Saturday, 1 October 2011

Was Obama's order to kill al Qaida cleric an assassination?

#OccupyWallStreet march

Via

???

Mayor Bloomberg Claims ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Protesters Are Targeting Bankers Who ‘Are Struggling To Make Ends Meet’


Yemen Strike Leaves Misfit Metalhead as Al-Qaida’s Last American Voice

Can Free Web Content Save The Guardian?

Alan Rusbridger could hardly be accused of being old-fashioned. The editor-in-chief of the Guardian loves the Internet. The website of the British daily is considered one of the industry's best. Yet Rusbridger, 57, has chosen to preserve his greatest journalistic triumph in good old aluminum: in the form of a matte gray exposed printing plate with light-blue lettering; the front page of the July 5, 2011 edition. The souvenir stands on the desk of his London office.
A large part of the page is given over to a photo of a young girl, 13-year-old Milly Dowler, who was abducted on her way home and later killed. On the July 5 in question, the Guardian revealed that a reporter at Rupert Murdoch's tabloid News of the World had tapped the cell phone of the murdered schoolgirl. Although this was only one of many scoops by the Guardian in the wiretapping scandal surrounding the Murdoch paper, it was undoubtedly the most momentous. The story shook the Australian media tycoon's global empire, scandalized the British public, and prompted the British parliament to openly discuss curbs on the yellow press. Murdoch closed the News of the World and police opened investigations into 16 reporters and managers at the paper. And all because of Rusbridger's "guardians."
The paper has made something of a name for itself with such revelations. In fact it has become the symbol of independent journalism. But in purely economic terms, it's a complete fiasco.
Offsetting the Losses
The Guardian has been losing money every year since 2004. Last year alone, it and its sister newspaper, the Observer, lost more than €47 million. It's only thanks to the farsightedness and generosity of its former owners, the Scott family, that the paper hasn't gone bankrupt.
Since 1936, the paper has been funded by the Scott Trust. This structure has but a single aim: "To secure the editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity."
Many newspapers would like to be based on such a business model. The Scott Trust owns a number of lucrative companies, including the used-car magazine and portal Auto Trader. The profits generated on these are used to offset the heavy losses incurred by The Guardian.
"Our mission is to be profit seeking rather than profit finding," says Deputy Editor Ian Katz. Even CP Scott, the paper's owner in the early 20th century, believed it was more important to be influential than to turn a profit.
However, the Guardian's losses have become too big to absorb -- and in 2007 the Scott Trust was forced to sell some of its assets to refill its coffers.
Andrew Miller, a former consumer-goods industry manager and for the past year the managing director of the newspaper's parent company, the Guardian Media Group, recently warned that if the Guardian continued to make such heavy losses, the company would simply run out of money within five years...
Continue reading
Isabell Hülsen @'Der Spiegel'

Adult Swim - Unclassified (Free Download)

Ikonika – World on Mute
xxxy – Kerpow
Untold – Peaky
Geiom – Pure Bristle
Ginz – Chrome
Lukid – Running From The Demons
Geeneus ft Riko, Wiley, Breeze (Knife & Gun Dusk & Blackdown 2step mix ft Farrah)
SBTRKT – Golddigger
Starkey – Eris
Actress – Murder Plaza
Zomby – Hexagons
Dauwd – Ikopol
Boxcutter – Waiting For The Lights
Babe Rainbow ft Ashley Webber – Give You Time
Burial – Street Halo
Kode9 – Just Inside
Pinch – Blow Out The Candle
Cooly G – R U Listening
HERE

Putin’s Return to the Russian Presidency and U.S.-Russian Arms Control

The first cut is the deepest

Via

Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now


With Death of Anwar al-Awlaki, Has U.S. Launched New Era of Killing U.S. Citizens Without Charge?

Word

Via

Once Again, The eXiled Exposes Koch Hypocrisy


eXiled editors Mark Ames and Yasha Levine were on the Dylan Ratigan Show yesterday, talking about their latest scoop for The Nation. The pair uncovered a series of letters from billionaire libertarian robber baron Charles Koch to the free-market economics guru Friedrich Hayek, urging the latter to come to America and take advantage of America’s generous Social Security and Medicare programs–the same programs that Koch and his brother are now pushing to obliterate for the rest of us.
The letters are an amazing find, revealing once again just how morally and ethically bankrupt the philosophy of the ruling elite truly is.
Via

On Newspapers, Public Discourse, and the Right to Remain Anonymous

In a recent Washington Times editorial titled “Internet trolls, Anonymity and the First Amendment,” Gayle Falkenthal declared that “the time has come to limit the ability of people to remain anonymous” online. She argued that any benefit to online pseudonyms has long since dissipated and anonymous commenters have polluted the Internet “with false accusations and name-calling attacks.” Newspapers, she wrote, should ban them entirely.
This argument is not only inaccurate, it's also dangerous: online anonymity, while allowing trolls to act with impunity, also protects a range of people, from Syrian dissidents to small-town LGBT activists and plenty of others in between.
Unfortunately, many newspapers have already banned anonymous comments, and while not all have offered an explicit reasoning for their policies, "civility" is often cited as justification in discussions on online anonymity.
Of course, online civil discourse is something to strive for. Anyone who’s spent time reading YouTube comment threads is aware of the vitriolic bile spewing from the keyboards of largely anonymous masses. And it is a truism that when people speak using their true identity, they are more likely to think about the consequences of their speech.
But while identification brings about a greater sense of safety for some, for others, it presents a great risk. Think, for example, of victims of domestic abuse, whose online safety is predicated on not revealing their identity or location. Or the small-town schoolteacher who fears revealing her political views to her local community but seeks solidarity online. Or the gay teenager who wants to explore communities online but isn’t quite ready to come out. Or the myriad other examples compiled by the Geek Feminism blog.
Contrary to Ms. Falkenthal’s assertion that “The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not anonymity,” the Supreme Court has made these same arguments about safety and anonymity for decades. In 1960, the Court explicitly upheld a speaker’s right to remain anonymous,
In Talley v. California, Justice Black wrote “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures, and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.”
And in 1995, the Court upheld online speakers’ First Amendment right to remain anonymous, emphasizing, “protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.” The court went on to say anonymous speech “exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation…at the hand of an intolerant society.”
These principles are, of course, nothing new and date back to our country’s birth. Yet Ms. Falkenthal says, “When our nation was being formed, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin stood behind their incendiary, treasonous views in public even at the risk of being hanged for what they said,” implying that the Founding Fathers would be against online anonymity if they were alive today.
However, Ms. Falkenthal herself later admits that Paine actually wrote his most influential work Common Sense anonymously, just as Franklin got his start writing under a name that was not his own, the pseudonym “Mrs. Silence Dogwood.”
But no example illustrates the importance of anonymity more than The Federalist Papers. The series of essays, published in the nation’s most popular newspapers in 1778 under the pseudonym “Publius,” were instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution. Yet it was not until after Alexander Hamilton’s death in 1804 that the public discovered the essays had been written by Hamilton, along with James Madison and John Jay.
Lest readers believe that the age of the pseudonym is dead, more recently, the right to anonymity was vital for protesters in the Arab Spring: Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who was detained for more than a week in the height of Egypt’s uprising, had anonymously created the Facebook page “We are all Khaled Saeed,” widely credited as the driving force behind the successful revolution.
Bloggers in Syria are now faced with the same risks as Ghonim amidst a brutal crackdown on anti-government protests.
The complex questions currently faced by newspapers have been addressed before. One event in the earlier, pre-social media days of blogging brought to the forefront a discussion around online civil discourse. Back in 1997, following anonymous death threats made to prominent blogger and game developer Kathy Sierra, publishing magnate Tim O’Reilly proposed a Blogger’s Code of Conduct to improve discourse in the blogosphere. Though the code would have prohibited anonymity, requiring users to sign up with an e-mail address, it allowed one to display publicly a handle or username in lieu of a "real" name.
Sierra recently weighed in on the debate, stating “I am for preserving pseudonymity, and believe that eliminating it will never stop the worst of the trolls, griefers, haters, and stalkers. There are far better ways to help reduce the worst of anonymity-fueled behavior online including plain old moderation.”
Indeed, comment moderation is a simple and low-resource method by which newspapers can ensure comments remain civil. Most newspapers with large online readership, from the New York Times, to the UK’s Guardian, implement comment moderation in some form.
There will always be those for whom a name is not a barrier toward acting abusively; for those with little to lose, there’s no reason to hide. Inversely, those who stand to lose a lot by identifying online are those who need pseudonyms the most, to speak their mind freely, without fear of retribution.
Jillian York and Trevor Timm @'EFF'

HA!

Via
Anwar Al-Awlaki's Death: Is America Any Safer?

I'm sending you a poem

In 1970, eager to spread the word about a low-key magazine he had just launched, the editor of the very short-lived Vishtaroone sent a copy of its first and possibly only issue to the frontman of T. Rex, Marc Bolan. Ever-gracious, Bolan responded to the fan with three things: a handwritten letter; an as-yet-unpublished poem to be used in the next issue, and the offer of more original material in future. All without charge.
Transcript follows. Images kindly supplied by Jeff at Hard Rock; owners of a staggering amount of music memorabilia who have a regularly updated, highly recommended Facebook page.
Via 

Extrajudicial Execution of Samir Khan Arguably More Significant Than Awlaki

By this time in the day, the early morning report of the killing of Anwar Awlaki is old news. From ABC News:
Senior administration officials say that the U.S. has been targeting Awlaki for months, though in recent weeks officials were able to pin down his location.
“They were waiting for the right opportunity to get him away from any civilians,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.
And today they got him. Awlaki was killed by a drone delivered Hellfire missile, via a joint CIA and JSOC operation, in the town of Kashef, in Yemen’s Jawf province, approximately 140 kilometres east of Sanaa, Yemen’s capital. But not only Awlaki was killed, at least three others, including yet another American citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in the strike.
That’s right, not just one, but two, Americans were summarily and extrajudicially executed by their own government today, at the direct order of the President of the United States. No trial, no verdict, just off with their heads. Heck, there were not even charges filed against either Awlaki or Khan. And it is not that the government did not try either, there was a grand jury convened on Khan, but no charges. Awlaki too was investigated for charges at least twice by the DOJ, but non were found.
But at least Awlaki was on Barrack Obama’s “Americans That Are Cool to Kill List”. Not so with Samir Khan. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever Khan is on the classified list for killing (actually two different lists) my survey of people knowledgeable in the field today revealed not one who believed khan was on any such list, either by DOD or CIA.
So, the US has been tracking scrupulously Awlaki for an extended period and knew with certainty where he was and when, and knew with certainty immediately they had killed Awlaki and Khan. This means the US also knew, with certainty, they were going to execute Samir Khan.
How did the US then make the kill order knowing they were executing a US citizen, not only extrajudicially, but not even with the patina of being on the designated kill list (which would at least presuppose some consideration and Yoo-like pseudo-legal cover)?
Did Barack Obama magically auto-pixie dust Khan onto the list with a wave of his wand on the spot? Even under the various law of war theories, which are not particularly compelling justification to start with as we are not at war with Yemen and it is not a “battlefield”, the taking of Khan would appear clearly prohibited under both American and International law. As Mary Ellen O’Connell, vice chairman of the American Society of International Law, relates, via Spencer Ackerman at Wired’s Dangerroom:
“The United States is not involved in any armed conflict in Yemen,” O’Connell tells Danger Room, “so to use military force to carry out these killings violates international law.”
O’Connell’s argument turns on the question of whether the U.S. is legally at war in Yemen. And for the administration, that’s a dicey proposition. The Obama administration relies on the vague Authorization to Use Military Force, passed in the days after 9/11, to justify its Shadow Wars against terrorists. Under its broad definition, the Authorization’s writ makes Planet Earth a battlefield, legally speaking.
But the Authorization authorizes war against “nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” It’s a stretch to apply that to al-Qaida’s Yemen affiliate, which didn’t exist on 9/11. But when House Republicans tried to re-up the Authorization to explicitly bless the new contours of the war against al-Qaida, the Obama administration balked, fearing the GOP was actually tying its hands on the separate question of terrorist detentions.
“It is only during the intense fighting of an armed conflict that international law permits the taking of human life on a basis other than the immediate need to save life,” O’Connell continues. “In armed conflict, a privileged belligerent may use lethal force on the basis of reasonable necessity. Outside armed conflict, the relevant standard is absolute necessity.”
So did al-Awlaki represent an “absolute” danger to the United States? President Obama, in acknowledging Awlaki’s death on Friday morning, didn’t present any evidence that he did.
And therein lies lies the reason the US killing of Samir Khan may be even more troubling than the already troubling killing of al-Awlaki. There is no satisfactory legal basis for either one, but as to Khan there was NO process whatsoever, even the joke “listing” process utilized for Awlaki. The US says it took care to not harm “civilians”, apparently that would mean Yemeni civilians. American citizens are fair game for Mr. Obama, list or no list, crime or no crime, charges or no charges. Off with their heads!
People should not just be evaluating today’s fresh kills as to Awlaki, Samir Khan should be at the tip of the discussion spear too.
bmaz @'emptywheel'

Killing of American in Yemen raises new legal questions

A Rare Display of the Origins of Electronic Music



“Daphne Oram was the first woman to direct an electronic music studio, the first woman to set up a personal studio and the first woman to design and construct an electronic musical instrument. This happened back in the late 1950s when she used sine wave oscillators, reel-to-reel tape decks and other electronics that most of us vaguely remember. She went on to invent a machine in 1965 called Oramics that used hand-drawn patterns that were converted to music that would be stored magnetically.”

@readwriteweb

Friday, 30 September 2011

♪♫ David Bowie/Nine Inch Nails - I'm Afraid of Americans

Glenn Greenwald
Today's a great day to celebrate the US Government's power to assassinate its own citizens with no due process, far from any battlefield

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

Blake Hounshell
If the U.S. confirmed it so quickly, it means it was their operation and that they are confident they got their man.

Sock puppets, twitterjacking and the art of digital fakery

It knows

Linux Aus may have a case on Win 8: ACCC

Linux Australia members who complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about Microsoft's plans to mandate the enabling of a secure booting feature on Windows 8 machines have been told by the competition regulator that they may in fact have a case.
The Linux Australia community began petitioning the ACCC this week after Microsoft aired plans to mandate the enabling of Unified Extensible Firmware Interface's (UEFI) secure boot feature for devices bearing the "Designed for Windows 8" logo. This means that any software or hardware that is to run on the firmware will need to be signed by Microsoft or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to be able to execute. This would make it impossible to install alternative operating systems like Linux, or even older versions of Windows, if OEMs didn't bundle the secure keys with new operating system releases, allow users a facility to update the secure key list or allow the secure boot feature to be disabled in the firmware options.
In an email response to Linux Australia members who railed against the idea, the ACCC has hinted that the angry open-source enthusiasts may have a case if they provided the regulator with more information.
Section 47 of the Act prohibits exclusive dealing. Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other's freedom to choose with whom, in what or where they deal. Exclusive dealing is only a breach of the Act where the conduct has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in the market. In an assessment of the effect of the conduct on competition, it is not enough merely to show that an individual business has been damaged. The wider market for the particular product or service must be considered.
The situation you described may raise issues of exclusive dealing, but it is unclear from the details provided whether it would be likely to meet the competition test described.
The ACCC went on in its response to say that if the ACCC decided not to pursue the case, members were well within their rights to pursue legal action against Microsoft for the practice.
"The Act also allows an affected party to take their own legal action for a breach of the Act. You may wish to seek legal advice on the possibility of taking your own action in this circumstance," the regulator added.
Linux Australia president John Ferlito said that he would raise the issue at the next council meeting on Thursday night, adding that the peak open-source body may consider a larger campaign against Windows 8 if the issue was deemed serious.
Microsoft Australia declined to comment to ZDNet Australia on the matter.
Luke Hopewell @'ZDNet'

Anwar al-Awlaki, American-Born Qaeda Leader, Is Killed in Yemen

MGMT - Lucifer Sam (Late Night With Jimmy Fallon)

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City - #OccupyWallStreet

ROFL!!!

Privacy advocates criticise "unlawful and secretive" deal to share passenger information

Bad ol' Oz...

Good ol' Oz

Via

RIP - Sylvia Robinson


Sylvia Robinson, ‘the Mother of Hip-Hop,’ Dies at 75

15 October - United for Global Change #OccupyMelbourne


#OccupyMelbourne
Facebook
www.15october.net

#OccupyWallStreet Is a Church of Dissent, Not a protest

Union Members, Wall Street Protesters to Converge at Police Plaza

Frank Miller’s Holy Terror Is Fodder for Anti-Islam Set

Frank Miller doesn’t do things halfway. One of the true comic-book greats, he’s created several of the most extraordinary stories ever to grace the art form. So perhaps it’s fitting that now he’s produced one of the most appalling, offensive and vindictive comics of all time.
Holy Terror, Miller’s long, long, long-awaited statement on 9/11 and counterterrorism, hit comic book stores Wednesday. Longtime Miller watchers have viewed it with apprehension, hoping that his dark views about the source of that national trauma wouldn’t turn the comic into a vulgar, one-dimensional revenge fantasy. They were wrong. It’s even worse than that.
Miller’s Holy Terror is a screed against Islam, completely uninterested in any nuance or empathy toward 1.2 billion people he conflates with a few murderous conspiracy theorists. It’s no accident that it’s being released ten years after 9/11. This comic would be unthinkable during the unity that the U.S. felt after the attack.
Instead, it’s a perfect cultural artifact of this dark period in American life, when the FBI teaches its agents that “mainstream” Islam is indistinguishable from terrorism and a community center near Ground Zero gets labeled a “victory mosque.” Call it the artwork of 9/11 decadence, when all that remains of a horror is a carefully nurtured grievance.
Holy Terror, the inaugural offering from Legendary Comics, starts out with the Fixer, an ersatz Batman, enjoying a tryst with an ersatz Catwoman when they’re interrupted by a nail bomb. The culprit: a “humanities major” named Amina, an Islamist version of the psychopathic Rorschach from Watchmen, who sneers that the “haughty” skyline of Empire City is like “sharpened sticks aimed at the eyes of God.”
The Fixer’s response is to go to war — indiscriminately. “We give them what they want, minus the innocent victims,” the Fixer thinks as he opens fire. To bring the point home Miller draws 14 stereotypical Muslim faces around the righteous anti-hero. Naturally, the only way to learn more about the next attack is to torture a surviving terrorist — which Miller illustrates pornographically — even though the Scary Muslim says “pain means nothing to me,” so it’s not like the Fixer is torturing, you know, a human being...
Continue reading
Spencer Ackerman @'Wired'

Why Fewer Young American Jews Share Their Parents' View of Israel

Tom Wait's private listening party

Ben Goldacre: Battling Bad Science

Scientists behind the wasabi fire alarm win Ig Nobel prize

Hot stuff: a waft of wasabi can wake people from sleep. The discovery won Japanese scientists an Ig Nobel. Photograph: David Sillitoe/Guardian
How do you wake a deaf person in the middle of the night if there's a fire? Squirt a cloud of wasabi at them, of course. For the Japanese researchers who came up with the horseradish-based alarm system, it was a lifesaving piece of work, but on Thursday night they entered the history books with the award of the Ig Nobel prize for chemistry.
Their research was one of 10 areas celebrated at the 21st Ig Nobel prizes at Harvard University. The awards, a spoof on the Nobel prizes, which will be announced next week, honour achievements that "first make people laugh, and then make them think".
Other winners included researchers who looked at whether people make better decisions when they have a strong urge to urinate, whether yawning is contagious in tortoises, and an analysis of why people sigh.
The Japanese scientists and engineers who came up with the 50,000-yen (£400) wasabi alarm tried hundreds of odours, including rotten eggs, before settling on the Japanese condiment – a favourite of sushi lovers. Its active ingredient, allyl isothiocyanate, acts as an irritant in the nose that works even when someone is asleep. "That's why [people] can wake up after inhalation of air-diluted wasabi," said Makoto Imai of the department of psychiatry at Shiga University of Medical Science, one of the team that won this year's Ig Nobel for chemistry.
Mirjam Tuk of the University of Twente, winner of the 2011 Ig Nobel for medicine, investigated how well we make decisions when faced with painful or stressful situations, such as a powerful need to urinate. She found that people who are better at resisting the urge to urinate are also better at controlling their impulses on cognitive tasks. For example, her subjects were stronger-willed when it came to resisting a small reward promised for tomorrow, in order to receive a bigger reward further in the future.
Tuk's work is part of a bigger question examining self-control. She shared her award with a team of American scientists that included Professor Peter Snyder, a neurologist at Brown University. "We did not expect this honour, but we are pleased by it," he said. "We are most pleased because the goal of the awards is to nurture and increase interest in science by the public (particularly for students). It is important to show that science can be fun and entertaining, as well as important."
Karl Teigen of the University of Oslo, winner of this year's Ig Nobel in psychology, was celebrated for a paper that considered the question: why do we sigh? He wanted to give his students a project that would teach them about the research method. "We decided to choose a theme where we could do original work, and it turned out – to our surprise – that in psychology there were no empirical studies on sighs and sighing."
They discovered that most people believe others' sighs are a sign of sadness or disappointment. But they reported that their own feeling when they sighed was more often resignation. How did Teigen react to the award? "Surprise. Embarrassment. Amusement. A sneaking pride. And then, of course, I sighed."
Academic research is often seen as trivial when viewed from the outside, he added. "It must be allowed to make fun of scientists, because they have a lot of fun themselves."
Dr Anna Wilkinson of the University of Lincoln, winner of the 2011 Ig Nobel in physiology, spent six months training a red-footed tortoise called Alexandra to yawn on command. She then used the trained tortoise to work out whether other tortoises would yawn whenever Alexandra did.
Contagious yawning is common in humans and scientists think it might be controlled by empathy, since it requires an understanding of the emotional state of another individual to "catch" a yawn.
"With tortoises we've found evidence of social learning, fantastic spatial cognition and brilliant visual perception, so we wanted to know what else can they do," said Wilkinson. "I thought it would be really interesting to test one of these high-level hypotheses with a species which, it is very clear, do not possess empathy."
Her tortoises, however, showed no evidence of contagious yawning. The result lends weight to the idea that the behaviour is indeed controlled by higher-level cognitive mechanisms.
Other winners included a team of French and Dutch researchers who were given the physics Ig Nobel for studying why discus throwers become dizzy whereas hammer throwers do not. The world's doomsayers – including Harold Camping – who have predicted the end of the world on various dates were collectively awarded the mathematics Ig Nobel "for teaching the world to be careful when making mathematical assumptions and calculations".
Almost all the winners turned up to collect their awards and make 60-second speeches at the ceremony in Boston. They were handed their trophies by real-life Nobel laureates including Prof Roy Glauber (physics, 2005), Prof Dudley Herschbach (chemistry, 1986) and Prof Louis Ignarro (physiology or medicine, 1998).
Ignarro was himself given away in a competition to win a date with a Nobel laureate.
Marc Abrahams, the editor of the Annals of Improbable Research, a regular Guardian writer and the founder of the prizes, ended the ceremony with his customary congratulations: "If you didn't win an Ig Nobel prize tonight – and especially if you did – better luck next year."

2011 Ig Nobel prizewinners

Physiology
Anna Wilkinson, Natalie Sebanz, Isabella Mandl and Ludwig Huber for their study ""No evidence of contagious yawning in the red-footed tortoise Geochelone carbonaria".
Chemistry
Makoto Imai, Naoki Urushihata, Hideki Tanemura, Yukinobu Tajima, Hideaki Goto, Koichiro Mizoguchi and Junichi Murakami for determining the ideal density of airborne wasabi (pungent horseradish) to awaken sleeping people in case of a fire or other emergency, and for applying this knowledge to invent the wasabi alarm.
Medicine
Mirjam Tuk, Debra Trampe and Luk Warlop, and jointly to Matthew Lewis, Peter Snyder, Robert Feldman, Robert Pietrzak, David Darby and Paul Maruff for demonstrating that people make better decisions about some kinds of things – but worse decisions about other kinds of things – when they have a strong urge to urinate.
Psychology
Karl Halvor Teigen of the University of Oslo, Norway, for trying to understand why, in everyday life, people sigh.
Literature
John Perry of Stanford University for his Theory of Structured Procrastination, which states: "To be a high achiever, always work on something important, using it as a way to avoid doing something that's even more important."
Biology
Daryll Gwynne and David Rentz for discovering that certain kinds of beetle mate with certain kinds of Australian beer bottle.
Physics
Philippe Perrin, Cyril Perrot, Dominique Deviterne, Bruno Ragaru and Herman Kingma for trying to determine why discus throwers become dizzy, and why hammer throwers don't, in their paper "Dizziness in discus throwers is related to motion sickness generated while spinning".
Mathematics
Dorothy Martin of the USA (who predicted the world would end in 1954), Pat Robertson of the USA (who predicted the world would end in 1982), Elizabeth Clare Prophet of the USA (who predicted the world would end in 1990), Lee Jang Rim of Korea (who predicted the world would end in 1992), Shoko Asahara of Japan (who predicted the world would end in 1997), Credonia Mwerinde of Uganda (who predicted the world would end in 1999), and Harold Camping of the USA (who predicted the world would end on 6 September 1994 and later predicted that the world will end on 21 October 2011), for teaching the world to be careful when making mathematical assumptions and calculations.
Peace
Arturas Zuokas, the mayor of Vilnius, Lithuania, for demonstrating that the problem of illegally parked luxury cars can be solved by running over them with a tank.
Public safety
John Senders of the University of Toronto, Canada, for conducting a series of safety experiments in which a person drives an automobile on a major highway while a visor repeatedly flaps down over his face, blinding him.
Alok Jha @'The Guardian'

Being Elmo (Trailer)

The Border is Safe, Federal Officials Say