Plan of terrorist act at Zaporizhia nuclear power plant approved by Russia President Volodymyr Zelensky said that the Russians have developed and approved the scenario of a terrorist attack on the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant Zelensky noted that he discussed threats at the nuclear power plant with US President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Polish President Andrzej Duda. I shared with our partners the information The information from our intelligence about the Russian scenario of mining the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant Which has obviously been approved by terrorists. We must take very specific steps all together in the world to prevent any Radiation accidents he added. Zelensky stressed that the world's attention to the existing Russian threat at the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant is still Insufficient just like the reaction to the Russians blowing up the Karkovka hydroelectric power plant and the deliberate attempt By Russian terrorists to hit the dam of another reservoir in Kriviri It is insufficient he said. Earlier, Kyrylo Budanov, Chief of the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine Supposed that the threat of an explosion at the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant was real since the occupiers have additionally mined the cooler Unfortunately as of now there is a certain threat This is because the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant was and is temporarily controlled by the Russian occupying forces he added


Hi Jay, what about getting back with an ex better timing perhaps? Okay, so there's this saying it's a you know Timing look it as far as getting back with an ex. I guess the question is do they want to get back with you?  Okay, because there was a reason why your relationship ended. What are you going to do to heal the Challenges that caused you to break up now might have been that he was a train wreck Okay, I get that and sometimes we want to come back to the well But I want to highly recommend you have a plan and you do some serious vetting to make sure that you're both on the same page Because ladies, okay, let me just say something. This is really important. So listen up listen carefully Most dating advice is centered around Attraction attraction in other words, how do you develop attraction and basically centered around chemistry? Okay, so great Attraction, how do you create attraction be friendly? Be smile? We're a nice dress, you know, just be friendly smile We're a nice dress. You're attractive.  Have a big smile make up all that stuff, right? You're attractive. I get it. Okay Now you start dating. He's attractive. He's six foot two full head of hair Handsome's got a great job. Oh wait, am I describing myself? Just kidding. All right, that was a little ego braggadoce is coming out I'll own it Okay, so now you're attracted to one another and you're dating for that six weeks only to find out his actions Don't match his words. He doesn't have empathy. He is in victim consciousness. He's not very Transparent and he doesn't know how to resolve conflicts This is because most people focus on attraction and not what I talk about and that is pre-qualifying your prospect vetting for Emotional maturity determining who's truly compatible with you and asking the right questions ladies the biggest problem with dating and men meant if your men are listening to this as well is dug on is Learning how to ask the right questions the other day I Not too long. I was interacting with a woman and I said screw it I'm just gonna go through my laundry list of questions on the phone and after we got through it I realized she's not right for me. So I didn't get dressed up for a date I didn't drive for a date. I didn't only you know because here's what would happen got dressed up picked a place drove for a date Paid for a date. We would add chemistry. We would have dated for a few weeks We would add sex and I would have realized I would have broken up with her because she's not right for me So do the same for yourself. I want to encourage you to ask better questions And if you need some support, that's what I do check out in the description the discovery call with me. All right So anyways, I got off on a tangent. By the way, I sometimes go off on tangents. It's what I do Leaf says I agree with you a hundred percent. Thank you leaf


Mae'r ddon ni, dyma sydd yn iawn, y Dryguedd yn unig i mi'r ddablineon, credu i'r dywan. Dwi'n enfynol yng Nghaerrodd yr unrhyw, ac yna'r gyffredin hwn o'r rhaid yn掉ethan yn gwinellfa, ond maen nhw'n gallu mwyaf arbennig o fewn yn canadigol oherwydd ydy'r unrhyw gweithio'r neud. of this referendum. Some of the arguments engaged and some of the consequences of what I believe would follow if Brexit were to happen. No one should be in any doubt about the importance of the decision the UK will take in the referendum. It's going to chart our future for many, many years. It will say a huge amount about how we view ourselves and how we view the world around us and it could have a profound impact on the European Union itself. The economic case for staying is central and voters will want to know what both staying and leaving would mean for them the jobs and their families prospects but I don't believe that this argument is only about trade and jobs as vital as these issues are. It is also about values and where we stand in the world. The world and certainly the European Union faces major challenges and the question is are we to meet them by working with our partners or are we to retreat into a combination of nationalism and nostalgia to a very different future? The answer to this question matters not only to us but to our friends here in Ireland and throughout the European Union. Now our two countries joined the EU at the same time and over the 40 plus years of membership now relationships between us have certainly been transformed for the better. When I think back to my childhood the relationship between Britain and Ireland then was often one of suspicion and distance and today that's certainly not the case. We are neighbours, friends and partners. There's a high and valuable degree of trust between the two countries and very often a common view on the direction that Europe should take. That transformation is not of course entirely down to joint membership with the EU. There have been a lot of other factors too but it's certainly helped. Together our politicians have sat round the same table at the council of ministers discussing everything from the single market to finance to EU enlargement and more often than not we've been in broad agreement but although we often agree on the specifics of proposals it would be a mistake to assume that we view the European Union through the same eyes. While Ireland has never seriously questioned its EU membership since joining in the UK the story is different and a major part of that difference in recent years and a major reason why in the UK we're having this debate now is because of the different way that globalisation has affected different parts of the UK. Britain has been one of globalisation's boosters. We've seen the advantages of open markets, the tearing down of walls and barriers and although we're a medium-sized country in economic and cultural terms we still try to exercise a global view with global reach. If you walk around our capital city you can see the successes of that stance. Gleaming new towers stand as monuments to London's ability to attract investment, a global financial centre, a fertile ecosystem for start-up businesses of all kinds, an international population with well over a hundred languages spoken in the city, a diversity and religious freedom that is precious and is envied around the world, an openness that serves as a great foundation for creativity. London is a great global city and is done well in taking advantage of globalisation. But the impact of that is uneven around the country. If you walk around parts of my Wolverhampton constituency in the West Midlands or other small cities elsewhere in the country you often see a different picture. Here and in places like it in recent decades the story has often been of painful economic change, huge factories which provided thousands of jobs closed down and gone. Many smaller cities searching for a new purpose. Instead of a sense of excitement about globalisation's possibilities there's often a sense of loss not only about employment but also about pride identity and purpose. And for many people in parts of the country such as I represent globalisation has not seemed an unalloyed good. It's looked like a force that could take work away and brought competition for the work that remained. It could seem like a competition that the local population was not winning. And when I look back on the time from the mid-1990s until the Labour government of which I was a part left office in 2010 I can and do take a lot of pride in many things that that government achieved. But I also wish that we had done more to respond to the sense of loss that I'm talking about. We can never stop the tide of change. We can't just wish it would go away but we can and must equip people to succeed when change is happening. We can reassess what we want and expect from our education systems. We can remove barriers to opportunity and on that front our problem in government was not that we changed too much and somehow forgot our roots it was that we changed too little and we should have done more. And into this sense of loss about economic change stepped UKIP with a message that aligned EU membership with immigration and the accusation that the political elite didn't care about those who they felt were losing out from change. Now I reject the politics of fear and anger as a response to concerns about globalisation. Simply amplifying grievance doesn't create a single job or help a child pass an exam but it's incumbent on those of us who reject these views to do a better job of equipping people to cope with change and giving them hope for a better future. And the reason I lay this out before you today is that I think getting better answers to these concerns is at the heart of this battle over our future inside or outside the EU and these issues of globalisation and attitudes to the EU have also played themselves out inside our main political parties. In the early years of membership it was my party the Labour Party that was the more Eurosceptic. We fought the 1983 election and lost it terribly on a platform of the drawing from the EU but we changed our attitude during the long modernisation path that led us back to power begun by Neil Kinnock and John Smith and completed by Tony Blair and instead of withdrawal we had a different analysis which saw Britain as a key player in an interconnected world where on issues from climate change to trade it made more sense to work together rather than retreat into nation state responses and in the post thatcher era it is the conservatives who've been the more Eurosceptic party and the Fisher over Europe has scarred that party from the John Major government to the present day. There is a group of consistent pro-European conservatives but more and more in recent years the way to get selected in the conservative party has been to voice strong Eurosceptic opinions and of course you'll be aware that Mr Cameron in his leadership campaign one of the pledges was to withdraw the Conservative party from the European People's Party and for a time he resisted calls for a referendum but in the Bloomberg speech gave into the pressure and set us on the path that we now find ourselves. His strategy is to renegotiate the terms of membership in the four specific areas set out in the letter to President Donald Tusk late last year. Some believe we've been here before with Harold Wilson setting out a similar strategy before the referendum back in 1975 but while that referendum was more or less a ratification of entry this time the poll will take place after 40 plus years of membership. If the government gets agreement next month at the European Council the referendum is expected in June but if not of course it will be delayed and the legislation only stipulates that it has to take place before the end of 2017. On the content of the package most of the leading voices campaigning for Brexit have already made up their minds. It won't be enough and it never could be enough for them. It is clear from just about every debate in Europe that I've attended in the House of Commons in recent years that there is nothing the Prime Minister can negotiate that will satisfy many of his backbenchers. They are desperate to be disappointed. They've made up their minds long ago and they will campaign for out. Some don't quite put it in those terms. They say that all they want is an end to free movement and an individual parliamentary veto over every decision that the EU makes and if they get that they'll be happy. The Prime Minister is learning the meaning of the old Trotskyst transitional demand and the exponents of it at the moment are often the conservative Eurosceptics. For those of us who want Britain to stay in we await the outcome of the renegotiation with interest but we don't rest the whole case for Britain's continued membership upon it. The issue of most substance in the package is the future for non-Eurozone countries. It is important that countries like the UK in this position do not become second class citizens in the EU and that the currency choice we make doesn't lead to economic disadvantage or damage to our national interests. On the issue of migration which is very important to people in the UK there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the basis upon which people pay in and draw down from welfare systems particularly in a world where people move around more than they did in the past but we should be clear that the vast majority of people who come to the UK from elsewhere in the EU do not come to milk the welfare system they come to work hard pay their taxes and make a positive contribution to our country. There is a bigger broader case for EU membership far beyond the specifics of the Prime Minister's renegotiation package. The question on the ballot paper is leave or remain not just what we think of the renegotiation and it's that broader question which will be in voters minds when the referendum comes and I believe that the core case rests on our economic interests. Half of our exports go to the EU, half of our inward investment comes from the EU helping to create jobs and boost incomes for families throughout the country. Much of the inward investment from outside the EU is encouraged by the fact that Britain provides a gateway to the European single market. This is very important to our automotive industry, our international finance sector and others. If we just take the relationship with Ireland in 2014 the UK exported about 28 billion pounds worth of goods and services to here with about 17 billion going in the other direction or as the t-shirt put at the other day we do a billion euros worth of trade with one another every week. Ireland is our fifth biggest export market. We do more trade with you than we do with China and of course the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic is very important to the Northern Irish economy. I reject the idea that somehow we should make a choice between trading globally or trading with the EU. Of course we should be trying to trade more with emerging markets but it's not a choice of one or the other. We should be doing both and important as trade jobs and investment are to continue the EU membership. I don't believe the case for remaining in begins and ends there. We forget at our peril that the EU is a partnership of values as well as interests. Membership entails commitments to respect human rights, to democracy, to the rule of law and to resolving differences peacefully. Not only has the EU helped to keep the peace between the leading protagonists in the old Europe of nation states it has also helped embed the path from tyranny to democracy for the former communist countries of central and eastern Europe and this commitment to common values is now being tested in Europe as the EU struggles to cope with twin crises in the eurozone and over refugees. Both of these problems call into question assumptions that we've made about the depth of solidarity and openness. For most of recent decades the EU has been a success story it was growing economically in size and influence but here in Ireland you know well the struggle to overcome the economic problems of recent years and now Europe faces an unprecedented flow of refugees from Syria, Iraq and North Africa. Let's put the shengen system under great strain and some have also voiced fears about the religious and cultural diversity that follows from the greater movement of people. Beyond the EU's borders we have Russian aggression in Ukraine, a terrible civil war in Syria and sometimes within the EU attacks on the pluralism and openness that we hold dear. It would be the easiest thing in the world in the face of all this to say that it's too difficult and we should pull up the drawbridge and in many countries there are voices saying precisely this but that is not the leadership that these challenges demand. The truth is these problems require more cooperation, more coordination, a greater exercise of coordinated leadership and we should be strong enough to say so. I want to see the UK play a part in this leadership task, not to walk away from it. So this referendum is also about the kind of leadership that we offer to the challenges that Europe faces. Now the implications of Brexit itself, the referendum campaign has in effect begun. Polls suggest a population divided evenly between staying and going. So I want to turn finally to the implications of Brexit. The first thing that we need is confidence. Too often the European Union is discussed in the UK as a forum which always does things to us rather than a forum where we can decide things which are in our interests. Our involvement with Europe did not begin in 1973, it goes back centuries and Britain has enjoyed considerable success in shaping the modern EU. We pushed for the single market in the first place. We've pushed for its extension to services and to the digital arena and both Conservative and Labour governments pushed for enlargement. We need more confidence in ourselves and what we can achieve if we choose to lead in Europe rather than walking away from it. And after 40 years of membership, we know what being in entails, but what about being out? A referendum is not an opinion poll on one future, it's a choice between two futures. It cannot simply be about the merits or otherwise of the EU. The EU certainly has its flaws and faults and it faces serious challenges as I've set out, but the question is to remain or leave. And what would out mean or what out would mean must be a greater part of this debate. Those who advocate leaving have a duty to set out what this would mean. First the economic implications. Those who advocate leaving tell us we can have our cake and eat it. They want to keep our current access to the single market. They want us to pay no fee for such access. They want to end free movement and they want to pick and choose what regulations they will obey or not. Such a deal does not exist for any country currently outside the European Union. Market access comes with a price and in terms of adherence to common rules and standards. The question for a great trading economy is what will the price be paid and will we have a sale over the rules and standards which our economy must live by? Norway, not in the EU but part of the EEA, has to pay substantial sums to EU coffers. It has to obey the rules of the single market. It has to do so without any say in the commission, the council of ministers or the parliament and it's part of the Schengen agreement on free movement. In a similar way Switzerland through a series of bilateral agreements that took years to negotiate has to update its laws autonomously to comply with EU law. It has to again pay substantial fees for the privilege and it's currently in a standoff with the EU over free movement. I believe arrangements such as the Norwegian and Swiss have would be bad deals for Britain. We would be swapping the position of being a rule maker for adopting the role of a rule taker, a passive recipient of decisions made by others which we had to accept to maintain our access to the free trade area and if leave campaigners don't want the Norwegian or Swiss arrangements they have to tell us what it is that they do propose. The other alternative of opting out of the single market and trading under WTO rules brings in tariffs. For example 10% on car exports and other tariffs on components. What are going to be the trade implications if we were no longer part of the single market? What would it mean for a manufacturing area like my constituency which needs trade to survive? What will be the implications not just for our exporters but also for the supply chain who may not export to themselves but whose order book is dependent on companies who do? What would be the implications for our financial services industry? And very importantly what are the implications of leaving? For the employment rights agreed at EU level and enjoyed by millions of British workers. Rights such as access to guaranteed paid leave, equal rights for part-time workers, fair pay for agency workers. What's the fate of these protections when the cost of them is constantly attacked by those who would take us out? If the future is to stay in the single market with no say over its rules you have to ask what's the point and if the future is to leave the single market and have tariffs imposed on our industry you have to ask what's the price. Then of course there are the constitutional implications of leaving. The Scottish referendum in 2014 came close to breaking up the UK. The issue has certainly not gone away and the SNP is dominant both in the Scottish Parliament and in terms of Scottish representation in the House of Commons. They have made it clear that if Scotland votes to stay in the EU but the rest of the UK votes to leave there may be a second referendum on independence. Indeed the SNP developed their current policy of independence in Europe precisely to counter the accusation from opponents that Scottish nationalism was a separatist isolationist impulse. Coming soon after independence for Scotland was rejected in the referendum of 2014 the prospect of Brexit once again throws open the question of the future integrity of the UK. Then there is the position of Northern Ireland. I don't want to overstate the role that the EU played in the peace process. That process was in the main the result of patient and far-sighted leadership from governments in both the UK and Ireland and the leading players in Northern Ireland itself. But the fact that both countries were in the EU helped and the EU has supported the peace process through specific funding to help Northern Ireland recover from the economic damage of the troubles. But none of us can say with certainty what it would mean for Northern Ireland if the UK voted for Brexit. This is as you know the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another state. A border that at the moment has thousands of people crossing freely in each direction every day and between Northern Ireland and the Republic there is easy and productive trade and because of EU membership it's done on the basis of common rules. If Brexit happens and happens in large part because of a desire to restrict the free movement of people what will happen to that border? Ireland will still be a member of the EU. It will still be abiding by the free movement rules that are a condition of membership but what kind of border would there be if Britain no longer has such rules? What would be the effect on Northern Ireland if its neighbour to the south is in the EU but it is not and Scotland the part of the UK with which it has closest links is pushing for independence in part so it can remain part of the EU while Northern Ireland is not. I have no doubt that both governments would do their best to overcome these issues but the economic and other implications of such a situation are unknown. At the very least they pose a set of questions that are not there now. The point is it is complacent to assume that we can walk out of the EU and everything else stays the same. A Brexit raises major questions about economic and constitutional arrangements that leave campaigners have so far failed to address. I hope it doesn't come to any of this. I hope that we can persuade the people of the UK to vote to remain in the EU and to play a leading role in its future. I want to see a UK that is confident, engaged in the world, outward looking and determined to make the most of that stance. This really is a test of leadership. Can we set out a path for the future that explains the world and how you make the most of it? I want to see a Britain that plays to its strength in the world and seeks new opportunities and doesn't seek solace in trying to recreate a country that isn't coming back. Stumbling out of the EU would not be the exercise of strong leadership, it would signify its absence. That's why leadership is so important on this question now. The government of course has its leadership duty, but as people in this room know through your own experience, in a referendum situation where every vote counts, so do many others, including us as the main opposition party. Even when my party is further from power than we've been for many years, I believe we have a duty of leadership on this issue. To speak to voters in every part of our country and say this is bigger than Labour versus Tory or any other party battle and that it's in the interests of both our country and of Europe itself that we stay in. And for that reason, I will be doing whatever I can to advance the cause of the UK staying in the European Union in the referendum to come. Thank you.


Thank you for coming here today to help us celebrate the 10th anniversary of this remarkable institution, the Berkman Center. And also because this is not a crowd that sits on its laurels, also to think about what the next 10 years is going to look like. Our second decade of studying and shaping the internet and its impact on society. This has been quite a remarkable 10-year journey. The Berkman Center was founded by three visionary men, Miles Berkman, Charlie Nessen, and Jonathan Zittrain. Miles, I want to thank you especially for all the incredible support that you've provided us over the years. And for being just a fount of ideas and of knowledge and of wisdom. I'm so happy that Miles and you too, Carol Berkman are with us today. Thank you so much. Miles and Charlie and Jonathan had an idea for a kind of entrepreneurial nonprofit within the environment of Harvard Law School. A peculiarly non-entrepreneurial place sometimes. Miles said that his hope, he said this 10 years ago, he said that he wanted the Berkman Center to become the water cooler at the law school. Around which students and faculty and anyone else who cared too might gather to talk about the internet and its future. The goal, I'll switch my metaphors a little bit, but the goal was to create a kind of experimental laboratory. A place where both new technologies and new ideas could be tested and examined and developed. And the gathering here this morning, this week, demonstrates the quite extraordinary success of that vision of Miles and Charlie and Jonathan. I look around here today and I see how many people look to the Berkman Center. How many people in all kinds of different areas, all kinds of walks of life from industry to academia to journalism to the NGO world to the policy world and government. All of you looking to the Berkman Center for ideas, for technology, for new ways of thinking about the world. Because that's what the Berkman Center provides, new ways of thinking about the world. During this 10 year period of really quite rapid growth, the Berkman Center has become a powerhouse in terms of both teaching and research. As dean of the school, I have a special interest in the way we teach our students and here the Berkman Center is simply incomparable. The Center's faculty members teach as many as 10 or 12 courses in any given year. The Berkman Center's clinic has grown steadily from just a few students back in the early days to as many as 50 today with waiting lists, I have to say, of two or three or four times that. And I want to congratulate Phil Malone for his recent promotion to clinical professor of law, a promotion which underscores the law school's commitment to leadership in the teaching of intellectual property and cyber law. And the Berkman Center's research has become some of the most trusted and impactful academic work in the world. And I'm thinking here of Terry Fisher's work on intellectual property, particularly in the entertainment industry. I'm thinking of John Paul Frey and Jonathan Zittrain's open net initiative, which is of course the initiative that explored the world of internet filtering in China and many, many other countries. I'm thinking of Yochai Benkler's work on cooperation in our networked information environment. I'm thinking of Jonathan Zittrain's new and pathbreaking work on generativity and the perils that it faces, the ways in which it is threatened in our current time. So this is an incredibly, just an extraordinary record of research. And our commitment to continuing in that van is again underscored by a recent appointment we've made. John Paul Frey, now the executive director of the Berkman Center, will become vice dean for the library and information services very shortly. He's taking on leadership of the world's greatest law library and did one of the great libraries in the world of any kind. And essentially giving the Berkman Center an even greater platform on which to operate where I think the whole library or maybe all of Harvard Law School will become the experimental laboratory that the Berkman Center conducts. Today I have the extraordinary pleasure of announcing that the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, that's, it has been its official title, is making another great step forward.  This change is more than symbolic. It tells you something about what the Berkman Center has meant to this university and indeed to the world. While the Berkman Center will remain rooted here in the law school, it will be reaching out even more than in the past to draw upon faculty and students and other parts of the university and beyond to extend the great work that it has underway. Now it is my great pleasure and privilege to introduce Terry Fisher, the director of the Berkman Center for the past six years. His subtle but immensely powerful leadership has made possible the Berkman Center's many triumphs in that period. There is simply no program at Harvard Law School whose members, faculty, fellows, and students operate more as a team. And because that is so, there is no program at Harvard Law School that has a greater record of success and impact. Terry's hallmark quality as faculty director of the Berkman Center is to do two things at once. To encourage the members of the center and the participants in the center to be as lively and as creative and as playful and as entrepreneurial in spirit as they possibly can be. And given this group, that's quite a lot. While also insisting on the highest standards of scholarly rigor and integrity and a remarkable seriousness of purpose with respect to teaching and research alike. To be playful in one's approach and also to be deeply serious in one's selection and pursuit of goals is a rare thing in life. But it is not rare at the Berkman Center under Terry Fisher's leadership. Terry. So welcome to everybody. Already there's wonderful energy in this room. We're hoping to sustain for two days. As Dean Kagan indicated, the Berkman Center is now 10 years old. A great deal has changed, has been accomplished in that time. We begin by just identifying a few of the more salient transformations and then try to relate it to what we're going to be doing here. So space, not the obvious place to begin for an internet center, but nevertheless indicative of what we've been doing. The physical footprint of the Berkman Center has grown over the last 10 years from Charlie's office where he and Jonathan developed many of the seminal ideas on which we continue to live. Research. We've taken on a host of projects of gradually increasing methodological complexity, some of which we've finished, published, and moved on. Others were still pursuing spin-offs. We tend to generate ideas that, in the best of times, take institutional forms and then move off on their own. So, chilling effects. Wendy Seltzer's project. Creative Commons. Larry Lessig's project. The first podcast was done at the Berkman Center. Global Voices. A way of reconceiving journalism. Pioneered by Ethan Zuckerman and Rebecca. All flourish on their own. Now, independent of us. As the Dean rightly mentioned, we've added in recent years a thriving clinical program, which film alone will continue to expand and deepen and try to reduce the waiting list. And finally, money, budget. The scale of our financial operations has grown to match the scale of our research activity. So, from the original generous gift of the Berkman family, we're now supported by foundations, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and governments. So, huge expansion of the zone in which the changes have been most dramatic and, in the long run, most important is people. Not just occupy but constitute the Berkman Center. Dean Kagan indicated it's a thriving, intense, boiling group of people. We sometimes have friction, but we hope, continue to generate ideas. The expansion of the group of people has been accelerating. It's most notable the faculty level. So, just in the last year, we've had several major changes. Yochai Benkler has joined us finally from Yale, an arrival that has transformed my own professional life. So, Dean indicated John Palfrey, who has been, for the last six years, the incomparable Executive Director of the Center, is stepping down as Executive Director and stepping up as Professor of Law and Head of the Law School Library. We'll remain associated intimately with the Center, but now, as a thinker, shedding his administrative responsibilities. Cass Sunstein recently decided to rejoin the Law School faculty and we hope will be lending us the benefits of his extraordinarily fertile imagination and insight into things technological. And last but not least, Jonathan Zittrain, one of the founders of the Center, has recently been offered a tenured position here, hoping to lure him back from Oxford. Now, I want to pause on this for a moment. It's a matter of institutional self-interest. The brilliance of Zittrain's book for which this conference is named has earned him offers, not just from Harvard and Oxford, but from Stanford. Stanford's trying to persuade him to go there. So, one of the tasks of the next two days, on which I need your help, is to persuade him that this is his intellectual home. A project we're going to begin in about ten minutes when we engage his book. How about, like, a cheer? This is what we're going to do. One, two, three, yes! Come on now, we want it, we want it! I was going to say, Jay-Z, Jay-Z, Jay-Z! Why, what's going on? So, some, we've accomplished a great deal over the last decade. And, to some extent, this conference is meant to be a birthday party that we've asked you to come here to join us in celebration. But it's also intended to be much more than that. Self-congratulation gets old fairly fast. So, here's the larger, more important purpose of the conference. Berkman Center is today, as the dean indicated, at a point of inflection, or if you will, metamorphosis. Yesterday, the president and provost formally approved our initiative, which has taken over a year to develop, to become a university-wide inter-faculty interdisciplinary research center. So, we've been moving in this direction for a while. We have added already four sterling professors of disciplines other than law to our steering committee. And we've been taking on projects that, to be frank, don't have a great deal to do with law for a while. But this completes and will intensify our turn in the interdisciplinary direction. So, that raises the obvious question, what should we focus on now? To what set of issues should we turn our methodological or new, an expanded set of methodological telescopes and microscopes? We have ideas, of course, on that issue, but we're eager for more. So, selfishly, what we are most hopeful to get from this conference is thoughts from you concerning the topics that merit examination and the ways in which they could be best examined. We're hoping to churn up, in other words, lots of hypotheses worthy of attention concerning the future of the internet. The format of the conference reflects that purpose. So, we will limit, I promise, the amount of time we'll be talking at you. This is not to say that our discussions here will be formless. Each of the sessions will begin with a presentation of some kind designed to provoke and direct conversation. But in each of the sessions, at least half of the time will be devoted to conversation. In those conversations, I hope you address each other, not just the speakers. To encourage this, we're not only allocating as much time as practicable to open discussion in the plenary periods, but we've also set up a variety of electronic devices, most of which are described in detail in your packets, SL, IRC, Twitter, a question tool, and so forth, all of which are designed to encourage you to make interventions in the discussion electronically. And soon, we will have up here on the screen displays of questions that are being submitted so that the participants can be referring to the electronic discussion as well as the real discussion. Another opportunity for engagement is the Food for Thought dinners tonight. These are meant to be small group dinners over a table at a restaurant led by one of the members of the Berkman community. You can get to know this extraordinary group of people. I've got a lot of these to determine which you might be interested in attending. Go to the berkman.org website, and there's a description of the Food for Thought dinners. Sign up sheet. And last but not least, as you can tell from the program, the first day today is reasonably scripted. We have four major sessions on different dimensions of the future of the Internet. Tomorrow, second day is much less scripted.  You're going to get more information as we go along today about the mechanics of proposing, advertising, and gathering people for these spontaneously produced breakout sessions. So that's the plan for the conference. If we're successful, we will first recruit Jonathan, second, have some fun, and third and most importantly, learn much concerning how we should be spending our time during the next decade. So, without further ado, let me turn over the mic now to Charlie Nesson, the founder and guru of the Center, who will add his welcome, and then we will take up Jonathan's great book. Charlie. I am Eon, Dean of Cyberspace. Welcome to Berkman at 10. I am personally so renowned that I need no introduction, but perhaps you need to know something about our next speaker. Charles Nesson is the Weld Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He was raised to be a real estate tax lawyer, but somewhere along the line he took a left turn. Professor Nesson has come to stand for the deepest values of the net, openness, individual freedom, and the inalienable right to make mischief.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Charles Nesson. Just a few words from me. I want to thank everyone for coming here today, and especially those who were here from the beginning. I mentioned Eric Wiseman, Tom Smuts, Dave Marglin, John Zittron, John Perry Barlow, Larry Lessig, Alex and Wendy, Miles Berkman, Fern, Eric. Welcome. This group that came together just somehow formed an explosive nucleus that went boom, and here we are 10 years later. We're here to talk about the future of the net. My vision of the future of the net is the same as the vision I enunciated 10 years ago. Cyberspace is an integrated media realm of stories told and shared by digitally connected and enabled hearts and minds. We are the future of the internet. We are a good story. We live it, we tell it. Let us make our stories represent our values. Open code, open access, open talk, open education. Let us continue to build Berkman Center, build Harvard Law School, build Harvard University, build university, build it so that it reaches all the way to the prisons of Kingston and other places around the world which are beyond our current digital divide. So I'm totally excited about what can come out of the next two days. We are the future of the net. Welcome. Thank you for coming.


We examined the use of the Green-Red Vegetation Index, GRVI, as a phenological indicator for multiple ecosystems in Japan. Our findings suggest that GRVI equals 0 can be used as a reliable threshold for detecting the early stages of leaf growth and the middle phases of autumn coloring. Additionally, we observed that GRVI can provide a clear distinction between different ecosystem types and respond to subtle disturbances. This article is authored by Takashi Motoka, Kenlo Nishida Nasahara, Satoshi Sachida, and others.


People don't need what you have. You're not going to get clients, right? So first of all, fill the need. I work with people and my bonus to them is strategy calls. Well, we all don't have a book yet really because it's a blank page that it is ours to fill. You know, hire someone who's going to take you to the next step with grace and ease so you can do your brilliance out in the world. A best-selling book is so important because it improves your personal credibility. Really, it is so magical when you say, I'm the author of a book. Being an author suddenly causes people to look at you, at each of us, as an expert. You can be an extrovert, an introvert. You can be a combo platter. You can be any type of person to have a unique voice in order to do that and become a best-selling author. You wouldn't have the dream without the power to make it come true. You are listening to the Ideas to Income Teller Summit. To listen more and join the conversation, visit IdeasToIncomeLive.com. See you in the Facebook group.


A lot of mainstream and even some heterodox scholarship on development is reduced to a kind of technical problem that we need to fix, whereas dependency theorists always saw that there was a problem of power inequality, that you needed to understand power dynamics in order to understand both inequalities within the periphery, but also of course power inequalities within the global economy. My name is Ingrid Harveld-Quangraven and I'm a lecturer at King's College London. So in our new book, Decolonizing Economics and Introduction, Karolina Alves, David Cadet and Serbik Khazar and I are analyzing how the economics field became Eurocentric and remains Eurocentric and we identify how to challenge this and how you can have a south-centered theory. And dependency theory is one way of doing this or one tradition that does take the south as a starting point for theorization. So this could be one avenue to challenge your centrism in the field. So what is dependency theory is actually quite a complicated question. Dependency is a situation where an economy is conditioned by the expansion or development of another economy. This opens up for a range of different kinds of theorizations and approaches to dependency. Like what does it mean to be conditioned? How did the conditioning happen historically? And what are the implications of this conditioning? How do you get out of it? That's the kind of starting point of dependency, that there are these economies in the periphery, as the dependency theorists called it, that are conditioned by being a part of the global economy with center countries as well. So within this, Teotonia de Santa, this was a Marxist, there were a lot of Marxists writing about this in the 70s. There were also structuralists as well and institutionalists, so there were actually really big debates and disagreements about what dependency theory is or was. The dependency theory in many ways was a reaction to theories that were put forward in the global north, modernization theory, developmentalist theory. Also some varieties of Marxist theory, Eurocentric Marxist theory. So what the dependency theorists, how they were theorizing was building on this but rejecting kind of Eurocentrism. So you had anti-colonial, anti-imperialist Marxism. You had structuralists that took dependency into account. You had institutionalists as well. So those are the main theoretical strands within the tradition. So I think dependency theory has a bit of a reputational problem, because of the name of the tradition, dependency theory, and that's what led me to try to identify what is the core of the tradition, what are the strengths of the tradition. So what I then identify as the strengths of all of these different theoretical traditions that see dependency in different ways is, first of all, that they all take a global historical approach and look at the development of capitalism, how it interacts with colonialism and how this leads to very different differently structured economies in the periphery compared to the center countries. And then the second one is that they theorize about how capitalism tends to be polarizing or the unevenness of capitalist development. So that's also important because it moves away from just describing what's going on in the periphery to actually theorizing so that we can explain and understand. The third is that they focus on structures of production, so it moves away from a lot of the development literature that looks at just culture or education or institutions to really look at how is production organized, what are the social relations and how is this a part of the global economy. Finally, there is the focus on the particularities of the countries in the periphery and the particular constraints that they face. So this is about theorizing from the vantage point of the periphery or the global south, which was very, very important in the 70s. As I said, the dependency theory is kind of a reaction to what they saw as Eurocentric theorizing in the north. A lot of mainstream social theory tended to see the development of capitalism as something that was peaceful, that was endogenous to Europe, that happened because of scientific advancements, the enlightenment, hard work, and then swept away everything that had to do with colonialism or the slave trade, which led to a very distorted view of how capitalism operates. But the problem, of course, for the dependency theorist was not just that this sort of theory existed in terms of trying to understand Europe. A lot of these social theorists universalized these ideas to expect universal laws to apply to countries across the world. So in that sense, it's a really important aspect of dependency theory that most of them were based in the global south and they saw things from the perspective of the global south. So this is also a tradition that can help us to try to challenge Eurocentrism in economic theory today. Those four features distinguish dependency theory and define dependency theory, but probably within each of the four, you see a stark difference with the mainstream. So the historical approach is very different from an equilibrium approach, for example, what's often common in development economics is to try to identify relationships based on cross-country regressions, so therefore removing the historical specificities. The gold standard in development economics now is to just do experiments, to try to see how behavior affects different developmental outcomes, and that also is starkly different from a global historical approach that tries to understand how development problems are historically specific to the periphery or different countries in the periphery. And then the structures of production also is very different from some parts of the mainstream at least that tend to focus more on culture education institutions. So it leads to very different kinds of questions and a different focus. And then the polarizing tendencies of capitalism is, of course, very different from this view that there would be convergence, which is still dominant in a lot of theorizing today that assumes that eventually countries will and can catch up. But you can see that there are some clubs of countries that have been able to catch up to a certain extent. And there are some countries that have been able to move from the periphery to the center, but very, very few. There's like South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore that have made this leap. So generally we see that there's still very large unevenness, that the world is still more or less divided into center and periphery. And then finally, of course, the constraints to development that are particular to the periphery are incredibly important in terms of rejecting this idea that developing countries are just late-comers, that they're like a pre-image of what the advanced countries are today, that they can just use the same policies, that they're like smaller versions of an industrialized country. So that's also a big difference from mainstream theory. A lot of mainstream and even some heterodox scholarship on development, development is reduced to a kind of technical problem that we need to fix. Whereas dependency theorists always saw that there was a problem of power inequality, that you needed to understand power dynamics in order to understand both inequalities within the periphery, but also, of course, power inequalities within the global economy. It's quite common in a lot of development literature and in history of thought to argue that things have changed so drastically since the 70s that dependency theory is no longer relevant. So you have the fragmentation of global value chains, which has led to manufacturing spreading to the periphery. You have financialization, you have the rise of China, you have the East Asian Tigers that managed to develop within capitalism. If you think of dependency theory as a research program, it is highly relevant. Actually, I argue that actually dependency theory as a research program can explain exactly these changes in a very fruitful way and draw attention to certain aspects that you might not see if you don't take a dependency approach. So for example, we could start with a global value chains. And it's a common misconception that dependency theorists argued that the periphery was poor because they were exporting raw materials and the center was rich because they were exporting manufactured goods. Actually, the dependency theorists were looking at what kind of production is going on, what are the potential for spillover effects, what are the potential for technological development, how is this integrated into the wider labor markets and the wider economy and of course also the global economy. So they were concerned not simply with what is the export, but what the characteristics are more broadly. So therefore when you see a lot of countries in the periphery moving into global value chains, this approach to thinking about the characteristics of production or the structures of production can draw our attention to the fact that the parts of the global value chain that move to the global south tend to be low value added, very little opportunity for technological upgrading. From a dependency perspective, you can kind of understand that while you might think that spread of manufacturing to the whole world would lead to some kind of rebalancing of the economies, actually what we see is continued polarization. Innovation and technological development remains highly concentrated in the center countries and it seems more and more difficult for countries to upgrade. Paying attention to power and the constraints peripheral countries face can help us understand why global value chains are not this amazing road to development and it is also quite different to the traditional approach to global value chains or the mainstream approach to global value chains, which tends to focus on the firm. Like what can the firm do in order to upgrade or what kind of industrial policy would be good for a firm to be able to upgrade, which again reduces development to this technical aspect and brushes away all the power dynamics and problems that have to do with the other unevenness of capitalism and the high concentration of innovation. So the other thing, of course, that has led people to say that dependency theory is irrelevant is the transition of some countries to center status, global north status, developed status. But if you think of dependency theory as a research program, I argue that actually you can even understand the development of a country like South Korea better, even though that is something that is a transition from periphery to the center. Dependency theories did not say that it's impossible to make that transition, that it's impossible to develop within capitalism. What they drew attention to was how extremely difficult it is because of the way their economies had historically developed and particular constraints. So if you look at South Korea in contrast to the mainstream, the miracle is often explained by looking at domestic policies or market-based policies. And in the heterodoxy, it's often explained by the developmental state. But a dependency theory approach would actually look at, okay, how did capitalism develop in South Korea and what was the role of colonialism? South Korea was colonized by Japan, which was colonizing Korea on the way to try to conquer China. And actually Japan integrated the South Korean economy with its own, which led to industrialization actually in South Korea. Korean businessmen were incorporated into the structures of industry at the time during colonialism rather than subordinated, which is extremely different from how colonialism operated in African countries, other Asian countries, and in Latin America. There was a lot more sort of establishment of just extractivism. So this industrial development laid the foundations for what was later than to become the developmental states where South Korea was allowed to implement a lot of trade policies, industrial policies, that were not encouraged by other countries in the periphery at the time. And South Korea, of course, this is one of the problems that dependency theorists pointed to, is that if you want to industrialize as a peripheral economy, you are basically more or less doomed to run trade deficits, which is a really difficult to finance for a country in the periphery. But South Korea got lots of external financing from the US and Japan. And this had to do with its geopolitical location, strategic geopolitical location next to the threat, the communist threat of North Korea. So again, we're back to kind of power dynamics and the particular historical and political situation of South Korea led some of these constraints that were there for most peripheral countries. Taking this kind of dependency approach to understanding South Korea could actually help us kind of give a richer picture of how it managed to develop and also why it's so incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to replicate that exact model. I think in a world today where we see incredible inequalities in terms of average incomes, in terms of ability to finance development, in terms of differences in monetary autonomy, a dependency theory research program can really help to understand and challenge these inequalities and try to think of ways to overcome these inequalities. And I think that it's very fruitful. And actually, dependency theory is getting a lot more traction recently. There's been a lot more publications within a dependency theory tradition, I think because a lot of scholars and students are seeing that these inequalities are so durable and persistent. So in a sense, I think that dependency theory has a positive future that it can help us explain things and also there's more room now in maybe not in economics, but in other social sciences to use dependency theory, which for political reasons was for a long time undermined, marginalised. There is a problem of Eurocentrism in economic theory, especially after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. The economics field has also going through this reckoning that field can't grapple with racial inequalities, the field can't grapple with imperialism, which is a reckoning that a lot of other social science fields had in the 70s and 80s. Now, economics is a latecomer, but that's a good thing. That's an opening and dependency theory is a tradition that can help to open up avenues for understanding inequalities that have to do with colonialism and racial inequalities. So that's also another reason why dependency theory might gain some more traction in the future.


You undeniably know that our son spent $70,000 on child pornography is what you're saying. How do you know this? Have you seen this happen? You saw it you watched our son watch child pornography Sir You watched our son watch child pornography $70,000 worth Cotton 4k Listen y'all we're in the middle of a sub-a-thon and Right now it's 45 seconds per sub if you all want a tier one It's only five dollars if y'all want an Amazon Prime then y'all can go ahead and Amazon Prime. That's free. That's free y'all Y'all I know y'all got your Amazon Prime's you're sitting on them. Go ahead and link that up to your But the new person we've had a grand auto community update covers a lot of GTA news yada yada yada Um Where where is it? Can somebody link it to me the proper? gameplay reveal. Why would they already have Twitch poker celebrity showdown I Always get kind of like Monka s as I scroll down farther and farther into just chatting though because Chances are it's like I'm just gonna come across something and I'm like why the hell is this even on twitch? Okay, well, that's okay. I just found it.   What's up? Okay media share these nuts. Do we have the nuts? I just turned on the radio So, dude, I am so happy that the the audio glitch got fixed That has been a bug on my stream for two years and I didn't know how to fix it Whenever somebody tier three subs you guys remember how it goes Right before it does the thing Can't even mind I Swear, I thought it was fixed Are you serious?  You're gonna turn this brothel into a physical rehabilitation center Hold on if I own the place is it free?  That's what I am senior captain I'm out there doing the Lord's work every day. That's what I do Have at yourself man. What's your name, man? What's your name? No, I ain't never heard of you. How'd you get such a whoa? Deep voice say what was that? Um, I Don't know where to start acts. You have a store What do you mean? Because oh, so it doesn't say good business Yeah, the way you said it was funny, I Don't know why it was just like you're the pacing of how I said was funny You got to sell something else Yeah So guns Yeah, so you would probably get a lot of business because not a lot of your so guns oh See, this is great whenever lyrics playing a new variety game. I know I need to copy it Thanks, you see man. Oh, dude. This is what I was saying. I could see popping off To go or to go. Oh chat guys. We're gonna play our to go. Oh heck. Yeah There's some Sundays are a great day for me because I get six new games for the week That's something oh You want me to search you have a weapon on you. Well, ma'am. This is serious. Please step down off the damn chair hands against the wall hands against wall Okay, ma'am Okay, there seems to be nothing here Okay, we're gonna have to check you make sure that everything's okay There's a Seem to be clear. Okay. I don't know what that is But you can't you can't be making jokes about carrying weapons. Okay? You know, we don't want nothing bad to happen.  And I respect it because I used to green screen everybody else's backgrounds as well Chad, do you want to do something we've never done before you guys are gonna watch LSF Chat what's this video? Get cutie a cat no shot.   You feel big tough guy just horn What are you doing?  I would dodge it right now. Oh, yeah Yeah Did you punch nope? I did now. There you go. Okay. She's out of there. Okay final round. Let's do this All right, this is a Super Bowl caliber team. Okay, we're close. We're close We have some balls that we got a coach. We have basically no pass rush You know I've tolerated a lot from you moving the team from Houston to Austin against my suggestion Refusing to change quarterback Refusing to draft receivers today. However, it was my final straw.  I've had enough I've been a Houston native all my life.  This woman in the car with me He's a bad allergies. Do you have a shirt? Oh?  Gesundheit What what what does that stand for is that like the YMCA what like an acute triangle Blessing bless you ma'am at any time soon. So what I have to talk with them that do in order to put a high security on your Accounts and how we can hold this these transactions. Okay? So let us pray Dear Lord Jesus Christ Like to pray that you please keep our transaction safe. I meant that our hackers and Illegal foreign hackers will not be able to go into our bank account and be able to steal our money in our Hard-earned work that we've done throughout our many years. I Also pray that you keep everyone safe and Our good friend mr. Wilson over on the other side of the phone Making sure to keep him safe as well and we thank him Lord for Going through and spending his time Voluntarily being such a good person helping us out Jesus name I pray amen Is there anything you'd like to add mr. Wilson before we close the Before we close the direct line Nailed this damn thing Are you sure it was worth it was worth it was worth. Yeah Didn't ever


With the spate of inter-curity in River State and the country at large, stakeholders in the Niger Delta region have come together to prefer possible solutions to the challenges plaguing Nigeria. They spoke intensively and extensively during the roundtable discussion at the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations NIPR in Potakat, River State. They stressed the need for leaders to be apolitical in treating the issues. The keynote speaker, Bobo Sophie Brown, who spoke on the theme, the future of Nigeria Delta in the current security turmoil in Nigeria, emphasized the need for the federal government to look into the current security challenge, noting that Boko Haram is not the only threat in the country. He emphasized the need for the Niger Delta leaders to improve the economy and concentrate only on crude oil exploration. State chairman of the NIPR, Polinos and Serham urged the media to be aware of the roles they play as watchdogs and the society concerning security issues. The federal government, remarkably, does not have a coherent explanation, a coherent report on security challenges in the country. It keeps presenting this as if Boko Haram is our only challenge, whereas the problems have been multiplied. As I pointed out, we have see-by-receive, we have all kinds of gangs fighting for territory to do drugs, to sell minerals in Zamfra. At the end of this meeting, we set a national agenda and then get the conversation and narrative that will help Nigeria as a country to solve the million of security issues. In his past, a lecturer with the Department of Mass Communication River State University, Professor Godwin Okon, called for support of government in the fight against insecurity. He recommended community management as a possible solution to the insecurity challenge. We must have integration of technology and this integration of technology must be born out of expanding facilities and investments in that particular sector because we can no longer fight security using the antics of yesterday. It is not possible. Time to have change. Dynamism rules the world. It is not elderly men, not elderly women that are causing this matter. It is the use, concentration, exactly restlessness in the use to also look at job creation. The keynote speakers digs NIPR to create platforms to allow voices of professional groups and associations to be heard and build strength at the chapter and national level to focus on issues that touch on the economy. And don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.