Aretha Franklin // A Rose Is Still A Rose ft. Lauryn Hill
This is a single written and produced by Lauryn Hill and recorded and released by singer Aretha Franklin off the album of the same name. Written by Hill for Franklin, the song is feminist-based, focused on a motherly figure giving advice to a younger woman who keeps getting into bad relationships. Throughout the song, Franklin advises that in spite of everything and despite the woman’s “scorned roses and thorn crowns” that the woman is “still a rose”.
I picked this up in the dollar section today while I was crate digging.
As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.
Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.
We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld. As part of that transparency, we’ve expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page, http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter.
“In the face of a valid and applicable legal order,” a Twitter spokeswoman tells TechPresident’s Nick Judd, “the choice facing services is between global removal of content with no notice to the user, or a transparent, targeted approach where the content is removed only in the country in question.”
I was (briefly) a guest on a BBC World Service radio program this morning discussing Obama’s state of the union speech and income inequality in general. To my mind, this has always been a no-brainer. My argument is: we’ve done this experiment (of lowering taxes on the rich) twice now, once in the 1920’s and again in the 1980’s (and doubled-down in 2000). We have also done the control experiment. Between 1945 and 1980 top marginal tax rates in the U.S. ranged from 70 to 90%.
The results are clear: high marginal rates correlate with broad-based economic prosperity and an expanding middle class. Low marginal rates correlate with extreme income inequality, reduced prosperity overall, and ultimately, economic catastrophe.
En Flandre, les discussions à propos de la grève de lundi prochain font rage sur les réseaux sociaux.Le paradoxe, c’est que c’est l’ABVV, la FGTB flamande qui est à l’origine de toute cette agitation. Elle a mis en place une stratégie de communication tout azimut pour mobiliser en vue de la grève…
“Les experts désignés par la Cour de justice de la République ont rendu leur rapport : les terrains forestiers et l’hippodrome de Compiègne cédés par l’ex-ministre du budget l’ont été pour moins du tiers de leur valeur. La mise en examen d’Eric Woerth devient presque inévitable.”—Eric Woerth a bien bradé l’hippodrome de Compiègne | Mediapart
At issue for critics is a publisher-backed bill in the US Congress called the The Research Works Act. The bill would give publishers increased copyright control over publicly financed research and the papers and data that come from it.
The USA’s main funding agency for health-related research is the National Institutes of Health, with a $30bn annual budget. The NIH has a public access policy that says taxpayer-funded research must be freely accessible online. This means that members of the public, having paid once to have the research done, don’t have to pay for it again when they read it – a wholly reasonable policy, and one with enormous humanitarian implications because it means the results of medical research are made freely available around the world…
…But what’s good for science isn’t necessarily good for science publishers, whose interests have drifted far out of alignment with ours. Under the old model, publishers become the owners of the papers they publish, holding the copyright and selling copies around the world – a useful service in pre-internet days. But now that it’s a trivial undertaking to make a paper globally available, there is no reason why scientists need yield copyright to publishers.
And so we turn our sites over to the New York Times as they profile the “open science” movement that bypasses the traditional academic publishing workflow in favor of releasing research on various sites for early and immediate peer review and distribution:
Dr. [Michael] Nielsen and other advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction.
Open-access archives and journals like arXiv and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years. GalaxyZoo, a citizen-science site, has classified millions of objects in space, discovering characteristics that have led to a raft of scientific papers.
On the collaborative blog MathOverflow, mathematicians earn reputation points for contributing to solutions; in another math experiment dubbed the Polymath Project, mathematicians commenting on the Fields medalist Timothy Gower’s blog in 2009 found a new proof for a particularly complicated theorem in just six weeks.
And a social networking site called ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity.
If open science sounds a lot like open source, I think that’s part of the point. Online collaboration and peer production disrupts a legacy industry while simultaneously launching something new. To date, venture capital from the same funders of Facebook, Twitter and eBay is beginning to fund these projects, according to the Times.