Thanks, fixed. No idea why I typed that...
interesting, they all worked when I wrote the post. now routed around...
I hate it when people get this wrong. I hate it even more when I do. Thanks for spotting it.
Thanks for providing that interesting context.
Yes, you're right, and the (long) original article makes that clear. But for BestNetTech, I concentrated on the software angle because of the wider point about today's software.
You're right - that was an edit fail on my part - thanks for pointing it out. Now fixed.
The visually-impaired are clearly a "special case" regardless of numbers. To argue otherwise is callous in the extreme, and unworthy of elected officials.
The problem is not the legality, but this:
https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/07/eus-proposed-link-tax-would-still-harm-creative-commons-licensors/
Separate story coming up on that...
Yes, I know about Hindawi, which is why I linked to the Wikipedia entry, which explores those issues, rather than to the publisher's own site. And Elsevier is still relevant, however much people may regret that fact.
Here's some data relevant to that post:
https://twitter.com/Preprints_org/status/974252604338458624
You're right, it should be "Deisel". Not sure how that happened...
if they can get enough money, then winning cases should be straightforward.
Yes, I would guess because of brexit - it's not clear to what extent UK will follow EU privacy laws.
Warning: posts may contain small parts and sarcasm.
See also:
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.nl/2016/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-ttip-as-told-in-51.html
How stupid of me - sorry about that. Added.
Thanks for the link to Schneier's useful comments. Back then people were pretty sure about what the NSA was up to; after Snowden, they were completely sure...
Thanks, fixed. We've mentioned his work several times before.
Thanks, fixed.