Deaths on South African roads at 1215 for December 2005

Posted on December 17, 2017December 17, 2017Categories Uncategorized

Thursday, January 5, 2006

According to the South African government’s Department of Transport, the number of fatalities on the country’s roads during December 2005 was 1,215. This is compared with 1,234 the previous year, where the total number of deaths in traffic accidents was 10,530.

Department of Transport spokeswoman, Collen Msibi, stated that 512 of the fatalities were pedestrians, 414 passengers, and 289 drivers. 2005 saw the number of vehicles on South Africa’s roads rise by nearly half a million to just under eight million with 779,000 new drivers adding to the dangers on the country’s roads.

“To deal with this high level of unsafety, traffic authorities will increase the number of patrol vehicles on the road, law enforcement officers and unmarked vehicles to do more spot checks and roadblocks,” Msibi said.

“Our analysis has revealed that most accidents are preceded by offences such as ignoring road signs, driving drunk, speeding, vehicles cutting in front of others, driving defective vehicles and fatigue.”

The road toll in South Africa is similar to that of South Korea, Mexico, Japan and Thailand. However, except for South Korea these countries have significantly larger populations.

The worst country in the world for deaths in road traffic accidents, is currently accepted to be China. Figures released for 2002 reveal that 250,007 people were killed in that year.

The South African government has acknowledged the problem since 2001. At that time they launched their “Arrive Alive” campaign, targeting vehicle condition, driver fitness, speeding and drunk driving.

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

Posted on December 17, 2017December 17, 2017Categories Uncategorized

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.

2008 TaiSPO: Interview with Ideal Bike Corporation and Gary Silva

Posted on December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Categories Uncategorized

Friday, March 28, 2008

2008 Taipei International Cycle Show (Taipei Cycle) & Taipei International Sporting Goods Show (TaiSPO) not only did a best reunion with conjunctions of the launch of Taipei World Trade Center Nangang Exhibition and the concurrent cycling race of 2008 Tour de Taiwan but also provide opportunities and benefits for sporting goods, bicycle, and athlete sports industries to establish the basis of the sourcing center in Asia and notabilities on the international cycling race.

Although the Taipei cycle was split from the TaiSPO since 1988, but the trends of sporting good industry in Taiwan changed rapidly and multiply because of modern people’s lifestyles and habits. After the “TaiSPO Innovation Award” was established since 2005, the fitness and leisure industries became popular stars as several international buyers respected on lifestyle and health.

For example, some participants participated Taipei Cycle and TaiSPO with different product lines to do several marketing on bicycle and fitness equipments, this also echoed the “Three New Movements” proposed by Giant Co., Ltd. to make a simple bicycle with multiple applications and functions. As of those facts above, Wikinews Journalist Rico Shen interviewed Ideal Bike Corporation and Gary Silva, designer of “3G Steeper” to find out the possibilities on the optimizations between two elements, fitness and bicycle.

Italy win with last kick against Australia; into quarter-finals

Posted on December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Categories Uncategorized

Monday, June 26, 2006

A Francesco Totti penalty deep in added time put Italy through to the next round of the 2006 Fifa World Cup at the expense of Australia, Monday.

The Australian Socceroos had the ball more, but the more experienced Azzuri defenders created an impenetrable defence, limiting the number of Australian scoring opportunities. This was despite the Italian team shrinking to ten men after Marco Materazzi was shown a controversial straight red card in the 50th minute.

Australia looked to have gained an advantage when Marco Bresciano surged through the Italy defence and Materazzi slid in to trip him up. Though there was an Italy defender on Bresciano’s shoulder, Spanish referee Luis Medina Cantalejo deemed that the tackle was deliberately not aimed at the ball, and considered the foul worth more than a single yellow card. It would not be the only disputed decision in the match.

Both sides had a number of good opportunities to score, but the shots were generally too close to the box to beat the goalkeepers. The best save of the game was made by Mark Schwarzer from a Luca Toni effort 20 minutes into the game.

Guus Hiddink delayed making attacking substitutions against ten-men Italy likely because he expected the game to go to extra time, and so wished to keep a fitness advantage later on in the game. Hiddink’s only substitution, John Aloisi, came on at the 80th minute, while the Italian coach Marcello Lippi had made three, including the crucial one of Totti five minutes earlier.

In the attack Totti was a straight swap for Alessandro Del Piero, a fresh pair of legs which ensured Italy were a threat on the break right until the end of the regular period of play. It was a tactic that paid dividends in the end.

The second disputed referee decision was a penalty kick was awarded to Fabio Grosso three minutes into added time (and the last minute of game time). Grosso was running towards goal from out wide having avoided Marco Bresciano before being obstructed by Lucas Neill. The central defender had fallen to the ground early and Grosso, though not tripped, was impeded and dived straight over him. Medina awarded a penalty shot as this occurred within the penalty area.

Totti, dropped from the game in favour of Del Piero, grinned slightly as he placed the ball on the spot. The ball was struck close to the upper-right corner of Schwarzer’s box, the goalie could do nothing to stop the ball. It was the last kick of the game and the Italians celebrated.

The Budweiser Man of the Match was Gianluigi Buffon of Italy.

The prize was a quarter-final match against the lowest ranked FIFA team in their half of the knock-out tree, Ukraine.

Contents

  • 1 Round of sixteen
  • 2 Formations
    • 2.1 Australia
    • 2.2 Italy
  • 3 Officials
  • 4 Related news
  • 5 Sources

Wikinews interviews Jim Hedges, U.S. Prohibition Party presidential candidate

Posted on December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Categories Uncategorized

Saturday, January 29, 2011

U.S. Prohibition Party presidential candidate Jim Hedges of Thompson Township, Pennsylvania took some time to answer a few questions about the Prohibition Party and his 2012 presidential campaign.

The Prohibition Party is the third oldest existing political party in the United States, having been established in 1869. It reached its height of popularity during the late 19th century. The party heavily supported the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which banned the sale of alcohol, and resulted in the US period known as Prohibition (1919–33). It was repealed in 1933. The party has declined since this period, but has continued to nominate candidates for the presidential election.

In 2003, the party split into two factions. Preacher Gene Amondson and perennial candidate Earl Dodge were nominated for the presidency by their respective factions. After Dodge’s death in 2007, the party reunified and named Amondson as its sole presidential nominee for 2008. During the election, Amondson was interviewed by Wikinews. He died in 2009, leaving an opening in the party for 2012.

Jim Hedges is a longtime Prohibition activist, who holds the distinction of the first individual of the 21st century (and the first since 1959) to be elected to a political office under the Prohibition Party banner. In 2001, he was elected as the Thompson Township tax assessor, and was re-elected to the post in 2005. He served until his term expired in 2010. Hedges declared his intent to run for the Prohibition Party presidential nomination on February 18, 2010. This marks his first run for the presidency.

Make Your Style Statement With Custom Jewelry Encino}

Posted on December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Categories Jewellery

More On This Topic:

Make Your Style Statement With Custom Jewelry Encino

by

Harout Markarian

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VL0M0jmu7k[/youtube]

Custom Jewelry Encino can do so much for you without you needing to say a word about your personal style. Jewelry can say so much about you and what better way to be different from others through your unique jewelry that was imagined by you and created by expert and creative craftsmen who have created beautiful pieces of jewelry exactly as customers want. Whether you have old piece of jewelry at home and want to change its look, or you are excited to start something from the scratch, customized jewelry gives you a wonderful opportunity to express yourself in a near inimitable style.

Most people are very enthusiastic about customized jewlery but they seem to hold back their plans because somebody just told them it is out of their price range! Nothing could be further from the truth and it is suggested to you that you should personally visit a reputed jewelry store to clear any doubts regarding its cost. When you make a visit and personally meet experienced jewelers, they’ll be able to give you the accurate estimate based on the materials you prefer to use in its making. This will give you a good idea whether your imagined customized jewelry is within your price range or not. The fact is that there are many factors which determine the cost of customized jewelry and the same thing applies to readily available jewelry pieces. In any case, you should be ready to shell out significant amount of money because gold is one of the rare and precious metals available today.

What makes Custom Jewelry Encino different from readymade jewelry? What do you mean by the term “customization” ? Building a jewelry from the scratch as per the design and style needs as imagined by you can be called as the customization. Engagement or wedding rings are the most common customized jewelry pieces that are in high demand these days. Custom jewelry adds more uniqueness to special occasions like wedding or marriage, as you want to lend a personal touch to this ceremonious occasion. You want your dress and your jewelry to be the reflection of your choices. And what can be the better way to express your style preferences so vividly other than the jewelry that is designed by you and made by the expert craftsmen.

Sky is the limit for people who want to wear a personalized jewelry that is purely designed and created on the basis of their personal style preferences. You may not even be aware that how so many people notice even the minute things in your overall personality and your jewelry is definitely one of the most visible part of your attire and onlookers are invariably drawn to it. They will see careful if you are wearing a jewelry that is so commonly used by others too, or if there’s something striking in it. You can let your customized jewelry do the talking with such people as you flaunt your newly-created assets with pride and a sense of superiority.

Read the above article and let us help you customize your jewelry for your special occasions. Visit our jewelry store with the old peice of jewelry to customize and give it a brand new look. For more information about

Custom Jewelry in Encino

, Contact us.

Article Source:

eArticlesOnline.com

}

United States of America draw 1-1 with Italy in Group E

Posted on December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Categories Uncategorized

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Kasey Keller made three crucial saves as nine-man USA drew 1-1 with ten-man Italy in an heart-pounding Group E match.

The match was played in Kaiserslautern and there were many American fans present. Those who had seen the Czech Republic crush the USA 3-0 might have been surprised at the way the underdogs played against the Azzuri.

Bruce Arena’s side began with a 4-5-1 formation and started the game with great energy, attacking from the first whistle.

However; arguably against the play Italy scored first. A set piece 45 yards out was driven low and Alberto Gilardino got in front of his defender and glanced a header to the far post.

USA got an equaliser on 26 minutes. Christian Zaccardo tried to clear a corner one way but skewed the ball the other. Own goal, Gianluigi Buffon did not move.

Then there was a crucial turning point in the character of the game. Daniele De Rossi rose for a midfield challenge and hit Brian McBride under the left eye with what looked like an elbow.

Blood streamed from McBride’s face. Uruguay referee Jorge Larrionda gave De Rossi a straight red.

Larrionda went on to show two more red cards in the match which equalled a tournament record. There had only been three other Fifa World Cup games with three red cards: 1938 Brazil v Czechoslovakia; 1954, Brazil v Hungary; and 1998, Denmark v South Africa.

For a few minutes McBride remained shirtless on the touchline while he received boxer treatment and three stiches for his cut. Italian manager Marcello Lippi replaced Francesco Totti with midfield tackler Gennaro Gattuso.

With half an hour gone the own goal and De Rossi’s mistake had given the USA a massive advantage. But it appears they did not keep their heads.

Ten minutes after Pablo Mastroeni had grazed the crossbar with a shot he made a horrible lunge at the ankles of Andrea Pirlo. Jorge Larrionda flashed the red again.

Just before half-time the USA had neutralised their advantage. In less than one minute after the restart they were to hand the Italians the advantage.

Eddie Pope was sent off after he received his second caution: two yellow cards equal one red card and now it was ten men versus nine.

Lippi almost immediately got substitute Alexandro Del Piero on for one of his defenders to take advantage of their extra player. Arena brought on another defender and lined up 3-3-2. By 80 minutes this had become 8-0-0.

For a game with so few players and so much drama there were very few chances. Only three shots were on target; all for Italy. USA had 8 shots; none on target.

A statistic that suggests the draw was a tactical victory for the USA coach. Italy’s forward line was guilty of getting caught offside 11 times.

Pirlo went close with a freekick and almost forced Carlos Bocanegra to head another dangerous dipping cross into his net; fortunately for Keller it clipped the bar.

As the Americans were stretched further Kasey Keller made a couple of crucial saves from Lippi’s extra attacker. On 73 minutes he got one hand to a Del Piero header and then palmed away two-handed his long range drive.

In the last 10 minutes Italy passed well and created a few chances to score. Vincenzo Iaquinta broke the offside trap, but failed to control the ball with only Keller to beat.

On 90 minutes Gilardino headed wide under pressure from Steve Cherundolo.

USA, despite playing the entire second half with 9 men might say they were unlucky not to get a second goal. A DaMarcus Beasley shot beat Buffon but was over-ruled because McBride was standing offside in the keeper’s line of sight.

On USA attacks Landon Donovan kept the ball well which allowed respite from Italian attacks and spurred his team on to play further up the pitch, until their stamina cracked with ten-minutes left.

The referee arguably was fair if not consistent. In the second half as both sets of players tired decisions appeared more based on necessity to be more lenient.

Lunges were not whistled and there was an aggressive shirt pull in the USA penalty area that was ignored. In an earlier World Cup match, a Ukraine player had conceded a penalty and was sent off for doing this.

The shared point meant either one of Italy or Czech Republic would qualify from Group E for the knock-out stage of the Fifa World Cup. USA next play Ghana: a win for Ghana would mean qualification while the USA would qualify if they won and Italy beat the Czech Republic.

Contents

  • 1 Statistics
    • 1.1 USA
    • 1.2 Italy
  • 2 Table
  • 3 Related news
  • 4 Sources

Report says disappearing life threatens biodiversity

Posted on December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Categories Uncategorized

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

A global review of threatened species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) indicates drastic decline of animal and plant life. This includes a quarter of all mammals, one out of eight birds, one out of three amphibians and 70 percent of plants.

The report, Red List of Threatened Species, is published by IUCN every year. Additionally a global assessment of the health of the world’s species is released once in four years. The data is compiled by 1,700 experts in 130 countries.

The key findings of the report were announced today at the World Conservation Congress being held in Barcelona, Spain. The congress, held every four years, will deliberate over the next 10 days actions required to slow the rate of species extinction.

The survey includes 44,838 species of wild fauna and flora, out of which 16,928 species are threatened with extinction. Among the threatened, 3,246 are tagged critically endangered, the highest category of threat. Another 4,770 species are endangered and 8,912 vulnerable to extinction.

Our results paint a bleak picture of the global status of mammals worldwide. We estimate that one in four species is threatened with extinction and that the population of one in two is declining.

The latest review includes a survey covering all 5,487 mammal species, out of which 1,141 are considered threatened with extinction. The study notes 79 percent of primate species in South and Southeast Asia are threatened with extinction. This companion study on mammals is being published this week in the journal Science.

“Our results paint a bleak picture of the global status of mammals worldwide,” Jan Schipper, lead author and his co-authors said in the mammalian study. “We estimate that one in four species is threatened with extinction and that the population of one in two is declining.”

However there is some cheer for the conservationists. It is revealed that 5% of the currently threatened species are recovering, including the European bison and black-footed ferret.

“We are now emerging from the Dark Ages of conservation knowledge, when we relied on data from a highly restricted subset of species,” says Jonathan Baillie, director of conservation programmes at the Zoological Society of London. “We will expand the scope further to include a far broader range of groups, thus informing and assisting policy-makers in a hugely more objective and representative manner.”

5 Steps To Get Back Together With Your Ex: A Gentle Approach To Getting Back Together}

Posted on December 15, 2017December 15, 2017Categories Yoga

Submitted by: T-Dub Sago

Getting dumped is a horrible experience, and learning how to get back together with your ex can seem like the only thing that matters. Take a breather and use the 5-step approach outlined in this article for getting back together with your ex.

The first and most important thing to do after youve been dumped is to take a breather. It might feel like acting immediately to get back together is critical, but acting from emotion without thinking clearly and following a plan is a bad idea. You and your ex both need time to cool off from whatever arguments and problems youve had. You both need space right now if youre ever going to get back together. Take at least a few days, but longer is better. A week apart, including no phone calls or text messages to each other, does wonders. When you talk to your ex again at the end of the week, you may find that both of you have cooled off and that a little space was all you needed to fix the problem.

The second step is contacting your ex. There could still be hurt feelings or unresolved issues that need to be addressed if you want to be a couple again. The first phone call after your break from each other is a critical time to discover how your ex is feeling. Start the conversation in a caring way. Be genuine and sincere as you ask how they have been. Ask about their family, friends, school projects, or hobbies. After youve established a kind tone for the conversation, you can begin to find out what the best way to get back together is.

The third step is to let your ex know how you feel. Start with a simple (but not overbearing) statement about how you feel. Something short and to the point, such as Ive missed hearing you tell me about your day or Its good to hear your voice again is perfect.

Fourth, gently inquire if there was something in particular that caused the breakup, and if there is anything you can do to make up for it. Of course the breakup was not 100% your fault; it takes two people to break up. But taking the first step and saying Im sorry for the past will soften your exs heart and move you toward reconciliation.

Last of all, its best that this first conversation doesnt last too long. Dont force the issue of getting back together. The best thing to say is something like, This week is really busy but Ill talk to you when the weekend comes or Im going on vacation until Sunday. Can I talk to you when I get back? This gives your ex a time frame to expect and lets them know how long they have to think about you until talking to you again.

This gentle 5-step approach is really the best way to get back together with your ex. Respecting your exs space and then carefully planning what you will say and how you will say it during your first conversation is key in getting back together

About the Author: Travis Sago has secretly helped thousands in their journey of love. You too can learn how to win your ex back or even how to save your marriage!

Visit magicofmakingup.com!

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=361012&ca=Break-up }