Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

July 10 2015

// mit bester Empfehlung - oAnth

Vortrag "Die Eurokrise - Warum versagt die Wissenschaft?" von Prof Heiner Flassbeck am 01.07.2015 an der FU Berlin im Rahmen des Kurses "Finanzkrisen und Geldsystem".
Im Vortrag wird insbesondere auf die Währungsunion, Handelsungleichgewichte und Lohnstückkosten eingegangen.
Der Kurs wird mitorganisiert von den Kritischen Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern Berlin unter Kursleitung von Prof. Klaus Peter Kisker. Weitere Infos zum Kurs hier:

June 23 2015

[Heiner Flassbeck, Wirtschaftsprofessor in Hamburg, öffentliche Vorlesung in Wien]

Ich halte [(...) heute, am Dienstag, den 23.06.2015] Nachmittag an der Universität Wien eine Vorlesung zum Thema Europäische Wirtschaftspolitik.

Die öffentliche Vorlesung findet im Hörsaal 8 am Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 von 16.45-18.15  statt.
— - 2015-06-22
Sponsored post

February 27 2013

Play fullscreen
Jon Penney on Internet Censorship and the Remembrance of Infowars Past
With Internet censorship on the rise around the world, organizations and researchers have developed and distributed a variety of tools to assist Internet users to both monitor and circumvent such censorship. In this talk, Jon Penney—Research Fellow at the Citizen Lab and Berkman Fellow—examines some of the international law and politics of such censorship resistance activities through three case studies involving past global communications censorship and information conflicts—telegraph cable cutting and suppression, high frequency radio jamming, and direct broadcast satellite blocking—and the world community's response to these conflicts. More on this event here:
Time: 01:08:52 More in Education
Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

[Webcast] Internet Censorship and the Remembrance of Infowars Past

Every Tuesday, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society hosts a public lunch gathering in our conference room in Boston. Each session involves a short presentation by a guest speaker or one of our community members, talking about a challenge that emerges from his or her current work. We are excited to partner with Global Voices to bring these presentations to a wider audience.

Title: Internet Censorship and the Remembrance of Infowars Past
Date: February 26, 12:30pm ET
Presenter: Jon Penney

With Internet censorship on the rise around the world, organizations and researchers have developed and distributed a variety of tools to assist Internet users to both monitor and circumvent such censorship. This talk will examine more closely some of the international law and politics of such censorship resistance activities through three case studies involving past global communications censorship and information conflicts— telegraph cable cutting and suppression, high frequency radio jamming, and direct broadcast satellite blocking— and the world community’s response to these conflicts. In addition to illustrating some of the legal, political, and security concerns that have animated historical instances of global communications censorship, the talk will aim to extrapolate lessons and insights for Internet censorship (and its resistance) today, such as the legality of censorship and its circumvention, the effectiveness of monitoring efforts, and the role of international institutions in disrupting (or facilitating) communications.

About Jon

Jon is a lawyer, Research Fellow at the Citizen Lab / Canada Centre for Global Security Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and a doctoral student in information communication sciences at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, where his interdisciplinary research explores regulatory chilling effects online.

In 2011, he was a Google Policy Fellow at the Citizen Lab–where he helped lead the ONI Transparency Project while contributing to projects like the Information Warfare Monitor–and, at Oxford, was Project Coordinator for the Privacy Value Networks Project, a large scale EPSRC funded research project on data privacy. A native Nova Scotian and graduate of Dalhousie University, he studied at Columbia Law School as a Fulbright Scholar and Oxford as a Mackenzie King Scholar, where he was Associate Editor of the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal. He has also worked as a federal attorney, policy advisor, and taught law at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

His research interests include constitutional/human rights law, intellectual property, and digital media policy & culture, particularly where these areas intersect with censorship, privacy, and security.

Follow Jon on Twitter: @jon_penney

February 05 2013

De Proclus à Nicolas de Cues : Raymond Klibansky et la tradition platonicienne.

Conférence publique suivie d’une discussion. 

Par Georges Leroux (professeur émérite, Département de philosophie, UQÀM) : 
Vendredi 15 février 2013, 
Salle B-2305, Pavillon 3200 rue Jean-Brillant, 

Université de Montréal (métros Université-de Montréal ou Côte-des-Neiges).




Inventeur et éditeur à 24 ans de la version latine du « Commentaire sur le Parménide » de Proclus (dont la partie finale ne nous est pas parvenue dans l’original grec), auteur d’une thèse (Heidelberg, 1928) sur "l’École de Chartres" du xiie s., Raymond Klibansky (1906-2006) doit fuir l’Allemagne à l’avènement du nazisme (mais non cependant sans réussir à faire passer en Angleterre la bibliothèque de l’Institut Warburg).

Après avoir travaillé pendant la guerre pour les services de propagande et de renseignement britanniques, il s’établit à Montréal où il enseignera la philosophie à l’Université McGill de 1946 à 1975.




// oAnth:





For a complete bibliography till 2002, see:


Michael J. Whalley and Désirée Park, “Bibliography of Raymond Klibansky”, Revue internationale de philosophie, vol. 111-112, 1975, p. 167-174.


“Bibliography of Raymond Klibansky”, in Ethel Groffier and Michel Paradis (eds) The Notion of Tolerance and Human Rights, Carleton University Press: Ottawa 1991, p. 165-174.


Martin Thurner, “Raymond Klibansky (1905)”, in Jaume Aurell and Francisco Crosas (eds), Brepols: Turnhout 2005, p.264-270.





January 31 2013


Xenie - (2) Erfolgreiches Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern

Teures Piratenvolk, Du fuhrst voran mit flatterndem Wimpel!
Andere hissten ihn spät - erst als die Küste in Sicht.

 Creative commons lizenzvertrag
Xenie - Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern 2013 von offene Ablage: nothing to hide | oAnth steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-NichtKommerziell-KeineBearbeitung 3.0 Unported Lizenz.
Über diese Lizenz hinausgehende Erlaubnisse können Sie unter erhalten

January 30 2013


5 Tweets: Vermutlich erfolgreicher Ausgang des Volksbegehrens in Bayern gegen Studiengebühren

------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

Xenie - Studiengebühren - Bayern

Insgeheim hadern die Götter mit den bayrischen Wählern,
Dass eine   S t u d i e n gebühr  just sie im Unbill vereint.

Creative commons lizenzvertrag
Xenie - Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern 2013 von offene Ablage: nothing to hide steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-NichtKommerziell-KeineBearbeitung 3.0 Deutschland Lizenz.
Über diese Lizenz hinausgehende Erlaubnisse können Sie unter erhalten

January 24 2013

Le jour où les bisounours mordront les vautours | RJ45

Le jour où les bisounours mordront les vautours | RJ45

Il est temps pour nous de mettre en place une sorte d'équilibre de la terreur qui repose sur un principe simple : un certain nombre de bibliothécaires (nombre suffisant pour rendre toute poursuite trop compliquée/coûteuse) s'engage à libérer (i.e. diffuser sur le net, via torrent par exemple, ou tout autre moyen technique) tout document issu du domaine public qui aurait été privatisé et qui aurait été acquis par l'institution dans laquelle le bibliothécaire travaille ; et le cas échéant, ces bibliothécaires mettent cette menace à exécution collectivement.

#domaine_public et un excellent #titre

Reposted fromcheg00 cheg00

French NGOs Condemn Privatisation of Public Domain

Seven European free culture associations issued a statement [fr] protesting against a public-private partnership between the French National Library BNF and Proquest database [fr], whose aim is to digitize a large amount of Public Domain works and privatize them with an exclusivity period of commercialization of ten years. Activist Philippe Aigrain explained [fr] “the genealogy of this disaster” on his blog.

January 19 2013

Play fullscreen
'Wolfgang Seehofers' Videobotschaft zum Volksbegehren in Bayern gegen Studiengebühren - YouTube


Wann und wo kann ich mich (und sei's am Wochenende) für das Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren (17.-30.01.2013) in Bayern eintragen?


Der bayrische Kabarettist und Komiker Wolfgang Krebs hat sich dem Bündnis gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern angeschlossen. In dieser Videobotschaft ruft er Sie dazu auf, sich beim Volksbegehren einzutragen.

Published on 15 Jan 2013 at Youtube Account:

January 18 2013

Non à la privatisation du domaine public par la Bibliothèque nationale de France !

L'association COMMUNIA, l'Open Knowledge Foundation France, La Quadrature du Net, et SavoirsCom1 publient ce jour un communiqué dénonçant la signature par la BNF, le Commissariat aux investissements d'avenir et le ministère de la Culture et de la communication d'accords qui privatisent l'accès numérique à une part importante de notre patrimoine culturel.

Paris, le 18 janvier 2013 — Le ministère de la Culture a annoncé la conclusion de deux accords, signés entre la Bibliothèque nationale de France et des firmes privées, pour la numérisation de corpus de documents appartenant pour tout (livres anciens) ou partie (78 et 33 tours) au domaine public.

Les fonds concernés sont considérables : 70 000 livres anciens français datant de 1470 à 1700, ainsi que plus de 200 000 enregistrements sonores patrimoniaux. Ces accords, qui interviennent dans le cadre des Investissements d'avenir et mobilisent donc de l'argent public, vont avoir pour effet que ces documents ne seront pas diffusés en ligne, mais uniquement sur place à la BnF, sauf pour une proportion symbolique.

Ces partenariats prévoient une exclusivité de 10 ans accordée à ces firmes privées, pour commercialiser ces corpus sous forme de base de données, à l'issue de laquelle ils seront mis en ligne dans Gallica, la bibliothèque numérique de la BnF. Les principaux acheteurs des licences d'accès à ces contenus seront des organismes publics de recherche ou des bibliothèques universitaires, situation absurde dans laquelle les acteurs du service public se retrouveront contraints et forcés, faute d'alternative à acheter des contenus numérisés qui font partie du patrimoine culturel commun.

Les conditions d'accès à ces éléments de patrimoine du domaine public seront restreintes d'une façon inadmissible par rapport aux possibilités ouvertes par la numérisation. Seule la minorité de ceux qui pourront faire le déplacement à Paris et accéder à la BnF seront en mesure de consulter ces documents, ce qui annule le principal avantage de la révolution numérique, à savoir la transmission à distance. Partout en France et dans le monde, ce sont les chercheurs, les étudiants, les enseignants, les élèves, les amateurs de culture, les citoyens qui se trouveront privés de l'accès libre et gratuit à ce patrimoine.

La valeur du domaine public réside dans la diffusion de la connaissance qu'il permet et dans la capacité à créer de nouvelles œuvres à partir de notre héritage culturel. Sa privatisation constitue une atteinte même à la notion de domaine public qui porte atteinte aux droits de chacun.

Ces pratiques ont été condamnées sans ambiguïté par le Manifeste du domaine public, rédigé et publié par le réseau européen COMMUNIA financé par la Commission européenne :

  • Toute tentative infondée ou trompeuse de s'approprier des œuvres du domaine public doit être punie légalement. De façon à préserver l'intégrité du domaine public et protéger ses usagers de prétentions infondées ou trompeuses, les tentatives d'appropriation exclusive des œuvres du domaine public doivent être déclarées illégales.
  • Les institutions patrimoniales doivent assumer un rôle spécifique dans l'identification efficace et la préservation des œuvres du domaine public. [...] Dans le cadre de ce rôle, elles doivent garantir que les œuvres du domaine public sont accessibles à toute la société en les étiquetant, en les préservant et en les rendant librement accessibles.

À titre de comparaison, les partenariats validés par le ministère de la Culture aboutissent à un résultat encore plus restrictif pour l'accès à la connaissance que celui mis en œuvre par Google dans son programme Google Livres, dans lequel les ouvrages restent accessibles gratuitement en ligne sur le site des institutions partenaires. La mobilisation de l'emprunt national n'aura donc en aucun cas permis de trouver une alternative acceptable aux propositions du moteur de recherche.

Le ministère de la Culture affirme dans son communiqué que ces partenariats sont compatibles avec les recommandations du Comité des sages européens "A New Renaissance". C'est à l'évidence faux, le rapport du Comité des sages admettant que des exclusivités commerciales puissent être concédées à des firmes privées pour 7 ans au maximum, mais insistant sur la nécessité que les documents du domaine public restent accessibles gratuitement en ligne, y compris dans un cadre transfrontalier. Plus encore, les accords sont en flagrante contradiction avec la Charte Europeana du Domaine Public (pdf) alors même que l'un de ses signataires occupe aujourd'hui la présidence de la fondation Europeana.

Par ailleurs, le rapport du Comité des sages énonce comme première recommandation que les partenariats public-privé de numérisation soient rendus publics afin de garantir la transparence, ce qui n'est pas été fait ici. L'opacité a régné de bout en bout sur la conclusion de ces partenariats, au point qu'une question parlementaire posée au ministère de la Culture par le député Marcel Rogemont est restée sans réponse depuis le 23 octobre 2012, alors même qu'elle soulevait le problème de l'atteinte à l'intégrité du domaine public. Enfin, les partenariats publics-privés ont été récemment dénoncés par l’Inspection générale des finances dans un rapport commandé par le ministre de l’Économie, Pierre Moscovici, et par celui du Budget, Jérôme Cahuzac. Ces partenariats sont jugés trop onéreux, trop risqués, trop complexes et trop profitables aux seuls intérêts privés.

Nous, associations et collectifs signataires de cette déclaration, attachés à la valeur du domaine public et à sa préservation comme bien commun, exprimons notre plus profond désaccord à propos de la conclusion de ces partenariats et en demandons le retrait sans délai. Nous appelons toutes les structures et personnes partageant ces valeurs à nous rejoindre dans cette opposition et à manifester leur désapprobation auprès des autorités responsables : BnF, Commissariat général à l'investissement et ministère de la Culture. Nous demandons également la publication immédiate du texte intégral des accords.



Contacts presse

  • L'association internationale COMMUNIA
    L'association a pour mission d'éduquer sur l'importance du domaine public numérique, de le défendre auprès des institutions, et de constituer une source d'expertise et de recherche en la matière. Elle a succédé au Réseau thématique COMMUNIA actif sur les mêmes sujets et financé par la Commission européenne.

    Contact :


  • L'Open Knowledge Foundation France
    L’Open Knowlegde Foundation (OKFN) est une organisation à but non lucratif fondée en 2004 à Cambridge qui promeut la culture libre sous toutes ses formes. Ses membres considèrent qu’un accès ouvert aux informations associé aux outils et aux communautés pour les utiliser sont des éléments essentiels pour améliorer notre gouvernance, notre recherche, notre économie et notre culture.

  • La Quadrature du Net
    La Quadrature du Net est une organisation de défense des droits et libertés des citoyens sur Internet. À ce titre, la Quadrature du Net intervient notamment dans les débats concernant la liberté d'expression, le droit d'auteur, la régulation du secteur des télécommunications ou encore le respect de la vie privée.

    Contact : Philippe Aigrain, co-fondateur et conseiller stratégique +33 6 85 80 19 31


  • SavoirsCom1
    SavoirsCom1 est un collectif qui s'intéresse aux politiques des biens communs de la connaissance.

    Contact :

December 09 2012

Thomas de Mi­se­re im Hörsaal 3 Uni Leipzig

Nikolausvorlesung - Studentenaktion

"Wozu noch dienen? Der Auftrag der Bundeswehr"
Dr. Thomas de Maizière MdB
Bundesminister der Verteidigung

6. Dezember 2012
Hörsaal 3, Universität Leipzig

Reposted bykrekk krekk

July 16 2012



Stevan Harnad, professor of electronics and computer science at Southampton University, said the government was facing an expensive bill in supporting gold open access over the green open access model.

He said UK universities and research funders had been leading the world in the movement towards "green" open access that requires researchers to self-archive their journal articles on the web, and make them free for all.

"The Finch committee's recommendations look superficially as if they are supporting open access, but in reality they are strongly biased in favour of the interests of the publishing industry over the interests of UK research," he said.

"Instead of recommending that the UK build on its historic lead in providing cost-free green open access, the committee has recommended spending a great deal of extra money — scarce research money — to pay publishers for "gold open access publishing. If the Finch committee recommendations are heeded, as David Willetts now proposes, the UK will lose both its global lead in open access and a great deal of public money — and worldwide open access will be set back at least a decade," he said.

Free access to British scientific research within two years | Science | The Guardian 2012-07-15
Reposted bypaket paket

April 17 2012

"The Hans-Werner Sinn paradox" by Andrew Watt

I have just learned that Hans-Werner Sinn has taken on even weightier subjects than rescuing the euro area from its crisis. Back in 2007 Germany’s best-known economist wrote articles on saving not just Europeans but the whole of humanity, namely from climate change; these thoughts have now just appeared in book form in English under the title ‘The Green paradox‘, published by MIT press.

Sinn’s solution to the euro crisis, in a nutshell, was to kick out Greece, followed by other Club Med countries. The ‘euro area crisis’ would then be resolved, as it were by definition: the economic mess that would then face all the former euro area members would certainly have needed a new name. Judging by the publicity material for the new book on climate change, Prof. Sinn in no less forthright in his way of arguing when it comes to climate change. The problem is that he appears to be completely on the wrong track.


Hans-Werner Sinn on climate change: its the supply side, stupid

Western governments have failed to curb carbon emissions, we are told, because they have sought to limit the consumption of fossil fuels using all sorts of costly and distortionary measures. Instead we should

extract less of it [fossil carbon] from underground to start with. That would inevitably lead to less  fossil carbon being combusted.

No-one had grasped this crucial insight

… until Hans-Werner Sinn broached the idea in a series of scholarly papers in 2007…

and that is why climate-protection policies have been such a failure. Specifically,

By neglecting the supply side of the carbon markets, the policies against global warming simply disregard half of the market for fossil fuels and ignore the fact that the fossil resource owners are the real climate makers. By inserting fossil carbon into the carbon cycle by way of supplying it to the markets, enlarging thus the stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they determine the speed of global warming and, consequently, hold the fate of humanity in their hands.

A moment’s reflection shows this to be entirely wrong. If it were the oil producers – think Saudi sheiks – that determined the level of emissions, then what is the explanation for the fall in emissions during the economic crisis? Did the oil producers coincidentally decide to turn off the taps just when the global economy plunged? In the real world, the amount of oil pumped is driven by the physical demand for it at the current market price. The physical demand is affected by things like incomes and economic growth, and the quantity and fuel efficiency of  energy-consuming devices. The price is determined by the marginal cost, i.e. the cost of producing the last barrel demanded, and that in turn is set by the level of demand combined with technical supply-side factors.

But Hans-Werner Sinn has a different explanation for why the producers, who in his view are running the show, are pumping so much oil. It’s all the fault of – you guessed it – those misguided western governments and their feed-in tariffs and rules on light-bulbs, what he calls ‘green policy measures’ aimed at reducing consumption. In Sinn’s worldview, that may seem paradoxical, but it is obvious:

The resource owners regard the tightening of green policy measures with increasing concern, because they perceive them as a destruction of their future markets. Quite understandably, they try to pre-empt the expected wealth losses by extracting and selling their fossil fuels before their markets disappear. That is the Green Paradox: announced future reductions to carbon consumption may have the effect of accelerating climate change now.

Ok, here I really struggle to follow the logic here. Unlike in the previous paragraph, here it seems that Sinn sees western demand as the driver, and not supply. But it is future demand, he claims, that is key: because future demand is expected to fall, then present supply is (artificially?) ramped up.

Wow. Well, isn’t it eminently more plausible simply to assume that that oil sheiks are relatively short sighted profit-maximisers like everyone else. They don’t maximise their expected returns over the next infinite number of generations, even if some economic schools of thought think that everybody does (or should do). They just see that – to take extremes – oil in the ground means riding from one dusty tent to the next by camel, whereas oil pumped out of the ground can be converted into Bentleys, advanced weapons systems, welfare-induced quiescent populations, numerous wives, and all the other things that your average Saudi Prince thinks are necessary for the good life. They  pump oil to meet these ends. Or to keep the Americans on-side. Or whatever. (And the same applies to less colourful figures in places like Norway, even if their ‘needs’ are more prosaic.) One thing that is surely NOT driving oil-pumping policy is that they are petrified of the German or anyone else’s feed-in tariff ten or twenty years hence.

But that is not all. Then it gets really strange. The obvious policy question posed by Sinn’s ‘analysis’ is

But how can you induce resource owners to leave more carbon underground?

And the answer:

a swiftly introduced Super-Kyoto system, combining all consuming countries into a seamless demand cartel using a world-wide cap-and-trade system

But this obviously raises at least two fundamental questions. First, if this is really thought to be a realistic policy proposal then wouldn’t it, on Sinnian logic, be the mother of all incentives to pump oil like there was no tomorrow? If Sinn’s green paradox is real, we would be in oil up to our knees if a super Kyoto were, ahem, in the pipeline. And “every atom of carbon we extract from the ground ends up eventually as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”.

On the other hand, if this super Kyoto is a utopian solution then all the fiddly, specific, freedom-limiting and costly demand-reducing measures that Sinn so disapproves of have to be seen in a much more favourable light. They are, in economist-speak, second-best solutions. But they are likely to be preferable to a first-best solution that is never going to be implemented. (For the record, I agree entirely that price-based carbon-reduction mechanisms are the way to go, but an EU-carbon tax with some form of border adjustment would be much more realistic and effective (see here, pdf))

In short Hans-Werner Sinn’s whole approach appears riddled with contradictions and problematic assertions. I say “appears” only because I am basing myself on the publicity material, but an author has no right to complain that people don’t read his book if the publicity material – which was produced by his own institute’s press service and not some penny-fiction publisher – is so dubious.

The Hans-Werner Sinn paradox

Which makes me wonder. Hans-Werner Sinn continues to be hugely influential in Germany, where he has a huge media presence, and also in Europe via the European Economic Advisory Group (EEAG). Yet he rushes into debate after debate, causes a commotion, but gets a bloody nose each time.

In 2003 he asked rhetorically Ist Deutschland noch zu retten? (whether Germany can be saved: English 2007), the title of a book in which he analysed the ‘malaise of the world’s first welfare state’ – the very welfare state (in the broad sense) that performed extremely well during the crisis and which now has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe.

Then it was the bizarre thesis that Germany had become a “bazaar economy” and was fast becoming a basket case. The analysis underpinning the bazaar economy idea was wrong (here on the facts and here for a critique of Sinn, beide auf deutsch), and the prediction, well we have seen how that turned out. Related to all this, he tried to claim that the so-called capital exports resulting from trade surpluses were somehow a loss to the domestic economy (refuted here auf deutsch).

Then it was kick Greece out of the euro area, one of the main justifications for which was that he pounced on the Target imbalances between the central banks of the eurosystem, making a number of claims that the the subsequent debate showed to be erroneous (see innumerable entries on, Herdentrieb, Kantoos, several in English).

What seems to unite all these episodes is a flamboyant style, a resolutely micro-based approach, successfully convincing (German) voters and readers that they are losing hard-earned cash thanks to an array of dark forces ranging from trade unionists, to Greek pensioners to the eurosystem of central banks. Oh, and rapidly being proven wrong.

Call it the Hans-Werner Sinn paradox.

Reposted from02myEcon-01 02myEcon-01

April 13 2012

Play fullscreen
American Holocaust: The Destruction of America's Native Peoples


Uploaded by VanderbiltUniversity on 30 Oct 2008

American Holocaust: The Destruction of America's Native Peoples, a lecture by David Stannard, professor and chair of the American Studies Department at the University of Hawaii. Stannard, author of American Holocaust, asserts that the European and white American destruction of the native peoples of the Americas was the most substantial act of genocide in world history. A combination of atrocities and imported plagues resulted in the death of roughly 95 percent of the native population in the Americas. Stannard argues that the perpetrators of the American Holocaust operated from the same ideological source as the architects of the Nazi Holocaust. That ideology remains alive today in American foreign policy, Stannard avers.

The 31st Annual Vanderbilt University Holocaust Lecture Series, the longest continuous Holocaust lecture series at an American university, takes the theme this year of (over) Sites of Memory and examines places that are infused with memories of genocide and the challenge to find effective ways to honor these memories.


cf.: - - "US-Regierung zahlt Ureinwohnern eine Milliarde Dollar" | 2012-04-12

In einer historischen Einigung entschädigen die USA zahlreiche Indianerstämme für die Nutzung ihres Landes. Damit werden zum Teil mehr als 100 Jahre alte Klagen geregelt.

Reposted byhenteaser henteaser

April 05 2012



In Deutschland nimmt die von der Industrie induzierte Forschung weiterhin zu. Verlässliche quantifizierbare Daten hierüber gibt es allerdings nicht. Für eine verantwortungsvolle Forschungs- und Bildungspolitik wäre es wichtig, die Forschungsschwerpunkte einzelner Industriezweige auch quantitativ überschauen zu können. Deshalb ist vor allem mehr Transparenz erforderlich.

Es braucht dringend ein transparentes Register für Forschungsmittel in Deutschland. In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sich die Frage, wie dieses Register aussehen könnte, wer es betreiben sollte und wie dessen Daten öffentlich gemacht werden sollten.

Deutschland sollte auch – wie andere Länder es bereits getan haben – den Straftatbestand des Wissenschaftsbetrugs bei Irreführung oder Verfälschung von wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen oder Daten einführen und ernsthaft verfolgen.

Um Fehlentwicklungen zu verhindern und mehr Transparenz in Forschung und Lehre zu bringen, müssen die Tatbestände der Vorteilsannahme und der Bestechlichkeit in der Forschungslandschaft weiter konkretisiert werden. ExpertInnen, die materielle oder finanzielle Abhängigkeiten zu Herstellern oder Sponsoren haben, müssen sachliche Begünstigungen beziehungsweise die finanzielle Größenordnung öffentlich machen. Sie sind von der Berufung in normsetzende Gremien auszuschließen und dürfen nicht in staatlichen Beratungs- oder Beschlussgremien mitentscheiden. Sie dürfen nur als nicht stimmberechtigte Teilnehmer von Anhörungen fungieren.


Das deutsche Wissenschaftssystem ist korrupt: Skrupellose Akquise von Drittmitteln | 2012-03-28 via 2012-04-05 (Hinweise des Tages)
Reposted byhermznpaket

April 03 2012

Play fullscreen
Chris Mooney on the Science of Why We Deny Science...and Reality

Uploaded by BerkmanCenter on 3 Apr 2012

Chris Mooney, Host of Post of Inquiry, discusses motivated reasoning and the "Smart Idiots" effect: he rebuts the conventional wisdom that if you put good information and argument out there and teach the public how to critically think, they will have a clearer idea of what is "truth." More education actually leads to higher degree of partisan beliefs. Arguing for facts alone does not help; more education is not the key: the public denies science not necessarily because they are uneducated but because they think "their" science is better.

From the Truthiness Conference at Harvard University, March 6, 2012. More information here:

Reposted byhenteaserkissalonecomplex

March 21 2012


Consumers in the Information Society: Access, Fairness and Representation


Free ebook

Members of Consumers International (CI), the only global campaigning voice for consumers, came together from around the world to discuss and set an agenda for advocacy on these issues, at the first global summit Consumers in the Information Society: Access, Fairness and Representation held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 8 and 9 March 2012. This book contains the research reports and working papers presented at that conference.

#ebook #consumers #digitalrights #copyright

March 20 2012

Play fullscreen

Evolutionary biologist Michael Eisen made this t-shirt design in support of the Elsevier boycott.

Academic research is behind bars and an online boycott by 8,209 researchers (and counting) is seeking to set it free…well, more free than it has been. The boycott targets Elsevier, the publisher of popular journals like Cell and The Lancet,  for its aggressive business practices, but opposition was electrified by Elsevier’s backing of a Congressional bill titled the Research Works Act (RWA). Though lesser known than the other high-profile, privacy-related bills SOPA and PIPA, the act was slated to reverse the Open Access Policy enacted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2008 that granted the public free access to any article derived from NIH-funded research. Now, only a month after SOPA and PIPA were defeated thanks to the wave of online protests, the boycotting researchers can chalk up their first win: Elsevier has withdrawn its support of the RWA, although the company downplayed the role of the boycott in its decision, and the oversight committee killed it right away.

But the fight for open access is just getting started.

Seem dramatic? Well, here’s a little test. Go to any of the top academic journals in the world and try to read an article. The full article, mind you…not just the abstract or the first few paragraphs. Hit a paywall? Try an article written 20 or 30 years ago in an obscure journal. Just look up something on PubMed then head to JSTOR where a vast archive of journals have been digitized for reference. Denied? Not interested in paying $40 to the publisher to rent the article for a few days or purchase it for hundreds of dollars either? You’ve just logged one of the over 150 million failed attempts per year to access an article on JSTOR. Now consider the fact that the majority of scientific articles in the U.S., for example, has been funded by government-funded agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, NIH, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NASA, and so on. So while taxpayer money has fueled this research, publishers charge anyone who wants to actually see the results for themselves, including the authors of the articles.

Paying a high price for academic journals isn’t anything new, but the events that unfolded surrounding the RWA was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It began last December when the RWA was submitted to Congress. About a month later, Timothy Gowers, a mathematics professor at Cambridge University, posted rather innocently to his primarily mathematics-interested audience his particular problems with Elsevier, citing exorbitant prices and forcing libraries to purchase journal bundles rather than individual titles. But clearly, it was Elsevier’s support of the RWA that was his call to action. Two days later, he launched the boycott of Elsevier at, calling upon his fellow academics to refuse to work with the publisher in any capacity.

Seemingly right out of Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point, researchers started taking a stand in droves. And the boycott of Elsevier continues on, though with less gusto now that the RWA is dead. It’s important to point out though that the boycott is not aimed at forcing Elsevier to make the journals free, but protesting the way it does its business and the fact that it has profits four times larger than related publishers. The Statement of Purpose for the protest indicates that the specific issues that researchers have with Elsevier varies, but “…what all the signatories do agree on is that Elsevier is an exemplar of everything that is wrong with the current system of commercial publication of mathematics journals.”

The advantages of open access to researchers have been known for some time, but its popularity has struggled.

It’s clear that all forms of print media, including newspapers, magazines, and books, are in a crisis in the digital era (remember Borders closing?). The modern accepted notion that information should be free has crippled publishers and many simply waited too long to evolve into new pay models. When academic journals went digital, they locked up access behind paywalls or tried to sell individual articles at ridiculous prices. Academic research is the definition of premium, timely content and prices reflected an incredibly small customer base (scientific researchers around the globe) who desperately needed the content as soon as humanly possible. Hence, prices were set high enough that libraries with budgets remained the primary customers, until of course library budgets got slashed, but academics vying for tenure, grants, relevance, or prestige continued to publish in these same journals. After all, where else could they turn…that is, besides the Public Library of Science (PLoS) project?

In all fairness, some journals get it. The Open Directory maintains a list of journals that switched from paywalls to open access or are experimenting with alternative models. Odds are very high that this list will continue to grow, but how fast? And more importantly, will the Elsevier boycott empower researchers to get on-board the open access paradigm, even if it meant having to reestablish themselves in an entirely new ecosystem of journals?

As the numbers of dissenting researchers continue to climb, calls for open access to research are translating into new legislation…and the expected opposition. But let’s hope that some are thinking about breaking free from the journal model altogether and discovering creative, innovative ways to get their research findings out there, like e-books or apps that would make the research compelling and interactive. Isn’t it about time researchers took back control of their work?

If you are passionate about the issue of open access to research, you’ll want to grab a cup of coffee and nestle in for this Research Without Borders video from Columbia University, which really captures the challenge of transition from the old publishing model to the new digital world:

[Media: Michael Eisen, Open Access, YouTube]

[Sources: ChronicleThe Cost of KnowledgeLibrary JournalNYTimes]

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...