“"These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life," Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told the Daily Mail. "No-one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence." Grayling’s comments come in direct response to the recent online harassment of television presenter Chloe Madeley, who was subjected to rape threats after her mother appeared on the ITV network talk show Loose Women to discuss soccer star and convicted rapist Ched Evans.”
The government—and thus, taxpayers—give a surprising amount of money to elite private colleges, a lot of which is hard to see because it comes in the form of tax deductions like Whitman’s. Equally hard to see, and perhaps even more lucrative, is that the federal government doesn’t tax the income that universities earn on their billion-dollar endowments. Some of these deductions exist to promote research; others exist because colleges, as institutions, make commitments to serve the public good.
When taking these tax exemptions into account, far more government money per student is going toward selective private schools than to less-selective public schools. According to Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, the average amount of money that the government gives to public universities is less than $4,000 per student, and the average amount it effectively gives to Princeton, for example, is more than $50,000 per student.
In other words, Google simply cannot do evil so long as it believes it is not doing evil. It’s a wonderful image to present to the world—that of a benign, even benevolent corporation striving only for its users, to whom it provides services free. But it also means that Google has effectively redefined what “evil” means. It is whatever Google thinks it means.
Don’t take my word for it. As Eric Schmidt told Wired way back in 2003, “Evil is what Sergey [Brin] says is evil.”
Verizon has a ”strong view that the legacy regulatory regime” for cable companies “should not apply to [Web-based] video services or providers and could be fatal to such services,” Leora Hochstein, Verizon’s executive director of federal regulatory affairs, wrote in the filing.
The FCC is mulling whether to expand its traditional cable rules to some types of online TV.
Book sales depend crucially on buzz and word of mouth (which is why authors are often sent on grueling book tours); you buy a book because you’ve heard about it, because other people are reading it, because it’s a topic of conversation, because it’s made the best-seller list. And what Amazon possesses is the power to kill the buzz. It’s definitely possible, with some extra effort, to buy a book you’ve heard about even if Amazon doesn’t carry it — but if Amazon doesn’t carry that book, you’re much less likely to hear about it in the first place.
So can we trust Amazon not to abuse that power? The Hachette dispute has settled that question: no, we can’t.
The agreement comes against the backdrop of a bitter fight between the retailer and another major publisher, Hachette. Amazon told Hachette it wanted e-books to be cheaper while also reportedly seeking a greater share of the revenue from each sale. The negotiations were widely viewed by traditional publishers as an attempt to establish a new benchmark that would increasingly diminish their roles.
Simon & Schuster, however, seems to have struck a deal it feels it can live with. It will generally be able to set its own prices for its e-books, said the person, who declined to be named. Nor does it seem to be surrendering too much on margin.
Kevin Smith, a scholarly-communications officer at Duke University, argued in a blog post that even though the publishers had revived their case, the appeals court had ruled against them on several important points:
The court agreed that potential copyright violations should be addressed on an “item by item” basis, rather than a “big picture” approach that would probably require Georgia State to purchase a “blanket license” to post e-reserve materials.
The court agreed that when evaluating whether e-reserve copying counts as fair use, it should be relevant that university libraries are nonprofit, educational institutions.
The court rejected the lower court’s “10 percent rule,” which drew a bright line on how much of a copyrighted work the university could make available free. The appellate judges instead advocated for “a more flexible approach that takes into account the amount appropriate for the pedagogical purpose.”
The court agreed that if a publisher had not made it possible for libraries to license excerpts of a copyrighted work, then libraries do not harm the market for the publisher’s products by copying the desired excerpts and making them freely available.
“These losses, which constitute the heart of what the publishers were hoping to achieve when they brought the lawsuit, are probably final,” wrote Mr. Smith.
“When intellectual property law experts cannot agree, we should not expect our history and math faculty to do justice to the fair use analysis each time. Instead, faculty will divide into two camps. One group will “throw caution to the wind” and use whatever content they wish in whatever form they desire, hoping never to raise the ire of the publishing companies. The other, out of an abundance of caution, will self-censor, and fail to make fair use of content for fear that they might step over a line they cannot possibly identify, and can never be certain of until a judge rules one way or the other. Either way, our students and the publishers lose out.”
“If memories adjust to current context when evoked, then they become a part of the developmental process rather than a record of the past. This makes studying childhood more difficult, but it refocuses us on the importance and fascination of development itself. Rather than try to relate events recalled during a specific moment of adult retrospection to an adult’s sexual desire as assessed during that moment of recall, we need to take multiple dips into a set of children’s lives to examine a wider variety of boyhoods, girlhoods, and developing identities as they emerge and evolve in real time.”
“Over the next twenty years the earth is predicted to add another two billion people. Having nearly exhausted nature’s ability to feed the planet, we now need to discover a new food system. The global climate will continue to change. To save our coastlines, and maintain acceptable living conditions for more than a billion people, we need to discover new science, engineering, design, and architectural methods, and pioneer economic models that sustain their implementation and maintenance. Microbiological threats will increase as our traditional techniques of anti-microbial defense lead to greater and greater resistances, and to thwart these we must discover new approaches to medical treatment, which we can afford, and implement in ways that incite compliance and good health. The many rich and varied human cultures of the earth will continue to mix, more rapidly than they ever have, through mass population movements and unprecedented information exchange, and to preserve social harmony we need to discover new cultural referents, practices, and environments of cultural exchange. In such conditions the futures of law, medicine, philosophy, engineering, and agriculture – with just about every other field – are to be rediscovered. Americans need to learn how to discover.”