Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Vorwort -- Inhaltsverzeichnis -- Literatur-Verzeichnis -- I . Abschnitt. Das Französische Geldwesen Von 1726 Bis 1788: Die Silberwährung -- II. Abschnitt. Das Französische Geldwesen Der Grossen Revolution Bis Zum Ende Der Papiergeld Währung (Von 1789 Bis 1796): Die Papiergeldwährung -- Schluss

In der überregionalen Literaturversorgung vollzieht sich durch die Transformation der Sondersammelgebiete (SSG) in Fachinformationsdienste für die Wissenschaft (FID) ein vielschichtiger Wandel. So fordert die DFG in ihren Förderrichtlinien, dass sich die FID nicht nur konsequent an den Bedürfnissen der Wissenschaftler orientieren, sondern sich auch von den Grundaufgaben wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken abgrenzen und einen Mehrwert gegenüber bestehenden Services anbieten. Dies bedeutet in letzter Konsequenz auch die Abwendung vom Ideal einer größtmöglichen Vollständigkeit der Bestände hin zu einem selektiven Bestandaufbau entlang der e-only-policy der DFG, nach der die elektronische Version eines Werkes gegenüber der gedruckten Form bevorzugt werden soll. Die durch diese Paradigmenwechsel notwendig gewordene Neuorientierung stellt die antragstellenden Bibliotheken jedoch vor große Herausforderungen. Daher soll der vorliegende Beitrag die bisherigen Entwicklungen und Zielsetzungen in der Förderpolitik der DFG analysieren und helfen, die aktuellen Geschehnisse einzuordnen. Darauf aufbauend werden die wesentlichen FID-Richtlinien anhand eines Modells dargestellt und kritisch reflektiert. Abschließend wird eine Maßnahme aufgezeigt, die im Sinne einer Profilierung insbesondere die Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz adressiert und eine Einbindung von Fachreferenten und Fachreferentinnen in die FID-Förderung skizziert.

Hacktivism, a term combining the words "hack" and "activism," is used to explain demonstrations that employ computers and the Internet to promote social or political goals. Individuals engaging in hacktivism, known as hacktivists, generally believe that information should be available to everyone without restriction. The hacktivism phenomenon predictably began in lock step with the development and proliferation of the Internet. Since its humble beginnings, hacktivism has become an increasingly common and effective means of communicating social justice messages. Despite computers and other technology being used with increasing frequency, forms of free speech and expression are limited and defined according to old-fashioned ideologies. In addition, the availability of. and access to, traditional forums is declining. Current legislation prevents hacktivists from freely expressing their constructive messages in a public forum. Though creating an exemption or formulating a statutory amendment would be difficult, the rationale behind the First Amendment and other public policies support a calculated change to statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"). This Comment attempts to propose a solution that would allow for certain hacktivist activities and provide solutions to the tension between free speech and Internet security. First, an amendment to the CFAA could require a hacktivist to notify the target after the fact and pay the minimal costs of network repair. Second, the CFAA could include an affirmative defense requiring a defendant to show that the actions taken were political or socially motivated under an objective reasonable person standard and that the damage or loss was minimal. A final option could be to implement an additional scienter requirement requiring that a defendant have a specific intent to cause irreparable harm or injury beyond a mere inconvenience.

The Internal Revenue Code (the "Code") defines income broadly to include wealth from almost every source, while at the same time exempting a number of items for various tax and public policy reasons. One such policy-based exemption is section 104(a)(2)-the Personal Injuries Exemption-which exempts from tax "any damages . received on account of personal injuries or sickness." The Personal Injuries Exemption, however, exists in a state of disarray and needs amending. Since its inception, this exemption has lacked both clear definitions of its key terms and a sound theoretical foundation. Moreover, although courts traditionally read exemptions narrowly, they have interpreted section 104(a)(2) broadly and have applied it in a number of situations where it was not meant to be applied. As a result, the exemption now serves largely as an incentive to sue and as a windfall for those taxpayers fortunate enough to fall within its scope. So great is the disagreement over how to deal with these problems that between 1992 and 1994 the federal circuit courts of appeals split over at least three separate issues regarding the application of the exemption. The Personal Injuries Exemption should be narrowed significantly by giving it a clear definition tied to a sound theoretical foundation These changes would alleviate many of the current problems and give courts and the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") guidance in dealing with future problems. It would also raise revenue and eliminate a major incentive to sue. It is a rare occurrence when the political will for change arises at the precise moment when an often-overlooked area of law most needs amending. Such is the case today as a result of the confluence between America's desire for tort reform and the need for congressional action regarding the Personal Injuries Exemption. America currently needs and wants tort reform. Indeed, such reform was one of the major provisions of the Contract with America that helped catapult the Republicans to electoral victory in 1994. ...