liber - humanist @ :

take the red pill

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments
What with next year European elections and Brit fate you may do yourself a favour and save the next decade's time for yourself by filling this winter's holidays with these three emergency readings:
Anand Giridharadas: "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" (there's a book behind it)
Jane Mayer - Dark money (there's a book behind it)
Rutger Bregman . Utopia for Realists- The Case for a Universal Basic Income (there's a book behind it)

All of the above on the background discussed here:
Yanis Varufakis with Professor Noam Chomsky at NYPL, April 16, 2016 | DiEM25

Then, meet Bernie.

maybe you want to sign the Manifest for democratization of Europe, or
[work | get along] with DiEM25.

or, briefly, if you aim to live in a free and democratic society, you have to aim for these principles in your country's Constitution:

  1. democratic principle: the personal wealth of each and everybody is limited from above (capped) to an amount equal to a max lifetime of average wages (assuming last year in your national economic system the average wage was 1000 units, your total personal wealth is limited to 130 years*12 months*1000~1.500.000 units).
  2. freedom principle: the society has an obligation to provide to every citizen the minimum wealth necessary to cover the basic living needs (roof, clothes, food, energy, means of communicating).
  3. education, healthcare and free access to research results are mandatory public infrastructure and off-limits to commerce (i.e. paid, in principle, directly from public taxes and not from private investments or acts of private benevolence which may follow the looting)
a society is stable and meaningful only between these two limits of personal wealth and on the infrastructure defined in point 3. debate it with your friends, put facebook/google to work in your favour for once.
in essence these are the parameters which will guide the economy and its modeling, and not the reverse.

Pay attention permanently whom you vote/let in public power: Any politician/bureaucrat who doesn't aim for these three principles explicitly is a demagogue, an impostor or an unevolved chimpanzee in a suit-and-tie, it doesn't deserve your vote=doesn't deserve an income from your trust/efforts/taxes.

See you younger next year!

cartea celor o mie și una de nopți

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments

Cartea celor o mie și una de nopți v.2.2 e disponibilă în format epub, din efortu' generos al unor anonimi.

Pohtim celor ce vor să corecteze/formateze mai departe, sursele (4228 pagini LibreOffice) și scanu cu OCRu' de bază.

Sigur, mai sunt și alții și mai tari.

Apropont, șțȘȚ sunt caracterele românești standard UNICODE, iară nu şţŢŞ, care's caractere folosite'n Turcia și Azerbaijan.

015F ş LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH CEDILLA • Turkish, Azerbaijani, ... • the character 0219 ș should be used instead for Romanian → 0219 ș latin small letter s with comma below

0163 ţ LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH CEDILLA • Semitic transliteration, ... • the character 021B ț should be used instead for Romanian → 021B ț latin small letter t with comma below

Va'zică, folosiți tastatura corectă când (tran)scrieți digital cărțile.

recuperați cărți din epoca socialistă

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments

puneți bă "crimele comunismului" pe web: de ex. toate cărțile editate din să zicem 1970 până'n 1989 au fost "proprietatea întregului popor", apucați'vă și digitizați mai ales alea de știință și tehnică, că nu mai pupați dintr'astea pe gratis.Mai sunt și alea plătite din fonduri publice după 1989.

Pân'atunci, luați exemplu (se poate și mai bine):

În solidaritate cu Library Genesis ( și Sci-hub (

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments

In solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub

In Antoine de Saint Exupéry's tale the Little Prince meets a businessman who accumulates stars with the sole purpose of being able to buy more stars. The Little Prince is perplexed. He owns only a flower, which he waters every day. Three volcanoes, which he cleans every week. "It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use to my flower, that I own them," he says, "but you are of no use to the stars that you own".

There are many businessmen who own knowledge today. Consider Elsevier, the largest scholarly publisher, whose 37% profit margin1 stands in sharp contrast to the rising fees, expanding student loan debt and poverty-level wages for adjunct faculty. Elsevier owns some of the largest databases of academic material, which are licensed at prices so scandalously high that even Harvard, the richest university of the global north, has complained that it cannot afford them any longer. Robert Darnton, the past director of Harvard Library, says "We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices."2 For all the work supported by public money benefiting scholarly publishers, particularly the peer review that grounds their legitimacy, journal articles are priced such that they prohibit access to science to many academics - and all non-academics - across the world, and render it a token of privilege.3

Elsevier has recently filed a copyright infringement suit in New York against Science Hub and Library Genesis claiming millions of dollars in damages.4 This has come as a big blow, not just to the administrators of the websites but also to thousands of researchers around the world for whom these sites are the only viable source of academic materials. The social media, mailing lists and IRC channels have been filled with their distress messages, desperately seeking articles and publications.

Even as the New York District Court was delivering its injunction, news came of the entire editorial board of highly-esteemed journal Lingua handing in their collective resignation, citing as their reason the refusal by Elsevier to go open access and give up on the high fees it charges to authors and their academic institutions. As we write these lines, a petition is doing the rounds demanding that Taylor & Francis doesn't shut down Ashgate5, a formerly independent humanities publisher that it acquired earlier in 2015. It is threatened to go the way of other small publishers that are being rolled over by the growing monopoly and concentration in the publishing market. These are just some of the signs that the system is broken. It devalues us, authors, editors and readers alike. It parasites on our labor, it thwarts our service to the public, it denies us access6.

We have the means and methods to make knowledge accessible to everyone, with no economic barrier to access and at a much lower cost to society. But closed access’s monopoly over academic publishing, its spectacular profits and its central role in the allocation of academic prestige trump the public interest. Commercial publishers effectively impede open access, criminalize us, prosecute our heroes and heroines, and destroy our libraries, again and again. Before Science Hub and Library Genesis there was or Gigapedia; before Gigapedia there was; before there was little; and before there was little there was nothing. That's what they want: to reduce most of us back to nothing. And they have the full support of the courts and law to do exactly that.7

In Elsevier's case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: "simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest"8. Alexandra Elbakyan's original plea put the stakes much higher: "If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge."

We demonstrate daily, and on a massive scale, that the system is broken. We share our writing secretly behind the backs of our publishers, circumvent paywalls to access articles and publications, digitize and upload books to libraries. This is the other side of 37% profit margins: our knowledge commons grows in the fault lines of a broken system. We are all custodians of knowledge, custodians of the same infrastructures that we depend on for producing knowledge, custodians of our fertile but fragile commons. To be a custodian is, de facto, to download, to share, to read, to write, to review, to edit, to digitize, to archive, to maintain libraries, to make them accessible. It is to be of use to, not to make property of, our knowledge commons.

More than seven years ago Aaron Swartz, who spared no risk in standing up for what we here urge you to stand up for too, wrote: "We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?"9

We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices.

Dušan Barok, Josephine Berry, Bodó Balázs, Sean Dockray, Kenneth Goldsmith, Anthony Iles, Lawrence Liang, Sebastian Lütgert, Pauline van Mourik Broekman, Marcell Mars, spideralex, Tomislav Medak, Dubravka Sekulić, Femke Snelting...

  1. Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” PLoS ONE 10, no. 6 (June 10, 2015): e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.,
    The Obscene Profits of Commercial Scholarly Publishers.” Accessed November 30, 2015.  
  2. Sample, Ian. “Harvard University Says It Can’t Afford Journal Publishers’ Prices.” The Guardian, April 24, 2012, sec. Science.  
  3. Academic Paywalls Mean Publish and Perish - Al Jazeera English.” Accessed November 30, 2015.  
  4. Sci-Hub Tears Down Academia’s ‘Illegal’ Copyright Paywalls.” TorrentFreak. Accessed November 30, 2015.  
  5. Save Ashgate Publishing.” Accessed November 30, 2015.  
  6. The Cost of Knowledge.” Accessed November 30, 2015.  
  7. In fact, with the TPP and TTIP being rushed through the legislative process, no domain registrar, ISP provider, host or human rights organization will be able to prevent copyright industries and courts from criminalizing and shutting down websites "expeditiously".  
  8. Court Orders Shutdown of Libgen, Bookfi and Sci-Hub.” TorrentFreak. Accessed November 30, 2015.  
  9. Guerilla Open Access Manifesto.” Internet Archive. Accessed November 30, 2015.  

All of the above quoted from custodians online.


All the europeans caring about public knowledge staying public, please contact your nearest euro-parlamentarian, local senator etc. and ask them to sign a law as long as one phrase:

the results of publicly financed scientific research belong to the public domain


din crimele comunismului

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments

Inspirat de producția genunilor gândirii românescu pre numele ei "O idee care ne sucește mințile", am decis să dau în gât câteva din crimele comunismului, iacătă'le:

Cartea celor o mie și una de nopți (~1000): .pdf, .epub

Rss feed of the category