained your copy, you are entitled to resell the book or give it away. This is what makes libraries, used bookstores, and giving books as gifts legal, all of which help authors as well as readers. Readers are more willing to shell out more for new book if they know they fully control its use and can re-sell that book later. Further, the used book market helps support a continuing vibrant book culture by making books available to readers who cannot otherwise afford them. Finally, borrowing books from friends or receiving books as gifts are a crucial means by which readers discover unfamiliar authors — which leads them to buy those authors' next books.

Many readers expect that the same rules will apply to their e-book purchases. However, electronic books have often been treated as "licensed" content, subject to legal and technical restrictions (primarily, DRM) that block readers' ability to resell, lend, or gift an e-book. More ominously, last year Kindle readers realized that their provider (Amazon) could actually reach down into their devices and pull books from their virtual shelves.10

We expect to see many different models for accessing books develop. But given the crucial benefits that ownership provides to readers and to the larger interests in privacy and freedom of expression, readers should not accept a world where all we can ever do is "rent" a book, subject to the whims of a digital "landlord."

What to look for:

a.Can you lend or resell?
One of the basic rights of ownership is the ability to lend, give away, or re-sell your property. Does your provider allow you to do that with books you buy? If so, how easy is it? DRM or other technological incompatibilities may inhibit your ability to transfer your book, so investigate these issues before you buy.

b.Is it locked down or do you have the freedom to move it to other readers, services or uses?
Another basic right of ownership is control — over both the products you buy and the devices you use. Find out if you can read your book on your laptop if that's more convenient. And, ask whether upgrades or other normal hardware adjustments might mean loss of your books.

c.Can the vendor take it away or edit it after you've purchased it?
Does the device allow a provider or anyone else to delete, delete access to, or alter the books on your device? If so, you bought it, but you don't really own it. A remote "delete" or "edit" switch for purchased books should not be built into e-book readers or other devices.

5. Is it censorship-resistant? ^
Why it matters:

Censorship resistance is one of the key benefits of buying books (as opposed to merely renting them, for example). When you own a book, that means you have the power to access it, preserve it, share it, and, if need be, hide it. Those same abilities must be preserved for digital books, lest digital book services become automated censors beyond George Orwell and Ray Bradbury's wildest dreams. Indeed, as Farhad Manjoo has noted, if a provider can delete an entire book, it can doubtless delete portions of a book as well. What is worse, such deletions may not always be the provider's own choice:

If Apple or Amazon can decide to delete stuff you've bought, then surely a court — or, to channel Orwell, perhaps even a totalitarian regime — could force them to do the same. Like a lot of others, I've predicted the Kindle is the future of publishing. Now we know what the future of book banning looks like, too.11


What to look for:

a.How easy is it to remove or edit books once access or possession has been given to readers?
Every new technology for sharing information has been met with efforts by public and private entities to control and limit the information made available. Censorship-resistant devices and services can make that effort harder by eliminating features that allow information to be deleted.

b.Is there a single entity that stores all the books, as in Google Books or the Kindle, such that political or legal pressure on that place might result in a loss of the work for all readers?
By the same token, censorship-resistant devices and services will make sure information is dispersed, so there is no easy, central point of vulnerability.

c.Are the books stored in a location where censorship is historically a problem, such as China or Saudi Arabia, or in a place that is relatively free of censorship?
A provider that cares about protecting access to knowledge will make sure its servers are located in a country with speech-friendly laws.

d.Are the copyright or other laws applicable to the books balanced, giving readers the protection of doctrines like fair use or copyright exceptions and limitations?
Censorship can come in many forms — sometimes governments intervene to shut down speech, and sometimes copyright and trademark owners misuse their rights to do so (e.g., business tycoon Howard Hughes bought up newspaper and magazine copyrights in order to suppress access to interviews he gave).12 To limit such "private" censorship, try to get books from providers located in countries that recognize speech-protecting doctrines like fair use.

6. Is It Burdened With Digital Rights Management? ^
Why it matters:

Early entrants in the digital books marketplace are already locking down their books with DRM, i.e., technologies that limit what you can do with the content you buys, usually in the name of reducing copyright infringement. Readers, authors, and publishers should take a hard look at the experience of DRM on digital music and reconsider the wisdom of this approach for digital books.

For readers, the lessons of DRM in digital music tell us that content restricted with DRM is less useful than content without DRM, and can even be dangerous. As discussed above, DRM schemes applied to music have opened up security vulnerabilities on computers and spied on listening habits. And, until its recent demise, DRM reduced consumer choice in music and music players. Apple's DRM scheme, for example, meant that purchases from Apple's iTunes Store would only play on Apple's own iPods.13

For authors and publishers, the lessons are equally plain. First, DRM will be no more effective at preventing unauthorized copying of books than it was for music.14 In an era of inexpensive cameras and optical character recognition (OCR) technologies, scanning books will just get cheaper and easier over time. Anything that can be read by humans can be photographed, OCR'ed, and uploaded — DRM will not change that. Second, DRM inevitably alienates at least some potential customers. Third, DRM will put the power in the hands of the technology companies that control the DRM standards, rather than authors and publishers, by locking customers and businesses into a proprietary platform.15 Author Cory Doctorow sums up the problem:

Imagine if, in addition to having control over what inventory they carry, [the big box stores] also carried your books in such a way that they could only be shelved on Walmart shelves, they could only be read in Walmart lamps, running Walmart light bulbs. Imagine the lock-in to your customers and the lack of control over your destiny that you have signed up with if this is the path you pursue. Well this is in fact what you get when you sell DRM'd ebooks or DRM'd music — in order to play back that DRM format, in order carry, manipulate or convert that DRM format, you have to license the DRM. The company that controls licensing for the DRM controls your business to the extent that your business is reliant on this.16


Some have argued that DRM is necessary for lending or leasing schemes. In fact, there is already "digital loan" software in wide use by public libraries that does not bother to impose any DRM on e-books, opting instead to automatically delete the books after the load period has expired.17 While users could defeat this by digging up and copying the underlying file, most users don't bother, just like most Netflix subscribers don't bother to copy the DVDs they rent, despite the ready availability of free software that can accomplish that goal.

Booksellers and publishers are still experimenting with digital book business models, and we support that experimentation. But authors and publishers should heed the lessons that the music industry learned the hard way — DRM is bad for business.

What to look for:

a.Is there DRM? If so, how does it limit your use of the book? Can you still lend, gift or resell the book? What features are enabled and which have been disabled?
DRM can come in many forms, some more pernicious than others. It's likely that vendors will experiment with different forms, which at least gives you an opportunity to vote with your wallets — just as music fans have.

b.Are you locked into a single reader technology or group of reader technologies, or can you choose any device you wish to read and otherwise use your book?
As noted, readers (not to mention authors and publishers) should be especially wary of DRM that locks them into a particular proprietary technology. Why would you want to give one company the ability to determine whether you'll be able to access a book you love?

c.Has the DRM been studied by independent researchers to confirm that it causes no security or other problems?
Remember the rootkit.18

d.Does it report on your activities or otherwise violate your privacy?
As discussed above, some forms of DRM give the vendor (or sometimes even a third party) a window into the customer's device. Your reading habits are nobody's business but your own, and selling you a book shouldn't become an excuse to monitor your activities.

7. Does it promote access to knowledge? ^
Why it matters:

Digital books have the potential to transform access to knowledge, in the U.S. and abroad. With physical books, access to books can be impeded by three barriers: archiving (physical books are expensive to preserve); indexing/search (even where catalogues are available online, searching for relevant books on a given topic can be difficult, and many books are not yet indexed); and obtaining books (once you find a book you think you want, you may need to buy it, borrow it or, if you have access to a library with the right relationships, attempt to order it via interlibrary loan). These barriers have traditionally hampered access to paper books; in areas without resources or first-class libraries, access to books can be well-nigh impossible.

Digital books offer hope of reducing these traditional barriers to access. But digital books will only live up to that promise if readers demand it.

What to look for:

a.Can authors and publishers easily dedicate their books to the public domain or Creative Commons or other flexible licensing schemes?
Rights-holders should be able to dedicate their books to the public domain and/or have the option to license the books via a Creative Commons ("CC") license or similar flexible licensing model. For example, after pressure from academic authors and others, Google and the Authors Guild announced that authors and publishers of books included in Google Books would be able to dedicate their books to the public domain or have the option to use a CC-license. For many rights-holders, promoting access and re-use of a work via a free CC license may be more valuable than charging readers. But in order for authors and rights-holders to make this choice, technology companies have to design their systems to accommodate and support public domain and CC license options.

b.Can you trust your "digital librarian" to enable access to as many works as possible?
Traditional libraries frown on limiting access to books unnecessarily. The proposed Google Book Search service reserves to Google the right to exclude any book "for editorial reasons." If, as is possible, Google becomes the only viable source for digital orphan works, this means that Google will have extraordinary influence over public access to those works.

c.Is it available to people without money, as public libraries are?
Digital book providers should ensure that readers in resource-poor areas have options for engaging with new digital resources. For example, Google has, as part of its proposed Google Book Search settlement with authors and publishers, proposed offering a free public access terminal for the Google Books collection to every public library in America.

d.Is it cost-effective for people of limited means?
The vast majority of global readers will never be able to afford the $300 Kindle 2. The best way to bring down costs is to foster vibrant, free-market competition in these technologies. This is one reason we should fear DRM for books; to the extent it impedes reverse engineering and interoperability (either by code or by contract), it is also likely to impede innovation and competition. (See below for a more detailed discussion of this.)

e.Is it available to people with disabilities?
Booksellers, publishers, and authors must work together to enable accessibility features so that people with print disabilities can enjoy the vastly expanded world of books on the same terms as the rest of us.19 Already, several leading e-book purveyors have taken steps to foster accessibility for digital books.20 Other vendors, such as Amazon, have limited their accessibility features, bowing to pressure from misguided copyright owners.

8. Does it foster or inhibit competition and innovation? ^
Why it matters:

Physical book publishing has traditionally been a reasonably competitive industry, to the benefit of readers.21 The publishing industry has consolidated in recent years, but there are still numerous academic, small, and specialty presses that help make sure readers will have access to multiple genres of books, at multiple price points. New technologies have made publishing cheaper and easier and, of course, we have recently seen disruptive innovation in the form of online book sales. We have also seen the continuing vitality of the used book market (including online markets). In short, competition and innovation has helped make physical books more accessible to more people, and help ensure that readers will have access to a wide range of voices and subjects.

If digital book publishing, selling, and sharing is to reach its full potential, we need the same robust competition and support for innovation. Competition will help ensure that readers continue to have options, such as the option to own DRM-free books, and should also help lower the price of digital books over time. Innovation is also likely to lead to both lower prices and, perhaps more importantly, new technologies that will continue to transform how we read and access books.

One key issue will be DRM. DRM can be used to lock readers into a vendor's format. Creating a barrier to entry and competition in the e-book reader market. In essence, device makers can hold their customers' book collections hostage to prevent those customers from switching to better (cheaper, easier to use, with more features) alternatives. DRM can also be used to limit innovation. In the DVD space, for example, DRM systems like the Content Scramble System (CSS) have become the legal "hook" that forces technology companies to enter into license agreements before they build products that can play movies.22 Those license agreements, in turn, define what the devices can and can't do, thereby protecting Hollywood business models from disruptive innovation. It would be a shame to see the same occur for digital books.

But DRM isn't the only issue. One of the reasons so many are concerned about the proposed Google Book Search Settlement is that it gives two entities — Google and a not-for-profit licensing entity called the Book Rights Registry ("BRR") — enormous power to shape innovation with respect to orphan works (i.e., books whose copyright owners cannot be easily found). For example, as James Grimmelman explains, under the terms of the settlement, the BRR is authorized to negotiate on behalf of all authors and publishers with respect to the millions of books covered by the settlement. Thus "[i]t could agree with Google on a privacy-intrusive DRM system that fed back usage information into a database used to do industry-wide price-fixing in the guise of price discrimination."23

What to look for:

a.Can books from this source be read on a variety of readers or formats? Conversely, can you read or access books from a variety of sources?
A digital Library of Alexandria won't do most people much good if they cannot read the books they find on devices they already have and/or devices that can be inexpensively purchased. It will be still less valuable if they can't share their discoveries with friends who may have different kinds of devices, or transfer their books to the laptop they already have. And it will be downright harmful if the Library builders could use it as a tool to force readers to buy (and upgrade, ad infinitum) a particular proprietary technology. If we want the reader experience with digital books to be as good (or better) than with paper books, we'll need flexible, interoperable formats and devices.

For example, one fundamental problem in the fledgling digital books market is that a major e-book reader vendor, Amazon, uses DRM and other techniques to lock readers into their libraries. That means Kindle owners can only read Kindle files and PDFs, and they can't transfer those libraries to a non-Kindle reader.24 What if you could lose your entire music collection as a result of upgrading your sound system?

There are alternatives. EPUB, a free open standard supported by a range of reading devices, allows readers to move their digital books across platforms rather than being locked into one particular device.25 Many providers that use EPUB deploy DRM in other ways, but at least their customers have a broader array of options.26

b.Can features be easily added or modified by users or third parties or must features be pre-approved by the provider?
As noted above, the DRM and contracts that accompany leading e-book readers and licensed content inhibit follow-on innovation. For example, the Kindle Terms and Conditions require that customers not "encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, modify, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Device or the Software, whether in whole or in part, create any derivative works from or of the Software, or bypass, modify, defeat or tamper with or circumvent any of the functions or protections of the Device or Software or any mechanisms operatively linked to the Software . . . ." In other words, no tinkering with or improving your device! Innovators will be reluctant to experiment with these products if they could face lawsuits for their trouble.

c.Does the provider depend on and/or promote agreements that limit competition?
With respect to devices, consider whether your provider has made long-term exclusive deals with major publishers that hinder competition and innovation. After all, you can't vote with your wallet if you don't have a range of options to vote for.

IV. ConclusionThe future of digital books must not be shaped solely by authors, publishers, booksellers or even librarians. Readers can and should play an active role in realizing the extraordinary potential of digital books — but only if we stay informed, ask questions, and demand that providers respect the rights and expectations that have been developed and defended for physical books. We hope readers will use this checklist to do just that

Thursday, 14 January 2010

Heat Wave In 2007

All these pics are from the website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6914490.stm#maps



In a 'normal' summer, the Atlantic jetstream directs areas of low pressure, which bring cloud and rain, to the north of the UK. High pressure systems over Europe and the Atlantic bring warm, settled conditions.
Pressure chart: 29/6/06. Source: Met Office




This summer, the jetstream is flowing further south allowing low pressure systems to sweep straight over the centre of Britain. It is also pulling in warmer air from the sub-tropics and Africa which is sweeping over south-eastern Europe.
Pressure chart: 24/07/07. Source: Met Office



Up to 500 people have died in the past week from a heatwave in Hungary, a top health official has said.

Jet Streams

When they reach a latitude of 22°, the jet streams coincide with the generation of new sunspots, and a new solar cycle begins.

'Sluggish' jet streams linked to quiet Sun

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39525