- Feb 2024
-
usda-eu.org usda-eu.org
-
Implementing Acts: Article 291 of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that: “where uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts are needed, those acts shall confer implementing powers to the Commission.” As required by the Lisbon Treaty, a new framework regulation – Regulation 182/2011 – was adopted to set out procedures for the adoption of implementing acts. Regulation 182/2011 entered into force on March 1, 2011 and (partially) repeals the old “Comitology” Decision 1999/468/EC. Implementing Acts are used for routine implementation of framework legislation and cover issues of general OR individual scope.
实施法案：《里斯本条约》第 291 条规定：“如果需要为实施具有法律约束力的联盟法案制定统一条件，这些法案应授予委员会实施权。实施法案用于框架立法的日常实施，涵盖一般或个别范围的问题。
-
Delegated Acts: Article 290 of the Lisbon Treaty introduces the novel concept of “delegated acts” to supplement or amend non-essential elements of framework legislation, i.e. issues of general scope. On a case-by-case basis, the Council and European Parliament set the conditions for the delegation of power: objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation are defined in each basic legal act. The Council or European Parliament may revoke this delegation and a delegated act adopted by the Commission can only enter into force if no objection has been raised by one of the legislators within a time period set by the basic act.授权行为：《里斯本条约》第290条引入了“授权行为”的新概念，以补充或修改框架立法的非必要要素，即一般范围的问题。理事会和欧洲议会根据具体情况设定权力下放的条件：每项基本法律法案都规定了权力下放的目标、内容、范围和期限。理事会或欧洲议会可以撤销这一授权，并且只有在基本法案规定的期限内没有一位立法者提出反对意见的情况下，委员会通过的授权法案才能生效。
范围进限定在非必要要素上
-
- Jan 2024
- Aug 2023
-
www.advancedfictionwriting.com www.advancedfictionwriting.com
-
If you believe in the Three-Act structure, then the first disaster corresponds to the end of Act 1. The second disaster is the mid-point of Act 2. The third disaster is the end of Act 2, and forces Act 3 which wraps things up. It is OK to have the first disaster be caused by external circumstances, but I think that the second and third disasters should be caused by the protagonist’s attempts to “fix things”. Things just get worse and worse.
Interesting and specific advice about the source of disasters in act two...
-
- Dec 2022
-
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
-
But taste is not an act—it’s an opinion.
-
- Jun 2022
-
Local file Local file
-
Writers diverge by collecting raw material for the story they wantto tell, sketching out potential characters, and researching historicalfacts.
Missing here is the creative divergence of creating plot points which could be later connected. This part of the process is incredibly difficult for many as seen in the poor second act development in most of narrative history. Beginnings and endings are usually incredibly easy, but the middle portions for connecting the two is incredibly hard.
Is this because creating connections between the ends when there no intervening ideas to connect is nearly impossible? How can one brainstorm middle plot points so that they might be more easily connected?
-
- Feb 2018
-
maestriadesarrollo.com maestriadesarrollo.com
-
desde esta perspectiva las organizaciones constituyen conversaciones para la acción. Hay un cierto grado de recurrencia y formalización en estas conversaciones, que Winograd y Flores (1986) caracterizan en términos de actos lingüísticos distintivos. Las organizaciones son redes de compromisos que operan a través de actos lingüísticos, como las promesas y
las peticiones. [...] En última instancia la característica central de las organizaciones y su diseño es el desarrollo de competencias comunicativas en un ámbito abierto para la interpretación, de manera que los compromisos sean transparentes
[...] Una parte importante del marco de Winograd y Flores es el desarrollo de un enfoque lingüístico para el trabajo de las organizaciones sobre la base de ‘directivas’ (pedidos, solicitudes, consultas y ofertas) y ‘comisiones’ (promesas, aceptaciones y rechazos). En la década de 1980 Flores desarrolló un software para organizaciones, llamado El coordinador, basado en la idea de que las organizaciones son redes de compromisos que operan en el lenguaje. Véanse Winograd y Flores (1986, capítulos 5 y 11) y Flores y Flores (2013). Su objetivo era “hacer las interacciones transparentes [...] en el dominio de las conversaciones para la acción”
La interacción entre organizaciones institucionalizadas y conviviales está ocurriendo para casos del hacktivismo en términos de peticiones (derechos de petición, entradas al blog) y promesas (hackatones, respuestas, proyectos).
Una de las preguntas actuales es cómo hacer que las dinámicas de gobernanza propias de las organizaciones conviviales puedan ser coherentes y escalables a nivel barrio o ciudad. Qué infraestructuras favorecerían dichas posibilidades de acuerdos transparentes en red.
Interesante reencontrar el software de Windograd y Flores y revisar cómo se adecuan o no a sistemas como wikis y repositorios de código y cómo el diálogo entre ellos podría alentar estas ideas de software para acciones transparentes.
-
- Nov 2017
-
Local file Local file
-
Itisreallyimportanttoconsiderthemasspeechactsandaskwhatclaimstheybringintobeinginorbymakingdeclarationsaboutrights.ItiseasytodismissthesedeclarationsthattheInternethasoccasioned,buttheyalsobegexamination.Somedismissthemfortheirostensibleineffectiveness,butthisisunderstoodintermsofconstativeratherthanperformativeeffects.Thequestionwe’dratheraskiswhat,ifany,imaginaryandperformativeifnotlegalforcedotheyhave?
Esto me recuerda la intensión de escribir manifiestos en mu ypocas JSL, a la que yo me opuse, quizás por su percibida inefectividad con respecto a actos más performativos y enactivos. Quiźas me faltó entenderlo en esos mismos términos en lugar de como actos púramente enunciativos.
-
Whoisthesubjectofthesedigitalrights?Sinceweareinterestedintheprocessesthroughwhichtheserightsareenactedratherthantheirsubstance,ourquestionof‘who’concernsthatofpoliticalsubjectivitythroughtheInternet.[4]Aswehaveexpresseditinvariousways,‘who’doesnotcorrespondtoanalreadyformedpoliticalsubjectbutafigure:Howisapoliticalsubjectbeingconstitutedasaclaimantofdigitalrights?Wehaveillustratedthroughoutthisbookthatdigitalactstraversemultiplenationalbordersandlegalorders.Yetmakingrightsclaimsthattraversebordersisoftenaddressedthroughsovereignregionalornationallegalordersandtheirparticularunderstandingofrights.
So the question of ‘who’ the subject is of digital rights is both an analytical but also an urgent political question that requires addressing. If we use ‘citizen’ as the subject of these rights, clearly it does not capture how both the enactment of the political subject and of cyberspace cut across national borders and legal orders. Today, the citizen functions as a member of a nation-state, and there are no corresponding rights and obligations beyond the nation-state that can govern subjects whose acts traverse international spaces. [...] What we gather from Rancière and Derrida is the importance of refusing to make a choice between the citizen and the human as the subject of digital rights. Instead, we anticipate a new figure of a citizen yet to come as the subject of digital rights.
-
Witnessing,hacking,andcommoningarethreedigitalactsthathavebecomepossibleoverthepastfewyearsandhavecreatedopeningsforbeingdigitalcitizensinorbymakingrightsclaims.Theresignificationofexistingortheintroductionofnewconventionsmadetheseactspossible:Bitcoin,copyleft,CreativeCommons,Digg,GitHub,GNN,GNU,WikiLeaks,andmanyothers.Nodoubtsomeoftheseconventionswillbereplacedordisplacedbyothers.Somewillbecomedefunct.Somewillperhapspersistasatestamenttothedigitalcommons.Therewillcertainlybenewconventions.Whatenduresistheperformativeforcethathasgoneintomakingtheseopeningspossible.IfweunderstandcyberspaceasaspaceofrelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,witnessing,hacking,andcommoningresignifyorinventconventionsandmakepossibletheemergenceofnewwaysofbeingcitizensubjectsincyberspace.
[...] As we discussed earlier, just as many efforts are being expended on closings as these openings, cajoling and coercing them in various submissive ways and generally blocking possibilities. The digital commons is certainly a new frontier for struggles over commodification.[83] The main challenges to these creative forces emanate from state-security apparatuses and commerciallegal apparatuses. The main challenges to these creative forces emanate from state-security apparatuses and commerciallegal apparatuses. We have covered some of these closings, but here we want to restate the importance of open versus closed conventions of the Internet. Much has been said about Facebook, Flickr, Google, Tumblr, Twitter, and YouTube and their activities for tracking the conduct of people for advertising revenues and collecting big data. Let us emphasize that among one of the most important reasons that both state and corporate apparatuses are able to do this is because these are designed as proprietary and closed conventions. Unlike open conventions such as WordPress or Wikimedia, these conventions require submitting to end-user licences and user contracts that not only severely restrict actions but also appropriate their results as data. There is a massive difference between the digital commons created by open-source code and its increasing zoning, appropriation, sequestration, and enclosure through closed conventions. [...] Let us remember that cyberspace is a fragile if not a precarious space. This makes its protection as an open-source digital commons a political question—a question that those who are making digital rights claims are enacting with increasing effectiveness but also with urgency.
-
OneaspectofhackerculturethatColemanhighlightsistheslogan‘codeisspeech’.[46]CodeisindeedthelanguageoftheInternet.Butisitspeech?FollowingAustin,wearguethatthroughspeechactswedosomethinginorbysayingsomething.Similarly,wewouldarguethatprogrammersaredoingsomethinginorbycodingsomething.Yet,toarticulatethismoreprecisely,codeisnotspeech:itisalanguageinorbywhichspeechactsareperformed.Justasinhumanlanguages,thedecisivethingsherearenotonlythelinguisticconventionsthatanimatespeechactsbutalsothesocialconventionsthattheybringabout
-
Forus,probablythemostpertinentdistinctionisbetweenprogrammersandhackers.Inorbysayingsomethingincodeperformsbothillocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts.
The difference between programmers and hackers is, however, the effects of their acts, which have dramatically changed over time. Programmers are those— either employed by software companies or working independently—who make a living by writing code, which includes anything between snippets (short code) and apps. Hackers may also program code in this fashion, but the culture that gives them the name emanates from a distinct set of ethical and aesthetic values that combine to create a different kind of politics than programming does. This difference is hard to express, but it is also the difference that is of interest to us. It is hard to express perhaps because so much has been said and written about hackers—mostly negative. As a consequence, a unified, typically clandestine, selfish, young, male, and outlaw image has become dominant, which more recent studies have shown is grotesquely simplified. We want to argue that hackers are those whose acts break conventions of programming.
-
- Oct 2017
-
Local file Local file
-
TheethicaldimensionbecomesevenclearerwhenAssangesays,‘Thosewhoarerepeatedlypassiveinthefaceofinjusticesoonfindtheircharactercorrodedintoservility.’[33]Toputitinourwords,citizensubjects,preciselybecauseoftheircapacitytojudge,arenotmerelyobedient(orservile)butalsosubversive.Thisisbecausesubmissiontoconventionsrequiresusingjudgementonthetermsofsubmission.Althoughthecitizensubjectsubmitstoconventions,becauseofthiscapacity,thecallofsubversiontoruptureaconventionalwaysretainsitsforce.Assangeclearlyappealsheretoanaspectofjournalisticethics—bearingwitness—butheresignifiesitpoliticallybyidentifyingitasacalltoact.ThedebateoverwhetherWikiLeaksisaplatformforjournalismorwhistle-blowingoverlooksthatitprimarilyenableswitnessing—thattheworldmayknow(differently).Itisoftenarguedthatsuchwhistle-blowingexposesclassifiedsecretsandendangerstheintelligenceworkofthestate.Butwhatwhistle-blowingexposesisthattherearethosewhofinditintolerabletowitnessabusesandmisusesofauthorityandnotsharethem.Ifbankersdeceive,soldiersmassacre,agenciessnoop,anddiplomatslie,citizenshavetherighttoknowthat.Citizenshavearighttoknowwhatstateandcorporateauthoritiesaredoingin,andoftenwith,theirname.WikiLeaksandwhistle-blowingingeneralareessentiallyclaimingthisrighttoknow.
[...] Their primary orientation is not towards the ethics of a profession but the right to witness and share acts of injustice
Vincular lo ético a lo político a través de la plataforma. Queda la pregunta aún de si hay alguna agenda oculta en el proceso curatorial de Wikileaks. Aplica el derecho a saber también a ellos en la medida en que son agentes de extremo poder?
Un ejemplo de atestiguar y compartir frente a la injusticia reciente: https://twitter.com/angelamrobledo/status/923306719891066885
-
Ifthat’sthecase,wequestionwhetherthereshouldbeadifferentlabelforcuratorsandaggregatorsfortworeasons.Aswehaveargued,digitalactsinvolvedoingsomethingthroughvariousactionsnotconfinedtolanguagebutincludingimagesandsoundsaswellasthecoding,linking,andclassifyingofcontent.Second,theseactionsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocity.Theyenablethedisseminationofnewswithanonymityatalmostinstantaneousspeedthroughnumerousnetworks,andtheyleavetracesalongtheway.Asweshallnowargue,thisisindeedadistinctlycyberspaceenactmentofcitizenwitnessing
-
Threeactsexpressmoststronglytheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversionthatcitizensubjectsengageintheconstitutionofclosings:filtering,wherecitizensubjectssubmittoregulateandprotectthemselvesoragreetobeprotectedbyauthorities,trackingwherecitizensubjectsenterintogamesofevasion,andnormalizingwherethewaysofbeingcitizensubjectsincyberspaceareiterativelymodulatedtowardsdesiredendsbyprivateandpublicauthorities.
-
Wefocusonthreeactsthatsymbolizeparticularlywellthedemandsforopenness—participating,connecting,andsharing.Theseactsarenotallinclusive;therearecertainlyotheracts,buttheycoverwhatwesuggestarekeydigitalactsandtheirenablingdigitalactions
-
Tounderstanddigitalactswehavetounderstandspeechactsorspeechthatacts.Thespeechthatactsmeansnotonlythatinorbysayingsomethingwearedoingsomethingbutalsothatinorbydoingsomethingwearesayingsomething.ItisinthissensethatwehaveargueddigitalactsaredifferentfromspeechactsonlyinsofarastheconventionstheyrepeatanditerateandconventionsthattheyresignifyareconventionsthataremadepossiblethroughtheInternet.Ultimately,digitalactsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocityinpoliticalways.
-
Toputitsimply,whiledigitalactstraverseborders,digitalrightsdonot.Thisiswherewebelievethinkingaboutdigitalactsintermsoftheirlegality,performativity,andimaginaryiscrucialsincethereareinternationalandtransnationalspacesinwhichdigitalrightsarebeingclaimedthatifnotyetlegallyinforceareneverthelessemergingperformativelyandimaginatively.Yet,arguably,someemergingtransnationalandinternationallawsgoverningcyberspaceinturnarehavinganeffectonnationallegislations.Toputitdifferently,theclassicalargumentabouttherelationshipbetweenhumanrightsandcitizenshiprights,thattheformerarenormsandonlythelattercarrytheforceoflaw,isnotahelpfulstartingpoint.
-
Theimportantthingistoseparateacts(locutionary,illocutionary
The important thing is to separate acts (locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary), forces (legal, performative, imaginary), conventions, actions, bodies, and spaces that their relations produce.
-
Itiswellnighimpossibletomakedigitalutteranceswithoutatrace;onthecontrary,oftentheforceofadigitalspeechactdrawsitsstrengthfromthetracesthatitleaves.Aswesaidinchapter2,eachofthesequestionsraisedbydigitalactscanarguablybefoundinothertechnologiesofspeechacts—thetelegraph,megaphone,radio,andtelephonecometomindimmediately.Butitiswhentakentogetherthatwethinkdigitalactsresignifythesequestionsandcombinetomakethemdistinctfromspeechacts,intermsofboththeconventionsbywhichtheybecomepossibleandtheeffectsthattheyproduce.
-
Digitalactswillnoteliminatedistance(weunderstanddistancehereasnotmerelyquantitativebutalsoaqualitativemetric),butthespeedwithwhichdigitalactscanreverberateisphenomenal.
Estos efectos de reverberación fueron sentidos en la Gobernatón y, en la medida en que se crea capacidad en la base y no sólo se reacciona, también se sienten en los Data Weeks, con menos potencia.
-
‘codeistheonlylanguagethatisexecutable.’[49]‘So[forGalloway]codeisthefirstlanguagethatactuallydoeswhatitsays—itisamachineforconvertingmeaningintoaction.’[50]WithAustin(andWittgenstein),thisconclusioncomesasamajorsurprisetous.Aswehavearguedinthischapter,forAustin(andWittgenstein)languageisanactivity,andinorbysayingsomethinginlanguagewedosomethingwithit—weact.Toputitdifferently,languageisexecutable.[51]Thereisnouniquenesstocodeinthatregard,althoughwhilecodeislikelanguage,itisdifferent.WethinkthatdifferenceistobesoughtinitseffectsandtheconventionsitcreatesthroughtheInternetratherthaninitsostensibleuniquenature
El lenguaje es ejecutable!
-
ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.
-
Thekeyissueinspeechactsbecomeswhether,andifsotowhatextent,whatissayableanddoablefollowsorexceedssocialconventionsthatgovernasituation.
-
Byadvancingtheideathatspeechisnotonlyadescription(constative)butalsoanact(performative),Austinushersinaradicallydifferentwayofthinkingaboutnotonlyspeakingandwritingbutalsodoingthingsinorbyspeakingandwriting.
-
butbodiesandtheirmovementsareimplicitinspeechthatacts.
-
Toputitdifferently,Austin’sconcernwithinfelicitousisnotaregretonhispartbutarecognitionthatspeechdoesnotonlyact,italsocanfailtoactorfailtoactinwaysanticipated.
-
Bysayingsomething,Ihaveaccomplishedsomething.Thus,‘of’sayingsomethinghasmeaning(locutionaryacts),whereas‘in’or‘by’sayingsomethinghasforce(illocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts).
-
Thistraversingofactsproducesconsiderablecomplexitiesinbecomingdigitalcitizens.Second,weneedtospecifytowhatextentcertainrightsclaimedbydigitalactsareclassicalrights(e.g.,freedomofspeech),towhatextenttheyareanalogoustoclassicalrights(e.g.,anonymity),andtowhatextenttheyarenew(e.g.,therighttobeforgotten).
-
- Sep 2017
-
Local file Local file
-
wewillspecifydigitalacts—callings(demands,pressures,provocations),closings(tensions,conflicts,disputes),andopenings(opportunities,possibilities,beginnings)—aswaysofconductingourselvesthroughtheInternetanddiscusshowthesebringcyberspaceintobeing
-
digitalactsresignifyfourpoliticalquestionsabouttheInternet
anonymity, extensity, traceability, and velocity.
El primero y el tercero ha estado permanentemente en el discurso de colectivos a los que he estado vinculado (RedPaTodos, HackBo, Grafoscopio, etc)
-
Wearguethatmakingrightsclaimsinvolvesnotonlyperformativebutalsolegalandimaginaryforces.Wethenarguethatdigitalactsinvolveconventionsthatincludenotonlywordsbutalsoimagesandsoundsandvariousactionssuchasliking,coding,clicking,downloading,sorting,blocking,andquerying.
-
- Jan 2017
-
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
-
Waters of the U.S. rule
Here is the full definition and report on the "Waters of the United States" https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/epa-hq-ow-2011-0880-20862.pdf And here are more concise fact-sheets that outline the importance of Clean Water and Waters of the United States for stakeholders.
-