Suchergebnisse

Since the beginning of the 18th century, society in Russia has evolved very rapidly. Russia's arrival in the European political landscape changed international relations as European nations learned to count with this new player. This new status also brought forth profound changes in Russian cultural behaviours: as the taste for the theater as an exclusive, enlightened form of entertainment grew among the Russian elite, its members started to share with their European counterparts a common culture and an interest in debating the role, impact and evolution of drama. Periodicals, which appeared and spread in Russia almost at the same period, were quickly identified as an exceptional means to communicate and facilitate these exchanges. They enabled both the quick transmission of the latest pieces of information and the diffusion of the background elements necessary to the reader's general knowledge – specifically by procuring them with the references considered as essential to participate in the ongoing discussions. They also helped with building networks of journalists and zones of intertextuality, which opened the virtual discussion on an international scale.We wish to shed light on a corpus of press articles relating to the theater, mostly consisting in Russian articles little read under that angle until now, which were published in a number of journals between 1759 and 1793. The publication of these articles allows us to analyse them in their European context, engaging in a dialogue with their sources and their recipients. We will show how the transfer and the reappropriation of journalistic genres provides contributors with a space to experiment, and also enables readers/critics, who are also potentially the informed spectators of the plays, to educate themselves to new reading practices. This overall approach is compounded by more detailed analysis on how national drama productions are represented in the European press: the respective image of the Russian, French or English theater in corresponding journals ...

Since the beginning of the 18th century, society in Russia has evolved very rapidly. Russia's arrival in the European political landscape changed international relations as European nations learned to count with this new player. This new status also brought forth profound changes in Russian cultural behaviours: as the taste for the theater as an exclusive, enlightened form of entertainment grew among the Russian elite, its members started to share with their European counterparts a common culture and an interest in debating the role, impact and evolution of drama. Periodicals, which appeared and spread in Russia almost at the same period, were quickly identified as an exceptional means to communicate and facilitate these exchanges. They enabled both the quick transmission of the latest pieces of information and the diffusion of the background elements necessary to the reader's general knowledge – specifically by procuring them with the references considered as essential to participate in the ongoing discussions. They also helped with building networks of journalists and zones of intertextuality, which opened the virtual discussion on an international scale.We wish to shed light on a corpus of press articles relating to the theater, mostly consisting in Russian articles little read under that angle until now, which were published in a number of journals between 1759 and 1793. The publication of these articles allows us to analyse them in their European context, engaging in a dialogue with their sources and their recipients. We will show how the transfer and the reappropriation of journalistic genres provides contributors with a space to experiment, and also enables readers/critics, who are also potentially the informed spectators of the plays, to educate themselves to new reading practices. This overall approach is compounded by more detailed analysis on how national drama productions are represented in the European press: the respective image of the Russian, French or English theater in corresponding journals ...

In general Election Day of 2004 proceeded surprisingly smoothly and although some problems were reported, by and large they were best characterized as "no big and lots of littles." In the end, the margins of victory in most races during the 2004 election exceeded the margin of litigation, meaning the trouble that arose in many states would most likely not have changed the outcome. In the immediate aftermath of Election Day, however, a closer look at experiences around the country revealed widespread problems that, while immaterial to the outcome of the election, nonetheless indicate that much remains to be done in the field of election administration – especially with regard to voting technology. Such problems included tabulation for the ranked-choice voting temporarily halted due to the system being unprepared for the high voter turnout, glitches in ballot tabulators causing the machine to start counting backwards or under-counting, over-counting, ballot mix-ups causing voters to cast ballots in the wrong State House race, voting machines being down for hours due to an encoder problem., data transmission problems, possibly caused by human error, ballot counting machines breaking on Election Night, delaying the final. While the reviews were mixed and data on machine performance is still being gathered nationwide, it is nonetheless clear that Election Day 2004 did nothing to change the minds of those who previously had been strongly supporting or opposing the use of paperless voting technology. It is too early to know how machines of any stripes performed versus other systems. DREs have received special attention from many circles, mostly because of concerns over hacking, malicious code and ties between companies that produce the machines and political parties and candidates. Lost in the post-election focus on technological problems, however, is one aspect that dominated Election Day 2004: quite simply, the appearance of an electoral system simply overwhelmed by the number of people who wanted to use it. Consequently, long lines, shortages and other turnout related problems were rampant on November 2. These apparent problems, as much as technology-specific concerns, suggest that election reform is shifting from a political and/or technological to a public administration issue – meaning that resource management and allocation issues are likely to achieve prominence alongside technology and policy in the election reform conversation in 2005 and beyond.