Saturday 26 February 2011

dangerroom Danger Room

In the middle of a recession, Pentagon gives a $35B deal to US firm. Only in Washington would this be called a "surprise".

Outlawing 'Legal Highs': Can Emergency Bans Hinder Drug Development?

As states race to outlaw synthetic drugs sold as "bath salts" or "fake marijuana," there would seem to be little downside to banning these untested and possibly dangerous chemicals. But prohibiting "legal" intoxicants — many of which have exploded in popularity via the Internet — could have the unintended effect of keeping potential cures for diseases like Alzheimer's out of the pharmaceutical pipeline.
Many of the drugs marketed as bath salts and available under brand names like Cloud Nine, Ivory Wave and Blue Silk contain stimulants such as mephedrone and MDPV (methylenedioxypyrovalerone); neither is approved for medical use in the U.S. These chemicals have not been scientifically tested in humans, but users report effects similar to cocaine and methamphetamine. Media accounts have linked the drugs to serious, even possibly fatal, side effects.
(In case you're wondering, no, Calgon and Origins Soothing Sea Salts cannot "take you away" to get you high: legitimate bath salts sold in the soap aisle do not contain psychoactive substances. The "bath salts" with amphetamine-like qualities are sold in head shops and other places that sell drug paraphernalia and are labeled in ways that imply their true purpose.)

So far, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has not banned these substances, but if their popularity continues to increase, they are unlikely to stay legal for long. It's not even certain that any "legal high" is actually entirely legal — a 1986 law bars the use or sale of analogues of prohibited drugs for human consumption, but it's unclear whether it can be enforced against these substances and under what circumstances...

Continue reading

Maia Szalavitz @'Time'

Shock Doctrine US

Friday 25 February 2011

Dirk57 Dirk Hanson

RT @neurobonkers: Fun fact: UN rates three largest global industries to be oil, arms and illegal drugs, respectively http://is.gd/K5LHEj

A call to arms

Smoke Signals

Help Tunisia First

The pros and cons of military intervention in Libya

In The Realm of the Hackers

Via
In 1989, two Melbourne teenage hackers known as Electron and Phoenix stole a restricted computer security list and used it to break into some of the world's most classified and supposedly secure computer systems. So fast and widespread was the attack, no-one could work out how it had happened - until one of the hackers called The New York Times to brag. Ten years after their arrest, this dramatised documentary uncovers not only how they did it but why. It takes us headlong into the clandestine, risky but intoxicating world of the computer underground.

Summary:
http://www.filmaust.com.au/programs/d...
Breaking into The Realm:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/200...
Zardoz 'Security Digest':
http://securitydigest.org/zardoz/

Peter Biskind: The Rude Warrior

Until five years ago, Mel Gibson was one of the best-loved and best-paid talents in Hollywood, not to mention one of the town’s few real family men. How to explain the foulmouthed, violent bigotry that has since burst into public view, making him an industry pariah, even as his 26-year marriage imploded? With the help of Gibson’s friends—and his movies—Peter Biskind delves into the roots of a star’s divided life.
@'Vanity Fair'

Did David Held, Lord Desai and the LSE Overlook Gaddafi’s PhD Plagiarism?

The world is obsessed with Facebook

Middle East Uprising: Facebook's Back-Channel Diplomacy

The freedom to be who you want to be…

Peter Steiner’s iconic “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” cartoon may have been drawn in jest--but his point was deadly serious, as recent events in the Middle East and North Africa have shown. In reality, as the web has developed--with users anywhere able to post a blog, share photos with friends and family or “broadcast” events they witness online--the issue of identity has become increasingly important.
So, we’ve been thinking about the different ways people choose to identify themselves (or not) when they’re using Google--in particular how identification can be helpful or even necessary for certain services, while optional or unnecessary for others. Attribution can be very important, but pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason.
When it comes to Google services, we support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified. And each mode has its own particular user benefits.

Unidentified. Sometimes you want to use the web without having your online activity tied to your identity, or even a pseudonym—for example, when you’re researching a medical condition or searching for that perfect gift for a special someone. When you’re not logged into your Google Account (or if you never signed up for one), that’s how you’ll be using our services. While we need to keep information like IP addresses and cookies to provide the service, we don’t link that information to an individual account when you are logged out.

Pseudonymous. Using a pseudonym has been one of the great benefits of the Internet, because it has enabled people to express themselves freely—they may be in physical danger, looking for help, or have a condition they don’t want people to know about. People in these circumstances may need a consistent identity, but one that is not linked to their offline self. You can use pseudonyms to upload videos in YouTube or post to Blogger.

Identified. There are many times you want to share information with people and have them know who you really are. Some products such as Google Checkout rely on this type of identity assurance and require that you identify yourself to use the service. There may be other times when it’s more desirable to be identified than not, for example if you want to be part of a community action project you may ask, “How do I know these other people I see online really are community members?”

Equally as important as giving users the freedom to be who they want to be is ensuring they know exactly what mode they’re in when using Google’s services. So recently we updated the top navigation bar on many of our Google services to make this even clearer. In the upper right hand corner of these Google pages, you will see an indicator of which account, if any, you are signed into.
We’re also looking at other ways to make this more transparent for users. While some of our products will be better suited to just one or two of those modes, depending on what they’re designed to do, we believe all three modes have a home at Google.
Alma Whitten @'Google Public Policy Blog'

العقيد السعيد Happy qathafy

Live chat w/ Julian Assange (moderated by Aftonbladet)

[Kommentar från OlofOlof: ] Do you see yourself as a modern-day freedom fighter?

torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:45 Olof