Does this mean you cannot turn the "porn" filter off at all, and it just allows you to access the 18+ content that Giffgaff has deemed appropriate?
The aim is that, even if an academic publishes their work in a traditional subscription journal, a version of their article would simultaneously appear on the freely available repository.
It looks like they want the info published in the high impact journals, but also in the national archive. This sidesteps the whole "looking bad on a CV or research grant application" problem. Unless there's some licensing issue with the big journals, but you'd imagine the government could deal with that. Maybe.
England doesn't have a national government. Local government tends to vary between the 3 major parties and often have coalitions and independent councillors.
As the other reply to this post says, that's not really true. We have local government, councils, and also of course local MPs - although they are part of the national parliament. It's not the local councils who are responsible for the proposed internet monitoring, it's the national government - a cabinet made up mostly of MPs that run the country nationally.
It's currently in a coalition, but this is the first time in ages that this has happened. Usually the Liberal Democrats have next to no power; hence the two party system. Even if it was a three party system, if all three of them were functionally identical this would have the same problem. As this coalition has shown; they are.
This actually makes the small minority of swing voters think they're empowered (95% of the votes in the UK are meaningless, it's only marginal votes in marginal constituencies that count). And they are, they get to choose between Labour and Conservative.
Yes, they get to choose between Labour and Conservative. That's the problem.
Those riots were generally people nicking TVs and trainers.
That's an over simplification. It's a matter of extensive debate at the moment, though, and I simply mentioned the riots in order to lead into my point that the general population is too apathetic, or more optimistically speaking, too content, for rebellion. Their causes are not really relevant to my point.
There was a lot of anger about bankers recently too, so occupy London camped outside of St Paul's, then enforced the view they were work-shy homeless hippies and fell off the the news radar before, quite rightly, being removed as the pointless eyesore it was.
That's a strange view to take. Is everyone angry about the bankers a work-shy hippie? I'm pretty angry about the economic situation, and I barely smell of patchouli at all.
"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies." -- Arthur Miller