Why You Need A Blog}

Submitted by: Yasser Waqar

Home My Blog Why you have a blog

WHY YOU HAVE A BLOG

Yasser WaqarFeb 18, 2016My Blog01

A blog can be defined as Collection of postsshort, informal, sometimes controversial, and sometimes deeply personalwith the freshest information at the top.Meg Hourihan.

There are lots of reason why we have a blog some are below:

1. You will learn new things when you start your blog as you are going to share the knowledge you have. You will search about the content you want to write and share with visitor and with this exercise you will learn a lot.

2. Thinking clearly with generating ideas is the most difficult and critical aspect. Blogging will help you to increase your skills of thinking and generating ideas.

3. Blogging will help you to improve your writing skills. When you are going to read books, articles etc to collect the material for your blog you will definitely increase your vocabulary which will help you in writing an article.

4. It will increase your confidence as you are expressing your ideas to public without fear.

5. It will also help you in earning money. Bloggers can earn a lot from their blogs only if they have good and professional content in their blogs.

6. You can start a noble cause which helps the general public or society or will help to increase the awareness on various issues such as poverty, drinking water, hunger, racism etc.

7. It will help you in relationship building and socializing. People will contact you ask you the questions about your blog and there may be a chance that they will become friend of yours.

8. You will help other people by publishing some useful content. People are looking for contents on web and if they will find required content on your website it will be helpful for them.

9. It will bring discipline to your life as you have the responsibility of publish new content or writing an article everyday.

10. If your contents are useful and up to the standard people will love to visit your site and in this way it will increase your credibility as well as responsibility.

11. You dont need to wait or find a place to express your ideas you can quickly publish your ideas content or articles on your blog.

12. You can be a consultant or get a job if you prove yourself a subject specialist.

13. You can also offer yourself as a Article writer and offer your services to the peoples by placing your services or gigs on sites.

14. It will increase your observational skills the more your observe the more you write properly.

15. It will increase the worth of your resume.

16. When you start to think more and more you will get ideas and this will increase your creativity skills.

17. Bloggers can work from anywhere anytime means that there is no restriction so it will give a blogger full freedom.

18.

19. You dont need any knowledge for starting a blog (No HTML or other languages knowledge). You can just setup your blog in few minutes but the only problem is to managing blog and updating blog continuously.

20. You can either start a free blog or get some domain and hosting package by paying a very minimal amount. You dont need higher amount for starting your blog.

So what are you thinking go get a blog and enjoy a lot of benefits.

About the Author: Yasser Waqar From Pakistan

pakrevolution.com

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1961743&ca=Internet }

U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

">
U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

This article mentions the Wikimedia Foundation, one of its projects, or people related to it. Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The English National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London has threatened on Friday to sue a U.S. citizen, Derrick Coetzee. The legal letter followed claims that he had breached the Gallery’s copyright in several thousand photographs of works of art uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, a free online media repository.

In a letter from their solicitors sent to Coetzee via electronic mail, the NPG asserted that it holds copyright in the photographs under U.K. law, and demanded that Coetzee provide various undertakings and remove all of the images from the site (referred to in the letter as “the Wikipedia website”).

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-to-use media, run by a community of volunteers from around the world, and is a sister project to Wikinews and the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Coetzee, who contributes to the Commons using the account “Dcoetzee”, had uploaded images that are free for public use under United States law, where he and the website are based. However copyright is claimed to exist in the country where the gallery is situated.

The complaint by the NPG is that under UK law, its copyright in the photographs of its portraits is being violated. While the gallery has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation for a number of years, this is the first direct threat of legal action made against an actual uploader of images. In addition to the allegation that Coetzee had violated the NPG’s copyright, they also allege that Coetzee had, by uploading thousands of images in bulk, infringed the NPG’s database right, breached a contract with the NPG; and circumvented a copyright protection mechanism on the NPG’s web site.

The copyright protection mechanism referred to is Zoomify, a product of Zoomify, Inc. of Santa Cruz, California. NPG’s solicitors stated in their letter that “Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client’s copyright in the high resolution images.”. Zoomify Inc. states in the Zoomify support documentation that its product is intended to make copying of images “more difficult” by breaking the image into smaller pieces and disabling the option within many web browsers to click and save images, but that they “provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system”.

In particular, Zoomify’s website comments that while “many customers — famous museums for example” use Zoomify, in their experience a “general consensus” seems to exist that most museums are concerned with making the images in their galleries accessible to the public, rather than preventing the public from accessing them or making copies; they observe that a desire to prevent high resolution images being distributed would also imply prohibiting the sale of any posters or production of high quality printed material that could be scanned and placed online.

Other actions in the past have come directly from the NPG, rather than via solicitors. For example, several edits have been made directly to the English-language Wikipedia from the IP address 217.207.85.50, one of sixteen such IP addresses assigned to computers at the NPG by its ISP, Easynet.

In the period from August 2005 to July 2006 an individual within the NPG using that IP address acted to remove the use of several Wikimedia Commons pictures from articles in Wikipedia, including removing an image of the Chandos portrait, which the NPG has had in its possession since 1856, from Wikipedia’s biographical article on William Shakespeare.

Other actions included adding notices to the pages for images, and to the text of several articles using those images, such as the following edit to Wikipedia’s article on Catherine of Braganza and to its page for the Wikipedia Commons image of Branwell Brontë‘s portrait of his sisters:

“THIS IMAGE IS BEING USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.”
“This image is copyright material and must not be reproduced in any way without permission of the copyright holder. Under current UK copyright law, there is copyright in skilfully executed photographs of ex-copyright works, such as this painting of Catherine de Braganza.
The original painting belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, London. For copies, and permission to reproduce the image, please contact the Gallery at picturelibrary@npg.org.uk or via our website at www.npg.org.uk”

Other, later, edits, made on the day that NPG’s solicitors contacted Coetzee and drawn to the NPG’s attention by Wikinews, are currently the subject of an internal investigation within the NPG.

Coetzee published the contents of the letter on Saturday July 11, the letter itself being dated the previous day. It had been sent electronically to an email address associated with his Wikimedia Commons user account. The NPG’s solicitors had mailed the letter from an account in the name “Amisquitta”. This account was blocked shortly after by a user with access to the user blocking tool, citing a long standing Wikipedia policy that the making of legal threats and creation of a hostile environment is generally inconsistent with editing access and is an inappropriate means of resolving user disputes.

The policy, initially created on Commons’ sister website in June 2004, is also intended to protect all parties involved in a legal dispute, by ensuring that their legal communications go through proper channels, and not through a wiki that is open to editing by other members of the public. It was originally formulated primarily to address legal action for libel. In October 2004 it was noted that there was “no consensus” whether legal threats related to copyright infringement would be covered but by the end of 2006 the policy had reached a consensus that such threats (as opposed to polite complaints) were not compatible with editing access while a legal matter was unresolved. Commons’ own website states that “[accounts] used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked”.

In a further response, Gregory Maxwell, a volunteer administrator on Wikimedia Commons, made a formal request to the editorial community that Coetzee’s access to administrator tools on Commons should be revoked due to the prevailing circumstances. Maxwell noted that Coetzee “[did] not have the technically ability to permanently delete images”, but stated that Coetzee’s potential legal situation created a conflict of interest.

Sixteen minutes after Maxwell’s request, Coetzee’s “administrator” privileges were removed by a user in response to the request. Coetzee retains “administrator” privileges on the English-language Wikipedia, since none of the images exist on Wikipedia’s own website and therefore no conflict of interest exists on that site.

Legally, the central issue upon which the case depends is that copyright laws vary between countries. Under United States case law, where both the website and Coetzee are located, a photograph of a non-copyrighted two-dimensional picture (such as a very old portrait) is not capable of being copyrighted, and it may be freely distributed and used by anyone. Under UK law that point has not yet been decided, and the Gallery’s solicitors state that such photographs could potentially be subject to copyright in that country.

One major legal point upon which a case would hinge, should the NPG proceed to court, is a question of originality. The U.K.’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines in ¶ 1(a) that copyright is a right that subsists in “original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works” (emphasis added). The legal concept of originality here involves the simple origination of a work from an author, and does not include the notions of novelty or innovation that is often associated with the non-legal meaning of the word.

Whether an exact photographic reproduction of a work is an original work will be a point at issue. The NPG asserts that an exact photographic reproduction of a copyrighted work in another medium constitutes an original work, and this would be the basis for its action against Coetzee. This view has some support in U.K. case law. The decision of Walter v Lane held that exact transcriptions of speeches by journalists, in shorthand on reporter’s notepads, were original works, and thus copyrightable in themselves. The opinion by Hugh Laddie, Justice Laddie, in his book The Modern Law of Copyright, points out that photographs lie on a continuum, and that photographs can be simple copies, derivative works, or original works:

“[…] it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all; but he might get a copyright if he employed skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photocopied, as where he made a montage.”

Various aspects of this continuum have already been explored in the courts. Justice Neuberger, in the decision at Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. held that a photograph of a three-dimensional object would be copyrightable if some exercise of judgement of the photographer in matters of angle, lighting, film speed, and focus were involved. That exercise would create an original work. Justice Oliver similarly held, in Interlego v Tyco Industries, that “[i]t takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an ‘original’ artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”.

In 2000 the Museums Copyright Group, a copyright lobbying group, commissioned a report and legal opinion on the implications of the Bridgeman case for the UK, which stated:

“Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning… as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law”. The report concluded by advocating that “museums must continue to lobby” to protect their interests, to prevent inferior quality images of their collections being distributed, and “not least to protect a vital source of income”.

Several people and organizations in the U.K. have been awaiting a test case that directly addresses the issue of copyrightability of exact photographic reproductions of works in other media. The commonly cited legal case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. found that there is no originality where the aim and the result is a faithful and exact reproduction of the original work. The case was heard twice in New York, once applying UK law and once applying US law. It cited the prior UK case of Interlego v Tyco Industries (1988) in which Lord Oliver stated that “Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”

“What is important about a drawing is what is visually significant and the re-drawing of an existing drawing […] does not make it an original artistic work, however much labour and skill may have gone into the process of reproduction […]”

The Interlego judgement had itself drawn upon another UK case two years earlier, Coca-Cola Go’s Applications, in which the House of Lords drew attention to the “undesirability” of plaintiffs seeking to expand intellectual property law beyond the purpose of its creation in order to create an “undeserving monopoly”. It commented on this, that “To accord an independent artistic copyright to every such reproduction would be to enable the period of artistic copyright in what is, essentially, the same work to be extended indefinitely… “

The Bridgeman case concluded that whether under UK or US law, such reproductions of copyright-expired material were not capable of being copyrighted.

The unsuccessful plaintiff, Bridgeman Art Library, stated in 2006 in written evidence to the House of Commons Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that it was “looking for a similar test case in the U.K. or Europe to fight which would strengthen our position”.

The National Portrait Gallery is a non-departmental public body based in London England and sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Founded in 1856, it houses a collection of portraits of historically important and famous British people. The gallery contains more than 11,000 portraits and 7,000 light-sensitive works in its Primary Collection, 320,000 in the Reference Collection, over 200,000 pictures and negatives in the Photographs Collection and a library of around 35,000 books and manuscripts. (More on the National Portrait Gallery here)

The gallery’s solicitors are Farrer & Co LLP, of London. Farrer’s clients have notably included the British Royal Family, in a case related to extracts from letters sent by Diana, Princess of Wales which were published in a book by ex-butler Paul Burrell. (In that case, the claim was deemed unlikely to succeed, as the extracts were not likely to be in breach of copyright law.)

Farrer & Co have close ties with industry interest groups related to copyright law. Peter Wienand, Head of Intellectual Property at Farrer & Co., is a member of the Executive body of the Museums Copyright Group, which is chaired by Tom Morgan, Head of Rights and Reproductions at the National Portrait Gallery. The Museums Copyright Group acts as a lobbying organization for “the interests and activities of museums and galleries in the area of [intellectual property rights]”, which reacted strongly against the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case.

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of images, media, and other material free for use by anyone in the world. It is operated by a community of 21,000 active volunteers, with specialist rights such as deletion and blocking restricted to around 270 experienced users in the community (known as “administrators”) who are trusted by the community to use them to enact the wishes and policies of the community. Commons is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a charitable body whose mission is to make available free knowledge and historic and other material which is legally distributable under US law. (More on Commons here)

The legal threat also sparked discussions of moral issues and issues of public policy in several Internet discussion fora, including Slashdot, over the weekend. One major public policy issue relates to how the public domain should be preserved.

Some of the public policy debate over the weekend has echoed earlier opinions presented by Kenneth Hamma, the executive director for Digital Policy at the J. Paul Getty Trust. Writing in D-Lib Magazine in November 2005, Hamma observed:

“Art museums and many other collecting institutions in this country hold a trove of public-domain works of art. These are works whose age precludes continued protection under copyright law. The works are the result of and evidence for human creativity over thousands of years, an activity museums celebrate by their very existence. For reasons that seem too frequently unexamined, many museums erect barriers that contribute to keeping quality images of public domain works out of the hands of the general public, of educators, and of the general milieu of creativity. In restricting access, art museums effectively take a stand against the creativity they otherwise celebrate. This conflict arises as a result of the widely accepted practice of asserting rights in the images that the museums make of the public domain works of art in their collections.”

He also stated:

“This resistance to free and unfettered access may well result from a seemingly well-grounded concern: many museums assume that an important part of their core business is the acquisition and management of rights in art works to maximum return on investment. That might be true in the case of the recording industry, but it should not be true for nonprofit institutions holding public domain art works; it is not even their secondary business. Indeed, restricting access seems all the more inappropriate when measured against a museum’s mission — a responsibility to provide public access. Their charitable, financial, and tax-exempt status demands such. The assertion of rights in public domain works of art — images that at their best closely replicate the values of the original work — differs in almost every way from the rights managed by the recording industry. Because museums and other similar collecting institutions are part of the private nonprofit sector, the obligation to treat assets as held in public trust should replace the for-profit goal. To do otherwise, undermines the very nature of what such institutions were created to do.”

Hamma observed in 2005 that “[w]hile examples of museums chasing down digital image miscreants are rare to non-existent, the expectation that museums might do so has had a stultifying effect on the development of digital image libraries for teaching and research.”

The NPG, which has been taking action with respect to these images since at least 2005, is a public body. It was established by Act of Parliament, the current Act being the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. In that Act, the NPG Board of Trustees is charged with maintaining “a collection of portraits of the most eminent persons in British history, of other works of art relevant to portraiture and of documents relating to those portraits and other works of art”. It also has the tasks of “secur[ing] that the portraits are exhibited to the public” and “generally promot[ing] the public’s enjoyment and understanding of portraiture of British persons and British history through portraiture both by means of the Board’s collection and by such other means as they consider appropriate”.

Several commentators have questioned how the NPG’s statutory goals align with its threat of legal action. Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt, asked “The people who run the Gallery should be ashamed of themselves. They ought to go back and read their own mission statement[. …] How, exactly, does suing someone for getting those portraits more attention achieve that goal?” (external link Masnick’s). L. Sutherland of Bigmouthmedia asked “As the paintings of the NPG technically belong to the nation, does that mean that they should also belong to anyone that has access to a computer?”

Other public policy debates that have been sparked have included the applicability of U.K. courts, and U.K. law, to the actions of a U.S. citizen, residing in the U.S., uploading files to servers hosted in the U.S.. Two major schools of thought have emerged. Both see the issue as encroachment of one legal system upon another. But they differ as to which system is encroaching. One view is that the free culture movement is attempting to impose the values and laws of the U.S. legal system, including its case law such as Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., upon the rest of the world. Another view is that a U.K. institution is attempting to control, through legal action, the actions of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

David Gerard, former Press Officer for Wikimedia UK, the U.K. chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has been involved with the “Wikipedia Loves Art” contest to create free content photographs of exhibits at the Victoria and Albert Museum, stated on Slashdot that “The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster’s actions were entirely legal in America, and that they’re making a threat just because they think they can. The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain. The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.”

Benjamin Crowell, a physics teacher at Fullerton College in California, stated that he had received a letter from the Copyright Officer at the NPG in 2004, with respect to the picture of the portrait of Isaac Newton used in his physics textbooks, that he publishes in the U.S. under a free content copyright licence, to which he had replied with a pointer to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..

The Wikimedia Foundation takes a similar stance. Erik Möller, the Deputy Director of the US-based Wikimedia Foundation wrote in 2008 that “we’ve consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes”.

Contacted over the weekend, the NPG issued a statement to Wikinews:

“The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection. In the past five years the Gallery has spent around £1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment. We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit.
“The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards. However, in March 2009 over 3000 high-resolution files were appropriated from the National Portrait Gallery website and published on Wikipedia without permission.
“The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available. It is one of the Gallery’s primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.
“Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography. Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database. To date, Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue and so the National Portrait Gallery has been obliged to issue a lawyer’s letter. The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia.

In fact, Matthew Bailey, the Gallery’s (then) Assistant Picture Library Manager, had already once been in a similar dialogue. Ryan Kaldari, an amateur photographer from Nashville, Tennessee, who also volunteers at the Wikimedia Commons, states that he was in correspondence with Bailey in October 2006. In that correspondence, according to Kaldari, he and Bailey failed to conclude any arrangement.

Jay Walsh, the Head of Communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Commons, called the gallery’s actions “unfortunate” in the Foundation’s statement, issued on Tuesday July 14:

“The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. To that end, we have very productive working relationships with a number of galleries, archives, museums and libraries around the world, who join with us to make their educational materials available to the public.
“The Wikimedia Foundation does not control user behavior, nor have we reviewed every action taken by that user. Nonetheless, it is our general understanding that the user in question has behaved in accordance with our mission, with the general goal of making public domain materials available via our Wikimedia Commons project, and in accordance with applicable law.”

The Foundation added in its statement that as far as it was aware, the NPG had not attempted “constructive dialogue”, and that the volunteer community was presently discussing the matter independently.

In part, the lack of past agreement may have been because of a misunderstanding by the National Portrait Gallery of Commons and Wikipedia’s free content mandate; and of the differences between Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Commons, and the individual volunteer workers who participate on the various projects supported by the Foundation.

Like Coetzee, Ryan Kaldari is a volunteer worker who does not represent Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. (Such representation is impossible. Both Wikipedia and the Commons are endeavours supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, and not organizations in themselves.) Nor, again like Coetzee, does he represent the Wikimedia Foundation.

Kaldari states that he explained the free content mandate to Bailey. Bailey had, according to copies of his messages provided by Kaldari, offered content to Wikipedia (naming as an example the photograph of John Opie‘s 1797 portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft, whose copyright term has since expired) but on condition that it not be free content, but would be subject to restrictions on its distribution that would have made it impossible to use by any of the many organizations that make use of Wikipedia articles and the Commons repository, in the way that their site-wide “usable by anyone” licences ensures.

The proposed restrictions would have also made it impossible to host the images on Wikimedia Commons. The image of the National Portrait Gallery in this article, above, is one such free content image; it was provided and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence, and is thus able to be used and republished not only on Wikipedia but also on Wikinews, on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, as well as by anyone in the world, subject to the terms of the GFDL, a license that guarantees attribution is provided to the creators of the image.

As Commons has grown, many other organizations have come to different arrangements with volunteers who work at the Wikimedia Commons and at Wikipedia. For example, in February 2009, fifteen international museums including the Brooklyn Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum established a month-long competition where users were invited to visit in small teams and take high quality photographs of their non-copyright paintings and other exhibits, for upload to Wikimedia Commons and similar websites (with restrictions as to equipment, required in order to conserve the exhibits), as part of the “Wikipedia Loves Art” contest.

Approached for comment by Wikinews, Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said “It’s pretty clear that these images themselves should be in the public domain. There is a clear public interest in making sure paintings and other works are usable by anyone once their term of copyright expires. This is what US courts have recognised, whatever the situation in UK law.”

The Digital Britain report, issued by the U.K.’s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport in June 2009, stated that “Public cultural institutions like Tate, the Royal Opera House, the RSC, the Film Council and many other museums, libraries, archives and galleries around the country now reach a wider public online.” Culture minster Ben Bradshaw was also approached by Wikinews for comment on the public policy issues surrounding the on-line availability of works in the public domain held in galleries, re-raised by the NPG’s threat of legal action, but had not responded by publication time.

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments

Reality TV star sought after model found dead in California dumpster

">
Reality TV star sought after model found dead in California dumpster

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

A millionaire reality TV star is being sought by police over the murder of a model whose body was found in a Californian dumpster. 28-year-old Jasmine Fiore was found dead in an unzipped suitcase in Buena Park, Orange County.

Police are seeking real estate tycoon Ryan Jenkins, 32, a contestant on the reality show Megan Wants a Millionaire, in which former Rock of Love hopeful Megan Hauserman dates several rich men with the aim of ultimately becoming the girlfriend of one of them. Jenkins reportedly met Fiore at a Las Vegas strip club and married her two days later.

Jenkins reported the swimsuit model missing hours after the discovery of her body. Since then he has not returned calls from investigators and is considered a person of interest. Police suspect he may be on the run and are trying to trace him as well as a black and white Mercedes car he may be driving.

It is thought that Jenkins may have returned to his homeland of Canada. Fiore, who had worked for Playboy, had been strangled according to police. Her body was found by someone searching for goods to recycle. She was last seen alive at 8:30 p.m. on Friday and had not contacted her family since then.

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments

On the campaign trail, January 2012

">
On the campaign trail, January 2012

Friday, February 3, 2012

The following is the third in a monthly series chronicling the U.S. 2012 presidential election. It features original material compiled throughout the previous month after a brief mention of some of the month’s biggest stories.

In this month’s edition on the campaign trail, the challengers to President Barack Obama react to the results of the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary, two new political parties choose their first presidential nominees, and an economist who announced his intentions to seek the nomination of Americans Elect answers a few questions for Wikinews.

Contents

  • 1 Summary
  • 2 New Hampshire Democratic Party primary results
  • 3 New parties select presidential nominees
  • 4 Economist running for president
  • 5 Related articles
  • 6 Sources

Posted on September 11th, 2017 by oY55iZ

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments

Apollo Astronaut Mitchell Says Aliens Exist And The Government Doesnt Want You To Know About Them

By Bill Knell

Edgar Mitchell was one of the twelve Americans to walk on the surface of the moon. During a recent radio interview on the UK-based Kerrang! Broadcast, he told host Nick Margerrison, I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we’ve been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real. That statement shocked the host and began an amazing disclosure from a true American hero.

Born in Texas and brought up in New Mexico, he has three earned degrees including a Doctorate of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT, as well as at least four honorary Doctorate degrees from prestigious universities. Among his many awards are the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the United States Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Mitchell began his Navy career in 1952 and completed flight training in 1954. During the 1950s, he flew A3 aircraft as part of the Heavy Attack Squadron Two and served as a Research Project Pilot with the Navys Air Development Squadron Five. In the early 1960s he was Chief of the Project Management Division of the Navy Field Office for a Manned Orbiting Laboratory. In 1965 he entered the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School in preparation for astronaut duties.

In 1966, Edgar Mitchell was chosen for the Astronaut Training Program by NASA. After serving as a member of the astronaut support crew for Apollo 9 and as backup lunar module pilot for Apollo 10, Mitchell, he was assigned as a lunar module pilot. In 1971, U.S. Navy Captain Mitchell was a part of the crew of Apollo 14 along with Admiral Alan Shepard and Colonel Stuart Roosa.

YouTube Preview Image

After the Apollo 13 disaster, the world had their eyes on the Apollo 14 Moon Mission. Mitchell maneuvered the lunar module Antares to a perfect landing on the hilly Fra Mauro region of the moon. Mitchell and Shepard deployed from the module, performed a number of experiments and collected over 100 pounds of moon rocks and set a record of staying thirty three hours on the lunar surface. They also hold the record for the longest moon walk on record at nine hours and seventeen minutes.

Nine days after his mission began, Edgar Mitchell made a triumphant return to Earth and helped reestablish the American Public and Governments faith in NASA. He retired from NASA and the U.S. Navy in 1972. Since that time, Mitchell has been active as an author and speaker on many subjects including space exploration, the nature of consciousness and powers of the mind.

Now seventy-seven years old, the sixth man to walk on the surface of the moon told a stunned radio audience that Aliens from other worlds have contacted humans and that governments have purposely covered up what they have learned about these entities. Mitchell describes the beings as little people who look strange to us. He says that the traditional description of creatures with a small body frame, large eyes and over-sized head is accurate.

Speaking about the cover-up, Mitchell told radio host Nick Margerrison, ‘It’s been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it’s leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it I’ve been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes – we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it’s been happening quite a bit.

Responding to a question about disclosure by Margerrison, Mitchell said, This is really starting to open up. I think we’re headed for real disclosure and some serious organisations are moving in that direction. Well, all except for NASA. Despite what Mitchell did for them, a spokesperson for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration responded to his comments by saying, NASA does not track UFOs.

NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe. Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinion on this issue.

Its came as no surprise that what other government agencies have described as the most deception organization in the United State Government should turn on Mitchell as soon as he tried to tell the truth about UFOs and Aliens. They have repeatedly described Astronaut UFO sightings as cases of mistaken identity saying they were pieces of rockets, ice, dust particles and space junk. If the truth is out there, NASA isnt going o be the government agency that will tell you about it! For more, visit http://newsletter.ufoguy.com

About the Author: Bill Knell is a popular paranormal author, speaker and consultant. Author’s Website:

UFOguy.com

Terms To Use Article: Permission is granted to use this article for free online or in print with inclusion of the authors url.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=281973&ca=World+Affairs

Firing of Michael Jackson spokeswoman disputed

">
Firing of Michael Jackson spokeswoman disputed

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Wrangling between musician Michael Jackson‘s legal and public relation teams may have yielded its first casualty. Jackson’s official website, www.mjjsource.com, reports that Jackson’s MJJ Productions has terminated spokeswoman Raymone Bain and public relations firm Davis, Bain, and Associates. On Wednesday, Bain held a press conference amidst a court-issued gag order which she implied was sanctioned by the Jackson legal team. The same day, Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau, Jr. released a court-approved terse message: “I have not authorized anyone to speak or hold any press conferences on behalf of Michael Jackson or his family.”

Despite the www.mjjsource.com announcement, late Friday the Associated Press quotes Bain responding, “I have not been fired by Michael Jackson.” Bain says she works directly for Jackson himself, not MJJ Productions.

The controversy occurs as Michael Jackson awaits a verdict on charges that he molested a teenage boy in 2003. On Friday, the jury completed its sixth day of deliberations. The twelve jurors will reconvene on Monday.

Posted on September 8th, 2017 by oY55iZ

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments

Flooding in Nakhon Sri Thammarat

">
Flooding in Nakhon Sri Thammarat

Friday, December 16, 2005

Moderate flooding has hit the province of Nakhon Sri Thammarat in southern Thailand. Moderate to heavy rain persists in the area, further exacerbating the flooding conditions. The northeast monsoon has intensified the flow of rainfall-laden air from the Gulf of Thailand. Torrential rains have been plaguing the nine southernmost provinces of the country for nearly two weeks and further downpours are forecast for later this week.

Thung Song District in Nakhon Sri Thammarat province is experiencing waist-high floodwaters in downtown shopping areas. Transportation has ground to a halt in affected areas. In Songkhla Province, the government has called for steps to be taken to prevent further flooding of the commerial district of Hat Yai. Rail tracks have been lifted in some areas to permit flood waters to leave the city, and the Thai Navy has been ordered to take part in relief efforts.

In Muang District of Nakhon Sri Thammarat, many roads have been closed and sandbags are being deployed to help affected businesses. Schools throughout the province have been closed because of flooding conditions. Other provinces, including Phattalung, Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, Trang, Sukhothai and Satun have experienced similar problems with high tides and heavy rain paralysing much of the region.

The Meteorological Department of the Thailand Ministry of Information and Communication Technology issued a weather advisory concerning the flooding, “People in the lower South and navigators in the Gulf of Thailand should exercise caution and small boats should stay from December 15 until December 18.” It is reported that this has left some tourists stranded on smaller resort islands in the Gulf of Thailand.

Across the border in Malaysia, three are reported to have died and over 10,000 been evacuated as a result of the flooding.

Posted on September 8th, 2017 by oY55iZ

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments

Alice Cooper says reality show ‘The Osbournes’ ruined Ozzy Osbourne’s career

">
Alice Cooper says reality show ‘The Osbournes’ ruined Ozzy Osbourne’s career

Friday, November 2, 2007

Solo American hard shock rock artist Alice Cooper has commented that The Osbournes, a reality TV show starring heavy metal vocalist Ozzy Osbourne, ruined the career of the Black Sabbath frontman.

Cooper said he felt that by allowing daily life in his house to be broadcast to the world, he destroyed the mystery that had previously surrounded him.

“Most fans thought he lived in a big, dark castle with skeletons in the cellar.” said Cooper.

“When that show aired they knew he was just some guy who potters around his Beverly Hills mansion.

“It was meant to be some kind of comedy but the audience was laughing at Ozzy, not with him. And as a close friend, that made me very sad.”

Meanwhile, both artists have related news this week. Finnish solo symphonic power metal soprano Tarja Turunen, most famous as the former Nightwish frontwoman, has released a 30-second preview of her cover version of Alice Cooper’s top ten hit Poison, which will feature on her upcoming album My Winter Storm.

Cooper himself has stated that during an upcoming tour he will replicate a mock hanging for the first time after a near-fatal accident performing the same stunt in 1988, only this time he will also be wearing a straightjacket.

Meanwhile, Ozzy has blamed illegal music downloads for poor sales of his latest album Black Rain, saying that the low sales have forced him into a 90-gig world tour that he has admitted he can barely cope with.

Posted on September 8th, 2017 by oY55iZ

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments

Swim Through Negative Equity: Buy A Car In An Upside Down Auto Loan Situation}

Submitted by: Wiliams Orchard

Being able to breathe underwater would be sweet. – Cameron Bright

It is exciting to be able to breathe underwater, but when you actually go below the water surface, you will develop breathing issues. Similarly, when your auto loan situation is underwater, you will face myriad problems. In financial terms, being underwater means to have negative equity on your asset such as a car. In simpler words, it is to owe more money to the lender than the actual worth of the car. It means being in an upside down auto loan situation.

How to deal with Negative Equity on your car?

Life may not be always beautiful underwater!

Negative equity occurs when you try to get out of the auto loan before it is paid off. The reason may be you bought a Sedan and now you need a SUV for transportation or you cant afford the current monthly payments. Nowadays, people need change and variety in driving a car and so they think of buying a new car before pay off the current auto loan.

When you have unpaid balance on your current loan, the situation of upside down auto loan arises. Let us understand the reason behind negative equity in detail:

You bought an expensive car that you could not afford because of the high monthly payments.

You did not pay a large down payment in the first place which caused a rise in your auto loan balance. As a result, you are stuck with unaffordable monthly payments.

You have an upside down auto loan because you are paying high rate of interest. The reason can be your bad credit score.

Your auto loan term is too long resulting in slower repayment of the debt.

You rolled an old auto loan into your current auto loan which led to a rise in the total debt amount.

Negative equity and Upside Down Auto Loan: Lets swim to the shore

Accept the fact that you are upside down on your current auto loan. You will have to deal with the difference between the cars current value and what you still owe on the auto loan. Save yourself from going underwater with these helpful tips and swim to the shore!

The outstanding balance isnt going away so you will have to pay the difference before buying a new car. If you cannot afford to pay now, keep making payments on your current auto loan. It will improve your upside down auto loan situation.

You can roll over the difference into your new auto loan. When you opt for it, the balance on the current auto loan amount will be included in the new one. You will have to make higher payments if you choose the option.

If lowering down the monthly payments is your top priority, consider refinancing your auto loan and get an extended loan term. It will provide you instant relief from high monthly payments.

Work overtime and earn extra bucks to pay off the outstanding loan amount. Working a few additional shifts might be the easiest way to get more cash in your pocket. Also, it will help you to lower the negative equity.

Sell your old car. You can get instant cash and it will help in repaying the current auto loan. When it is paid off, you can begin another journey with your new car and a new auto loan.

When you are driving your old car and see a new model of a car passing by, it will give you goose bumps. If you need the luxury of a latest car, you will have to consider your current outstanding auto loan balance. Before making any decision, consider how negative equity on your current car will affect your financial situation. Think about the upside down auto loan and prepare a detailed plan to tackle the plan. Only then, you will have the best chance to swim though the problem of negative equity and reach the shore.

About the Author: When you want to buy a car immediately, trust the online auto financing expert.

RapidCarLoans.net

will help you to make a quick car purchase. It provides guaranteed bad credit car loans to buy the car of your dreams. Apply now for guaranteed auto loan approval. For more information:https://www.rapidcarloans.net/guaranteed_car_loans.html

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1968238&ca=Finances }

Gay Talese on the state of journalism, Iraq and his life

">
Gay Talese on the state of journalism, Iraq and his life

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Gay Talese wants to go to Iraq. “It so happens there is someone that’s working on such a thing right now for me,” the 75-year-old legendary journalist and author told David Shankbone. “Even if I was on Al-Jazeera with a gun to my head, I wouldn’t be pleading with those bastards! I’d say, ‘Go ahead. Make my day.'”

Few reporters will ever reach the stature of Talese. His 1966 profile of Frank Sinatra, Frank Sinatra Has a Cold, was not only cited by The Economist as the greatest profile of Sinatra ever written, but is considered the greatest of any celebrity profile ever written. In the 70th anniversary issue of Esquire in October 2003, the editors declared the piece the “Best Story Esquire Ever Published.”

Talese helped create and define a new style of literary reporting called New Journalism. Talese himself told National Public Radio he rejects this label (“The term new journalism became very fashionable on college campuses in the 1970s and some of its practitioners tended to be a little loose with the facts. And that’s where I wanted to part company.”)

He is not bothered by the Bancrofts selling The Wall Street Journal—”It’s not like we should lament the passing of some noble dynasty!”—to Rupert Murdoch, but he is bothered by how the press supported and sold the Iraq War to the American people. “The press in Washington got us into this war as much as the people that are controlling it,” said Talese. “They took information that was second-hand information, and they went along with it.” He wants to see the Washington press corp disbanded and sent around the country to get back in touch with the people it covers; that the press should not be so focused on–and in bed with–the federal government.

Augusten Burroughs once said that writers are experience junkies, and Talese fits the bill. Talese–who has been married to Nan Talese (she edited James Frey‘s Million Little Piece) for fifty years–can be found at baseball games in Cuba or the gay bars of Beijing, wanting to see humanity in all its experience.

Below is Wikinews reporter David Shankbone’s interview with Gay Talese.

Contents

  • 1 On Gay Talese
  • 2 On a higher power and how he’d like to die
  • 3 On the media and Iraq
  • 4 On the Iraq War
  • 5 State of Journalism
  • 6 On travel to Cuba
  • 7 On Chinese gay bars
  • 8 On the literary canon
  • 9 Sources

Posted on September 7th, 2017 by oY55iZ

" class="more">Read full article | No Comments