Privatisation seems to have gone from dynamic ideological choice, to route of least resistance for the state to abdicate its responsibility in a variety of policy areas. Anything difficult and measurable – problem schools; elderly care; waste disposal; big infrastructure projects – is left to private capital. In exactly the same way that outsourcing has evolved for private enterprise, it has become an expensive way of getting rid of problems to which those in charge have no solutions.
It is much easier to close a free school than to explain why a state school has gone disastrously wrong.
The same is happening in India. Now they are planning to privatize airports and Indian Airlines on the reasons of efficiency. For education, the government supports private school with aids. When the same money could have been used to better the government schools. In each sector the reliance on private sector to do the jobs is increasing. Even in case of vehicles in government offices, the trend is that you employ a private vehicle and a driver, instead of having a driver on the payroll. So is the case with computer maintenance. In each government office there are private firms which are paid large sums to make sure that the computers are kept running. Why can’t there be an internal department to look after that? The privatization both complete and contractual, lead to massive corruption opportunities for both politicians and the bureaucrats as can be seen in the recent series of scams that have surfaced in India. The main problem that is facing the people is privatization of our natural resources and that of responsibilities of the Government, the resulting corruption is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a symptom of the disease. Even then the major media houses never question, why these mega scams became possible in the first place? They are more eager to make scapegoats out of certain people, but the system which allowed the scams to happen is never challenged.
That said, it seems the ideological stance privatization, resulting in denial of responsibility of state and loss of money from the public purse cannot be halted unless there is a strong pressure from within to halt such measures.
ILLUSTRATIONS FOR TOPOLOGY
From the book Introduction to Topology by Yu. Borisovich, N. Bliznyakov, Ya. Izrailevich, T. Fomenko. The book was published by Mir Publishers in 1985.
ILLUSTRATION TO CHAPTER I
The central part of the picture presents the standard embedding chain of crystalline groups of the three dimensions of Euclidean space: their standard groups embedded into each other are depicted as fundamental domains (Platonic bodies: a cube, a tetrahedron, a dodecahedron). The platonic bodies are depicted classically, i.e., their canonical form is given, they are supported by two-dimensional surfaces (leaves), among which we discern the projective plane (cross-cap), and spheres with handles. The fantastic shapes and interlacings (as compared with the canonical objects) symbolizes the topological equivalence.
At the top, branch points of the Riemann surfaces of various multiplicities are depicted: on the right, those of the Riemann surfaces of the functions w=5z√ and w=z√; on the left below, that of the same function w=z√, and over it, a manifold with boundary realizing a bordism mod 3.
ILLUSTRATION TO CHAPTER II
The figure occupying most of the picture illustrates the construction of a topological space widely used in topology, i.e., a 2-adic solenoid possessing many interesting extremal properties. The following figures are depicted there: the first solid torus is shaded, the second is white, the third is shaded in dotted lines and the fourth is shaded doubly. To obtain the 2-adic solenoid , it is necessary to take an infinite sequence of nested solid tori, each of which encompasses previous twist along its parallel, and to form their intersection.
Inside the opening, a torus and a sphere with two handles are shown. The artist’s skill and his profound knowledge of geometry made it possible to represent complex interlacing of the four nested solid tori accurately.
ILLUSTRATION TO CHAPTER III
The canonical embedding of a surface of genus g into the three-dimensional Euclidean space is represented 0n the right . A homeomorphic embedding of the same surface is shown on the left . The two objects are homeomorphic, homotopic and even isotopic . The artist is a mathematician and he has chosen these two, very much different in their appearance, from an infinite set of homeomorphic images.
ILLUSTRATION TO CHAPTER IV
Here an infinite total space of covering over a two-dimensional surface, viz., a sphere with two handles, is depicted. The artist imparted the figure the shape of a python and made the base space of the covering look very intricate. Packing spheres into the three-dimensional Euclidean space and a figure homeomorphic to the torus are depicted outside the central object. The mathematical objects are placed so as to create a fantastic landscape.
ILLUSTRATION TO CHAPTER V
A regular immersion of the projective plane RP2 in R3 is represented in the centre on the black background. The largest figure is the Klein bottle (studied in topology as a non-orientable surface) cut in two (Moebius strips) along a generator by a plane depicted farther right along with the line intersection; the lower part is plunging downwards; the upper part is being deformed (by lifting the curve of intersection and building the surface up) into a surface with boundary S1; a disc is being glued to the last, which yields the surface RP2. The indicated immersion process can be also used for turning S2 `inside out’ into R3.
On the outskirts of the picture, a triangulation of a part of the Klein bottle surface is represented.
A detailed explanation of this picture may serve as a material for as much as a lecture in visual topology.
It is in the interest of the publishers to confuse plagiarism with copyright. And many people wouldn’t know the difference. So here is a difference between the two:
First, plagiarism is a violation of academic norms but not illegal; copyright violation is illegal, but in truth pretty ubiquitous in academia. (Where did you get that PDF?)
Second, plagiarism is an offence against the author, while copyright violation is an offence against the copyright holder. In traditional academic publishing, they are usually not the same person, due to the ubiquity of copyright transfer agreements (CTAs).
Third, plagiarism applies when ideas are copied, whereas copyright violation occurs only when a specific fixed expression (e.g. sequence of words) is copied.
Fourth, avoiding plagiarism is about properly apportioning intellectual credit, whereas copyright is about maintaining revenue streams.
via Plagiarism is nothing to do with copyright
This would also relate to an earlier post, in making the difference between wrong and illegal. It can be exemplified in this case also.
Suppose for her research person A need a particular research article and she or her institution do not have access to it. What does A do?
She asks her friends in other institutes if they have access to this article. That means that the institute they are working in have subscription to the journal in which this article was published. Among her friends person B has access to the article. Suppose she sends A an electronic copy of the article. A is happy, that she got the article. B is also happy, that he could be of help to A. But strictly speaking this is illegal. In the fine print all the publisher website have Terms and Conditions which we have to agree to (without reading them most of the times and they are written in legalese). These terms and conditions prevent us from sharing these articles from anyone else who might not have access to. For example for JSTOR the terms and conditions are listed here. If you read these finely what emerges is the way in which the publishers control the flow of information. For example it says:
Institutional Licensees shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that access to the Licensed
Content is limited to Authorized Users and to protect the Licensed Content from unpermitted use.
This clause essentially makes what happened between A and B illegal and just for sharing this article they might terminate the B’s institutional access to JSTOR. Now we can ask this question that whether the gesture on B’s part to help A was wrong and illegal both? As per definition by JSTOR this is clearly a violation of copyright. But what is the status of A’s research which emerges from this article given by B. Is it illegal? Can it be called as plagiarised (A gives proper citation of course)?
If you apply Kolhberg’s theory of moral development, the person who has the most developed morality will perhaps help the other without bothering about the copyright!
We have to get out of the mindset of thinking that things are wrong because they are illegal. People make laws and people can change those laws.
via Silk Road
Often people equate being illegal to being wrong. Though this may be true at times, it need not be always true. This is a fact that many people forget and do not think about.The laws that we have were made in a specific time with conditions pertaining to those times. And the fact that they are made by people. They may not be relevant any more. Or it might be just that the laws presented views of the majority or of the rich and the powerful. And many times breaking the law itself is the right thing to do. Gandhi in his life showed this many times. So was it wrong when Gandhi broke the salt law, for example? If there is a law against speaking about wrongs government does, it would be illegal to break such a law, but would it be wrong?