NSA partners with Google

DOJ Asks Court To Keep Secret Any PARTNERSHIP Between GOOGLE And NSA:

The Justice Department refuses to divulge whatever sort of agreement there may be between Google and the National Security Agency. Not that there is one, of course.

Mike Scarcella in The Legal Times writes about The Justice Department defending the government’s refusal to discuss, or acknowledge the existence of, “any cooperative research and development agreement between Google and the National Security Agency.”

 The Washington based advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center sued in federal district court here to obtain documents about any such agreement between the Internet search giant and the security agency.

The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called “Glomar” response in which the agency said it could neither confirm nor deny whether any responsive records exist. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington sided with the government last July.

Cultural stereotypes rooted in Genetic's

Why the British are freethinking and the Chinese love conformity: It's all in the genes claim scientists:

Cultural stereotypes may be deeply rooted in our genetic makeup, say scientists.  Common traits like British individualism and Chinese conformity could be attributed to genetic differences between races according to a new study.  The study, by the department of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, suggests that the individualism seen in western nations, and the higher levels of collectivism and family loyalty found in Asian cultures, are caused by differences in the prevalence of particular genes. Common traits like British individualism and Chinese conformity could be attributed to genetic differences between races according to new research.  'We demonstrate for the first time a robust association between cultural values of individualism–collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene,' said Joan Chiao, from the department of psychology at Northwestern University.  Chiao and her colleagues combined data from global genetic surveys, looking at variations in the prevalence of various genes. The findings were matched with other research which ranked nations by levels of individualism and collectivism.  The team focused their attentions on the gene that controls levels of serotonin, a chemical in the brain which regulates mood and emotions.

Japanese men praying.  Their studies found that one version of the gene was far more common in western populations which, they said, was associated with individualistic and freethinking behavior.  Another version of the same gene, which was prevalent in Asian populations, they said was associated with collectivism and a greater willingness to put the common good first.  People with this gene appeared to have a different response to serotonin.

 A protestor at the Occupy site in front of St Paul's in London.  If they are confirmed, the findings made by Chiao and her colleagues would suggest that races may have a number of inherent psychological differences — just as they differ in physical appearances.  Chiao suggests that the version of the gene predominating in Asian populations is associated with heightened anxiety levels and increased risk of depression.  She adds that such populations respond by structuring their society to ward off those negative effects.  The success of such social structures would then ensure that the gene would spread.  She added the findings showed how culture could exert a powerful influence on human genetics and evolution.

10,000 Year old Mammoth

Russia Plans to Clone 10,000-Year-Old Woolly Mammoth:

Russian scientists and a South Korean colleague will attempt to clone a woolly mammoth from a specimen frozen in the Siberian tundra for 10,000 years, RIA Novosti reported.  The Institute of Applied Ecology in Siberia’s Yakutsk region plan to implant genetic material from the mammoth into an egg of a live female elephant, the state-run Russian news service said.  The elephant will carry the fetus for 22 months and “hopefully give birth to a live baby mammoth,” RIA cited an unidentified official from the institute as saying.

Google's Semantic Search Technology

Google plans major overhaul to search engine:

Google is giving its tried-and-true web-search formula a makeover as it tries to fix the shortcomings of today's technology and maintain its dominant market share.  Over the next few months, Google's search engine will begin spitting out more than a list of blue web links. It will also present more facts and direct answers to queries at the top of the search-results page.  The changes to search are among the biggest in the company's history and could affect millions of websites that rely on Google's current page-ranking results. At the same time, they could give Google more ways to serve up advertisements.  Google isn't replacing its current keyword-search system, which determines the importance of a website based on the words it contains, how often other sites link to it, and dozens of other measures. Rather, the company is aiming to provide more relevant results by incorporating technology called "semantic search," which refers to the process of understanding the actual meaning of words.  Amit Singhal, a top Google search executive, said in a recent interview that the search engine will better match search queries with a database containing hundreds of millions of "entities" -- people, places and things -- which the company has quietly amassed in the past two years. Semantic search can help associate different words with one another, such as a company (Google) with its founders (Larry Page and Sergey Brin).  Google search will look more like "how humans understand the world," Singhal said, noting that for many searches today, "we cross our fingers and hope there's a web page out there with the answer." Some major changes will show up in the coming months, people familiar with the initiative said, but Singhal said Google is undergoing a years-long process to enter the "next generation of search."  Under the shift, people who search for "Lake Tahoe" will see key "attributes" that the search engine knows about the lake, such as its location, altitude, average temperature or salt content. In contrast, those who search for "Lake Tahoe" today would get only links to the lake's visitor bureau website, its dedicated page on Wikipedia.com, and a link to a relevant map.  For a more complex question such as, "What are the 10 largest lakes in California?" Google might provide the answer instead of just links to other sites.  The coming shift has major implications for Google, which dominates the Internet search market with around 66 percent market share and more than 75 percent of all search-ad revenue. The Mountain View, Calif., companies has succeeded because of the strength and ease of its keyword-search technology, which in turn fueled Google's search ads, which appear next to search results. That business now generates the majority of Google's $37 billion in annual revenue.  Now Google is taking action to maintain that lead. The Internet giant is trying to stay ahead of Microsoft's Bing in web search, catch up to Apple's Siri voice-activated mobile search, and beat back rivals in niches such as product search.

U.S. diplomats work directly for Monsanto

Leaked documents reveal US diplomats actually work for Monsanto:

Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world's food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto's grasp on international politics has never been clearer.  Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere. Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.  What the leaked documents reveal -- Military style trade wars, government corruption.  In 2007 it was requested that specific nations in the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto's GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto's GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for 'target retaliation' against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:  "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."  The undying support of key players within the U.S. towards Monsanto is undeniably made clear not only in this release, but in the legislative decisions taken by organizations such as the FDA and USDA. Legislative decisions such as allowing Monsanto's synthetic hormone Posilac (rBGH) to be injected into U.S. cows despite being banned in 27 countries. How did Monsanto pull this off?  The Biotech juggernaut managed to infiltrate the FDA positions responsible for the approval of rBGH, going as far as instating the company's own Margaret Miller as Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services. After assuming this position, Miller reviewed her own report on the safety and effectiveness of rBGH.  Many US diplomats pawns of Monsanto's GM agenda.  While it may be shocking to you if you are not familiar with the corrupt influence of Monsanto, the cables also show that many US diplomats are pushing GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. Interestingly enough, the U.S. focused their efforts toward advisers to the pope specifically, due to the fact that many Catholic figureheads have openly voiced their opposition to GM foods. With this kind of political influence, is it any wonder that many food staples are now predominantly GM? Nearly 93% of U.S. soybeans are heavily modified conservatively, with many other staple crops coming in at similar numbers.  U.S. diplomats have unique opportunities to spread honest and intellectual campaigns that can serve to better mankind and end suffering, however they are instead spreading the roots of Monsanto deeper and deeper into international territory. As a substitute for the betterment of mankind, these paid-off diplomats are now spreading environment desecration and health destruction.  As if there wasn't already enough information to reveal Monsanto's corruption, the biotech giant also spends enormous amount of money lobbying government each year. Monsanto spent an astonishing $2 million lobbying the federal government in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone, according to mainstream sources. Why so much cash? The government lobbying focuses on issues like regulations for GM crops and patent reforms. This 'legal' form of persuasion is the reason government agencies like the USDA and FDA let Monsanto roam freely.  Satisfying government officials' financial vested interest is all that matters when dealing with corrupt mega-corporations like Monsanto. As long as these financial ties continue to exist, Monsanto will continue to reign over the food supply and continue to wreak devastation to the environment, ecosystem, and humankind.

Climate Scientists Lie

Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents:

Peter Gleick is not just any scientist. He got his doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley and won a MacArthur "genius" award. He is also an outspoken proponent of scientific evidence that humans are responsible for climate change.  And earlier this week, he confessed that he had lied to obtain internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a group that questions to what extent climate change is caused by humans.  Gleick's deception has shaken the science community. Meanwhile, the Heartland Institute, whose funders and policies were described in the documents, is planning legal action.  For Peter Gleick, it's going to be a personal tragedy. For [the American Geophysical Union], it's very unfortunate. Situations like this damage our credibility. And that really hurts.  What Gleick admits to is this: He got a document from an anonymous source that appeared to come from the Heartland Institute. Gleick then called the institute using an assumed name. He asked for and received more documents. Then he sent them — anonymously — to bloggers and journalists.  The documents allegedly detailed Heartland's funding and strategies, including efforts to hire someone to write school curricula questioning mainstream scientific views on climate warming.  Gleick this week wrote in the Huffington Post that he suffered a "serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" due to his "frustration" with attacks on climate science from places like Heartland.  Scientists are shocked. "This is a tragedy on so many levels," says Michael McPhaden, who runs the American Geophysical Union. "For Peter Gleick, it's going to be a personal tragedy. For AGU, it's very unfortunate. Situations like this damage our credibility. And that really hurts."  The AGU, like most mainstream scientific groups, endorses the evidence for man-made climate change. And Gleick ran their task force on scientific ethics until he resigned last week.  "People will look at this and say, 'Ah, you know, another conspiracy in the climate community.' Of course, we all know that's smoke and mirrors. But it does hurt our ability to communicate more broadly about the reality of climate change," says McPhaden.  Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado, wouldn't go that far. "For most people it's very much inside baseball," he says. "It's a dispute among people and organizations that are really outside the public eye."  Pielke adds, however, that like some climate scientists, Gleick lost his cool over attacks on their research.  That kind of invasion of privacy is taken really seriously. It has no place in this debate. I mean what kind of ethical code allows for the invasion of privacy of individuals like that?  "My view is that some folks in the science community have gotten so hung up on the fact that some individuals and groups don't share their views, that it has become an all-out war over ideas." Pielke says what was a scientific issue has now been conscripted into the politically driven "culture war," with climate scientists and environmental groups on one side, and those who distrust and disbelieve them on the other, with little crossover.  Gleick works at the Pacific Institute in California. So far, he's not speaking publicly. A spokesman for Gleick says Gleick knows his judgment was bad but is glad to see Heartland's sources of income and political strategy out in the open. Those sources include several foundations associated with conservative political and social causes.  But Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego, says maybe that's not such a big deal. "The documents that were released last week essentially affirm what we already knew," she says. "And [the deception] was not necessary because this information is actually available through entirely appropriate means." In fact, Oreskes has documented ties between climate skeptics and their funders in her book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.  Oreskes says Gleick's actions don't diminish the validity of decades of climate research, nor do they reflect the ethics of scientists who do it. "Thousands and thousands of people are working on this issue, and this is one man," she says.  At the Heartland Institute, President Joseph Bast says some of the internal documents reveal sensitive information about Heartland donors and staff members. "That kind of invasion of privacy is taken really seriously," Bast says. "It has no place in this debate. I mean, what kind of ethical code allows for the invasion of privacy of individuals like that?"  Bast says one of the documents that Gleick circulated, a two-page "strategy" that casts Heartland in the worst light, is a forgery. He says an internal investigation shows that "that document did not originate in this organization. There's no trace of that document anywhere in a Heartland office computer."  Bast points out that some of the institute's donors specifically ask for anonymity, which has now been breached, not only by Gleick but by websites that have displayed the documents.  And he disagrees with those who say Gleick's behavior is atypical, claiming he's typical of people in the climate community who refuse to engage in debate with Heartland.  "Gleick is not an exception. He's a role model for people on their side," Bast says.  Bast says the institute plans to pursue criminal and civil action against Gleick and possibly others involved in circulating the documents.