A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, and falses sleigthes, by M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late english translation, and Catholike annotations of the New Testament, and the books of discovery of heretical corruptions ([Reprod.]) / by William Rainolds

Collection : French books before 1601 ; 210.3

The three strands of intercultural polities: a comprehensive view. A critical review of Bouchard and Cantle recent books on interculturalism

Within the emerging policy debate on interculturalism we critically review two recent books in 2012: Bouchard’s L’interculturalisme: un point de vue quebecois, and Cantle’s Interculturalism: The New Era of Cohesion and Diversity. In my view, both contribute very directly to open a foundational debate on interculturalism. In addressing the point of convergence and the dividing lines of these two contributions, I will claim that in spite of having one core concept of interculturalism, there are, however, at least two basic conceptions that have to be interpreted in complementary ways: Bouchard’s essay represents the contractual strand, Cantle’s book the cohesion strand. At the end I would also suggest that these two strands do not manage to express explicitly that diversity can also be seen as a resource of innovation and creativity, and so can drive individual and social development. This view is based on the diversity advantage literature already informing most of the diversity debate in Europe and elsewhere. This is what I will call the constructivist strand. My ultimate purpose is to defend a comprehensive view, grounded on the argument that no one can have the sole authority to define intercultural policy, since the three strands can be applied at different moments, according to different purposes and policy needs. The challenge now is that policy managers be able to achieve a balance between these three policy drivers.

Anàlisi legal del projecte Google books des de la perspectiva dels drets de propietat intel·lectual

Objectiu. Descriure el projecte Google books i analitzar-lo des de la perspectiva legal, tenint en compte els tres agents principals implicats: Google, els titulars de drets de propietat intel·lectual i les biblioteques. Metodologia. Anàlisi legal comparada (legislacions dels Estats Units, de França i d'Espanya) de les implicacions del projecte Google books sobre els drets de propietat intel·lectual i el dret de la competència. Estudi de les demandes plantejades contra Google als Estats Units i a Europa, aixícom les possibles conseqüències de l'acord de conciliació adoptat per Google i les associacionsd'autors i editors als Estats Units. Resultats. Google books ha suposat una infracció massiva de drets de propietat intel·lectual. Per determinar si els llibres d'una biblioteca han entrat en el domini públic o no, cal determinar prèviament quina llei nacional resulta aplicable a cada llibre. La posada a disposició a Google books d'obres descatalogades i tan sols fragments de llibres que es troben a la venda no pot dursea terme sense l'autorització dels titulars. En el cas de les obres òrfenes, l'explotació exigeixl'adopció de certes mesures prèvies per garantir els drets dels titulars, en cas que aquests arribina conèixer-se. L'acord de conciliació adoptat als Estats Units entre Google i les associacionsd'autors i editors pot implicar una posició de monopoli per part de Google en relació amb la venda dels llibres descatalogats i les obres òrfenes.

Análisis legal del proyecto Google books desde la perspectiva de los derechos de propiedad intelectual

Objetivos: Describir el proyecto Google books y analizarlo desde la perspectiva legal, teniendo en cuenta los tres agentes principales implicados en el mismo: Google, los titulares de derechos de propiedad intelectual y las bibliotecas. Metodología: Análisis legal comparado (legislaciones de Estados Unidos, Francia y España) de las implicaciones del proyecto Google books sobre los derechos de propiedad intelectual y el derecho de la competencia. Estudio de las demandas planteadas contra Google en Estados Unidos y en Europa, así como las posibles consecuencias del acuerdo de conciliación adoptado por Google y las asociaciones de autores y editores en Estados Unidos. Resultados: Google books ha supuesto una infracción masiva de derechos de propiedad intelectual. Para determinar si los libros que se encuentran en una biblioteca han entrado o no el dominio público, es preciso determinar previamente qué ley nacional resulta aplicable a cada libro. La puesta a disposición en Google books de obras descatalogadas y únicamente de fragmentos de libros que se encuentran a la venta no puede llevarse a cabo sin laautorización de los titulares. En el caso de las obras huérfanas, su explotación exige la adopción de ciertas medidas previas para garantizar los derechos de los titulares, en el caso de que estos lleguen a conocerse. El acuerdo de conciliación adoptado en Estados Unidos entre Google y las asociaciones de autores y editores puede implicar una posición de monopolio por parte de Google en relación a la venta de los libros descatalogados y de las obras huérfanas.

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

Martin Lindhart (Ed.), Practicing the Faith. The Ritual Life of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christians, Berghahn Books, Oxford, 2011, 344 p.

This edited volume examines, from a ritual perspective, Pentecostal-Charismatic groups that are the fastest growing religious movements in the world today. The authors, who are anthropologists, ethnologists or sociologists (with one theologian) collected rich and diverse material on healing, deliverance, personal devotion, public engagement. Their work covers several regions such as Chile, South California, Fiji, Kenya, and Sweden. After an introduction by the editor, eleven chapters examine various issues relevant to the field. Overcoming the diversity of subjects, the unity of the volume is provided by the general ritual perspective and by the methodological implications of employing such a perspective.

Poems to memorize and books to read : graded lists,1931

This is a list of poems for students in grades three to six to memorize at the Normal Training High Schools. It also lists books for children to read.