Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Even in his first essays in the sixties, the author's approach to reading, interpreting and commenting on culture could already be seen as that of a semiotician who had not yet adopted the technical jargon of the discipline. In fact, it would not be too far-fetched to consider the Eco of the sixties as essentially a young Adso (see the discussions on reading signs betwen William and Adso in The Name of the Rose) ready to learn about semiotics from the right mentor. We must also remember that as soon as Eco no longer feels satisfied by the early writings of French semioticians and structuralists like Barthes and Levi-Strauss, he turns to the studies of Jakobson and Peirce on the science of signs.

Also, few intellectuals can match Eco's great interdisciplinary skills.

In general, Eco's critics (most of them academic) have suggested that he is successful because he publishes trendy books.

The goal of the study is to determine whether Polish sci-fi fan fiction is promiscuous or puritan. To what extent are fannish creations sexual – do fans write erotica?

When considering the topic in more detail one should begin with paying attention to a problem I have mentioned previously - the inability of Polish fans to describe what they created. As I have signaled fan fiction is not labeled in any way and Polish fans are not aware of the existence of specific terminology that would allow them to put their writing in order. Of course because of the specific history of Polish fandom we cannot apply Western rules to Polish fans. It is not my purpose then to compare different regions.

Does this indicate that Polish fans are puritan? Although an analysis of terminology is a good starting point it is definitely too soon to establish this. One cannot say anything about sex in fan fiction in Poland only on the basis of terms, especially because a comparison to Western fans is not recommended.

peer review alone is not capable of coping with the increasing flood of scientific information being generated and shared. I make arguments to show that providing sufficient proof for scientific findings does scale and weakens the tragedy of the trusted source cascade.

The relationships that people have with other animals are important in determining how they will behave to animals.

We found that the relationships depend on the familiarity with individuals and species in general, and the perceived functions and roles of the animals. When asked what are the most familiar kinds of animals, overall 41% said dogs, 23% cats, 13% cows, 6% birds, 5% pigs, 4% chickens, 3% fish, 2% tortoise, with 2% other mammals and 1% beetles.

They viewed the question in terms of the species, but pet owners interpreted it more as individuals.

Jonathan M. Barnett, What’s So Bad About Stealing? The paper skips straight to the proposition that any kind of unauthorized copying (including copying of ideas and expression, but also and of more present interest mechanical reproduction) is theft, then concludes that “Some positive level of tolerated theft is an essential component of any transaction structure that maximizes the social wealth generated by creative production.” I don’t quite understand how you can call copying theft without first establishing that the copied thing is owned.

What really struck me here about the language of theft (second-comer side), rather than the more apparently neutral language of property (first-comer side), was the ways in which it highlights that intellectual property isn’t about theft.

This paper is also another datum for my theory that copyright restrictionists like to talk about “readers” and maximalists like “users.” Or anyway, they like to use that name for them.