\nWell, it’s been a few weeks since the last batch of links. I hope that you’ve all got quite a bit of time to read through these … but, if not, well, have a look through the various sections and pick the issue of your interest. If I had to pick a “top 10” for you to read right this minite, though, I’d probably choose these (not in any order):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nCensorship<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I didn’t know whether to put the “free bieber” (link 10) issue into Censorship or into Copyright \/ Patent. Basically, though, the site shouldn’t be subject to copyright because it’s a “fair use” of the man’s name (it’s … satire, I guess). Yet, Bieber is trying to get the site shut down, claiming it infringes him somehow. I think that it’s a nice illustration of how media works towards censorship, and how copyright \/ patent law has become really just censorship, when it comes down to it.\n<\/p>\n \nCopyright \/ Patent<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Link 9 is quite interesting: the Library of Congress is wondering how to break Digital Rights Management, so that they can preserve content for the future. Unlike paper books, which can be accessed however you’d like and generally last quite awhile, content provided electronically is only accessible through some device, and is frequently locked to<\/i> a particular device through the use of DRM. That means that your “book” is, effectively, dead after a few years. That’s probably something which doesn’t bother you, but it certainly bothers those who worry about preserving things for the future! Ahh, links 17 and 18 provide some entertainment (somebody’s patented the use of a laser-pointer for exercising your cat) and a bit of insight into the entertainment industry’s misuse of the legal system. Perhaps we should call this section, the misuse \/ abuse of technology, hmm?\n<\/p>\n \nEducation<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Link 1 is some entertainment, link 2 questions the realities of higher education as it’s being done today, and link 3 … well, I guess if you want a scholarship in the U.S., the government would like you to spy on folks. Yay.\n<\/p>\n \nGender<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is by no means a happy bunch of links, although Germany seems to be making some inroads into the issue of gender equality, or at least they’re talking about it (links 3 and 4). Link 1 is, of course, all about the gender lies we’re fed via the entertainment industry from the earliest age. The rest, well, present a conflicting picture of the world today, with some evidence that things are getting better, while simultaneously getting much much worse.\n<\/p>\n \nHacktivism<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Link 4 has to be about the most entertaining link in the bunch, here. Basically, it’s a projector with some sensors attached, mounted on a tripod. It looks like a camera, but senses the flashes of nearby cameras and then projects—at very high speed, so it’s not evident to the person taking the flash photograph—some alternate image or text. It’s kinda creepy, and I’d probably quite upset if somebody ruined a shot of mine with something like this, but … well, it’s also kinda interesting and I’d like to think about how to use such technology.\n<\/p>\n \nHolocaust<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \nIsrael \/ Palestine<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Again, no happiness in this section. I’m particularly disgusted by the U.S. stance on the issue (link 2). I guess that, in my ideal world, politicians would have a modicum of ethics and humanity as a requirement, and that there certainly doesn’t seem to be much of that surrounding the Israel \/ Palestine issue.\n<\/p>\n \nLaw<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Links 3 and 4 popped onto the radar as of the 24th of October and, within a week, the U.S. Government was backpedalling as quickly as they could (link 9) under pressure from activists. It’s a small win, but also disappointing that such a thing was even suggested. There are several happy things in here such as the courts actually considering that bad law can have a bad effect upon people (link 6) and the courts revisiting an earlier ruling which made it a crime to violate workplace “computer use” policies (link 7).\n<\/p>\n \nMiscellany<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I wonder: if the NHS allows doctors known to be bad to remain working within the system, does that open the NHS to more malpractice lawsuits? Just a thought (link 2). Not that lawsuits would improve things, but perhaps it’s something they need to think about.\n<\/p>\n \nMuseum \/ Library \/ Archive<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Link 2: some people will do anything. I guess, though, that if you’re dying and want to donate your body to science, well … no, I just can’t see wanting to be mummified.\n<\/p>\n \nOpen Source \/ Access<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n This category is sort-of a hodge-podge, considering that the open-source movement is a bit different than the open-access movement. Add in the open-data movement and, well, it’s all a bit of a tangle. Open Source is about software: making it free and accessible, and making it work as part of a community. Open Access is about letting information be free and accessible. Open Data is about granting people access to the information companies hold about them. I guess, then, that the common thread could be said to be “community” and “openness.” We’ll see where they end up.\n<\/p>\n \nPolitics<\/b>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n