text:
Angels - 001 130 000 - 5 10 1The Red Sox tied the game on a bases loaded wild pitch by Kevin "George" Jepsen in the seventh inning, then (after pinch-hitter J.D. Drew was intentionally walked to re-load the bases) took a 6-5 lead when pinch-hitter Daniel Nava was plunked by an 0-2 fastball. Jane, stop this crazy thing!
Red Sox - 100 120 21x - 7 12 0
In the top of the eighth, Nava made a diving catch in left field to save Daniel Bard's bacon. With Angels on first and second and two outs, Macier Izturis lofted a fly to shallow left. Nava sprinted in, dove forward, and gloved the ball.After the Sox added an insurance run, Jonathan Papelbon struck out the side in the ninth.
Lackey (7-10-5-0-5, 119) skated out of a few jams in the early innings, allowed a couple of single runs, then surrendered a three-run dong to Alberto Callaspo. LBL. After that, though, Adrian Beltre's two-run homer cut the Angels' lead to 5-4, and Lackey retired the last seven batters he faced.
Bill Hall crushed a home run over everything in left in the fourth. And: Marco Scutaro doubled and walked twice, Dustin Pedroia singled, walked, stole a base, and scored a run, Victor Martinez had two singles, a double, and two runs scored, David Ortiz singled, doubled, and walked twice, Beltre homered and singled and drove in three runs, and Darnell McDonald singled, doubled, and stole a base.
The Yankees beat the Tigers 9-5, so the East remains the same for another day: Tampa Bay and New York are tied for first, with Boston 5.5 GB. The Red Sox are 5.5 GB in the Wild Card race. And the White Sox, who were breathing down the Sox's neck, have dropped to 9 GB in the WC.Scott Kazmir / John Lackey
Jacoby Ellsbury, on his examination in California:Scutaro, SS
Pedroia, 2B
Martinez, C
Ortiz, DH
Beltre, 3B
Lowell, 1B
Hall, LF
McDonald, RF
Kalish, CF
It's a broken rib in the back, broken in the exact same place I broke them before. Let's see ... yeah, basically, when I come back I'll be, you know, stronger than ever when I do come back. Thank you. [Will he be back this season?] We're not sure yet.Terry Francona spoke at length:
I actually got a chance to talk to Dr Yocum this morning ... and he said, "The only way you're going to know the answers that you're asking are if he had a scan everyday. ... It really doesn't matter. It's broken and he needs to let it heal."Tito also spoke in Ellsbury's defense on WEEI, when asked if he thought Jacoby was a soft player:
My instincts tell me the kid was probably a little more sore than he was letting on. Probably for obvious reasons. He wanted to play and he was catching some heat from a lot of you and all you tough guys (laughs). He's probably a little more tender. Maybe he was more susceptible. Maybe he wasn't. Nobody really knows.
No. And I think for anyone to ever say that, especially for a radio host, is very disrespectful. Talking tough on the radio is a lot different than running into a wall or getting hit with a pitch. ... To get to this point in their career, they've had to -- I know a lot of people think they're pampered athletes -- but they've had to work pretty hard, and they've had to go through a lot.Francona's comments regarding Ellsbury have not always been so supportive, so this is nice to hear.
AL East: Tigers/Yankees at 7. The Rays beat the Rangers 8-6.August 18:
1909 - Giants player-coach Arlie Latham -- aka "The Freshest Man on Earth" -- steals second base in New York's 14-1 rout of the Phillies. At 50, he is the oldest player to swipe a base.
1940 - Daily News columnist Jimmy Powers suggests the Yankees' poor play this season -- after four straight World Series titles, the team is in fifth place -- is due to a "mass polio epidemic" contracted from Lou Gehrig. Gehrig files a $1 million lawsuit and the newspaper eventually retracts the story and settles out of court.
1967 - Boston's Tony Conigliaro is beaned by Angels pitcher Jack Hamilton. Conigliaro is hit on the left cheekbone, just below the eye socket, and will miss the rest of 1967 and all of 1968.


text:
You have no vehicles selected
*Although every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained on this site, absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed. This site, and all information and materials appearing on it, are presented to the user "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title or non-infringement. All vehicles are subject to prior sale. Price does not include applicable tax, title, license, and documentation or environment of fees or handling charges. Not responsible for typographical errors.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bomb suspect in boat stored in Mass. neighborhood
Published 7:46 pm Friday, April 19, 2013
WATERTOWN, Mass. — The suspect being hunted in the Boston Marathon bombing was in a boat stored in Watertown, a law enforcement official said, and police in armored vehicles and tactical gear rushed into the neighborhood.
The burst of activity came after police announced that they were scaling back the hunt because they had come up empty-handed following an all-day search that sent thousands of SWAT team officers into the streets and paralyzed the metropolitan area.
A burst of gunfire was heard from the neighborhood, followed by a round of blasts about an hour later.
The official who said 19-year-old college student Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was in the boat had been briefed on the situation and spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly. The official said the suspect was covered in blood but didn't know if Tsarnaev was dead or alive.
Reporters were being kept away from the scene.
Before the gunfire, State Police Col. Timothy Alben said at a news conference that he believed Tsarnaev was still in Massachusetts because of his ties to the area. But authorities lifted the stay-indoors warning for people in the Boston area, and the transit system started running again by evening.
"We can't continue to lockdown an entire city or an entire state," Alben said. At the same time, he and other authorities warned that Tsarnaev is a killer and that people should be vigilant.
Tsarnaev fled on foot after a furious overnight gun battle that left 200 spent rounds behind and after a wild car chase in which he and his brother hurled explosives at police, authorities said. His brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, died in the shootout, run over by his younger brother in a car as he lay wounded, according to investigators.
During the overnight spasm of violence, the brothers also shot and killed an MIT policeman and severely wounded another officer, authorities said.
Law enforcement officials and family members identified the brothers as ethnic Chechens who came to the U.S. from Russia. They lived near Boston and had been in the U.S. for about a decade, an uncle said.
Around midday, as the manhunt dragged on, the suspects' uncle Ruslan Tsarni of Montgomery Village, Md., pleaded on television: "Dzhokhar, if you are alive, turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness."
The search by thousands of law enforcement officers all but paralyzed the Boston area for much of the day. Officials shut down all mass transit, including Amtrak trains to New York, advised businesses not to open, and warned close to 1 million people in the entire city and some of its suburbs to stay inside and unlock their doors only for uniformed police.
"We believe this man to be a terrorist," Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said. "We believe this to be a man who's come here to kill people."
Some neighborhoods resembled a military encampment, with officers patrolling with guns drawn and aimed, residents peering nervously from windows and people near surrounded buildings spirited away.
The bloody turn in the case came just hours after the FBI released photos and video of two suspects in the bombing and asked for the public's help in identifying and catching them.
Authorities said the man dubbed Suspect No. 1 — the one in sunglasses and a dark baseball cap in the surveillance-camera pictures — was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, while Suspect No. 2, the one in a white baseball cap worn backward, was his brother.
The bombings on Monday near the Boston Marathon finish line killed three people and wounded more than 180, tearing off limbs in a spray of shrapnel and sparking fears across the nation that another terrorist attack had come to U.S. soil.
Chechnya has been the scene of two wars between Russian forces and separatists since 1994, in which tens of thousands were killed in heavy Russian bombing. That spawned an Islamic insurgency that has carried out deadly bombings in Russia and the region, although not in the West.
But investigators have shed no light on the motive for the Boston Marathon bombing and said it was unclear whether any terrorist organizations had a hand in it.
The FBI was swamped with tips after the release of the photos — 300,000 every minute by one estimate — but what role those played in the overnight clash was unclear. State Police spokesman Dave Procopio said police realized they were dealing with the bombing suspects based on what the two men told a carjacking victim during their getaway attempt.
Exactly how the long night of crime began was marked by conflicting reports. But police said the brothers carjacked a man in a Mercedes-Benz in Cambridge, just across the Charles River from Boston, then released him unharmed at a gas station.
They also shot to death a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, 26-year-old Sean Collier, while he was responding to a report of a disturbance, investigators said.
The search for the Mercedes led to a chase that ended in Watertown, where authorities said the suspects threw explosive devices from the car and exchanged gunfire with police. A transit police officer, 33-year-old Richard Donohue, was shot and critically wounded, authorities said.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev somehow slipped away. He ran over his already wounded brother as he fled by car, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev died at a Boston hospital after suffering what doctors said were multiple gunshot wounds and a possible blast injury.
The brothers had built an arsenal of pipe bombs, grenades and improvised explosive devices and used some of the weapons in trying to make their getaway, said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Another uncle, Alvi Tsarnaev, who also lives in Montgomery Village, Md., told news organizations that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had called him Thursday night — hours before his firefight with police — and the two spoke for the first time in two or three years. He said the young man asked for forgiveness for the rift in the family.
"He said, 'I love you and forgive me,'" the uncle said.
Watertown resident Kayla Dipaolo said she was woken up overnight by gunfire and a large explosion that sounded "like it was right next to my head … and shook the whole house." She said she was looking at the front door when a bullet came through the side paneling. SWAT team officers were running all over her yard, she said.
"It was very scary," she said. "There are two bullet holes in the side of my house, and by the front door there is another."
Christine Yajko said she heard two loud explosions and gunfire. She said a police officer later knocked on her door and told her there was an undetonated improvised explosive device in the street and warned her to stay away from the windows.
"It was on the street, right near our kitchen window," she said.
Tsarni, the men's uncle, said the brothers traveled here together from Russia. He called his nephews "losers" and said they had struggled to settle in the U.S. and ended up "thereby just hating everyone."
U.S. government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to talk about an investigation in progress, said Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Russia last year and returned to the U.S. six months later.
His last known address was in Cambridge, Mass. He had studied accounting as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston for three semesters from 2006 to 2008, the school said.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was registered as a student at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Students said he lived in a dorm there and was on campus this week after the Boston Marathon bombing. The campus closed down Friday along with colleges around the Boston area.
The city of Cambridge announced two years ago that it had awarded a $2,500 scholarship to him. At the time, he was a senior at Cambridge Rindge & Latin School, a highly regarded public school whose alumni include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and NBA Hall of Famer Patrick Ewing.
The men's father, Anzor Tsarnaev, said in a telephone interview with AP from the Russian city of Makhachkala that his younger son, Dzhokhar, is "a true angel." He said his son was studying medicine.
"He is such an intelligent boy," the father said. "We expected him to come on holidays here."
According to the FBI, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was seen setting down a bag at the site of the second of two explosions at the marathon finish line.
Insurgents from Chechnya and neighboring restive provinces in the Caucasus have long been involved in terrorist attacks in Moscow and other places in Russia.
In 2002, Chechen militants took 800 people hostage in Moscow and held them for two days before special forces stormed the building, killing all 41 captors. Also killed were 129 hostages, mostly from the effects of the gas Russian forces used to subdue the attackers.Chechen insurgents also launched a 2004 raid in the southern Russian town of Beslan and took hundreds of hostages. The siege ended in a bloodbath two days later, with more than 330 people, about half of them children, killed.


text:
U.S. Senate Approves Lew as Treasury Chief
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday confirmed Jack Lew as President Barack Obama's new Treasury secretary, putting the former White House chief of staff in the middle of political brawls over the government's budget.
Senators backed Lew 71-26, with all 53 Democrats voting in favor.
Lew's most pressing task will be to find a compromise to lessen the economic blow from $85 billion in government spending cuts set to kick in on Friday.
But two more deadlines will quickly follow. Funds for most government operations expire on March 27, and the U.S. government is expected to hit its legal borrowing limit on May 19, setting the stage for a default unless an agreement can be secured to raise the debt ceiling again.
Lew was Obama's chief of staff before the president named him to succeed Timothy Geithner at the Treasury, and has spent much of his career in Washington in public service. He was previously White House budget director under Obama and former President Bill Clinton.
"As my chief of staff, Jack was by my side as we confronted our nation's toughest challenges," Obama said after the Senate vote. "His reputation as a master of fiscal issues who can work with leaders on both sides of the aisle has already helped him succeed in some of the toughest jobs in Washington."
Lew is expected take the lead on difficult talks with Congress on how to trim U.S. budget deficits and keep a lid on $16.6 trillion U.S. national debt.
Lew, 57, led talks with Congress in 2011 that averted a U.S. debt default. At the time, he antagonized Republicans and even some Democrats with his unwavering defense of government-run benefit programs.
His status as an Obama confidant may give him more authority in representing the administration during fiscal talks. But his close relationship with the White House has also raised some hackles.
"He's got a political staff mentality, not an august, independent personality of leadership," said Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who had pressed lawmakers to vote against Lew.
During the confirmation process, Lew also had to confront questions about his investment in the Cayman Islands tax haven and a nearly $1 million bonus he received from Citigroup in 2009, just before the bank got a taxpayer-funded bailout.
And Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa berated Lew for not disclosing more details about a $1.4 million loan he received while working as an executive with New York University.


text:
Save For Later
- My Wish Lists
Product Details
- Description:
- Artists' Oil Colours
- Color:
- Bright Red
- Size:
- 200 ml (6.8 oz)
- Format:
- Tube
- Mfg #:
- 750016335
Pigment Information
This color contains the following pigments:
PR255-Coral Red
PR254-Pyrrole Red
Pigment Name
PR255-Coral Red
Pigment Type
Chemical Formula
Ciba describes PR255 as a yellowish red pigment with medium hiding power and excellent weather resistance, recommended for use in high grade decorative and industrial paints.
Pigment Red 255 has excellent lightfastness and weatherfastness at full strength, and can be used for outdoor applications.
Pigment Red 255 has been used in paint, plastics, printing inks, and automotive finishes.
Pigment Name
PR254-Pyrrole Red
Pigment Type
organic, aminoketone
Chemical Name
Bis-(p-chrolopheny)-1. 4-diketopyrrolo(3. 4-c)pyrrole
Chemical Formula
Pyrrole Red is opaque and has strong covering power. According to manufacturer Ciba, which uses the trade name Irgazin Red, it is a "clean, highly saturated mid shade red with high temperature resistance, excellent color strength, outstanding chemical, solvent and bleed resistance, and good weatherfastness."
Pyrrole Red is considered to have excellent lightfastness among organic pigments in its class. Tests in industrial applications have given it scores of 7-8 on the Blue Wool Scale.
According to the Australian government's Ministry on Health and Aging, "The notified chemical exhibited low oral and dermal toxicity in rats, did not exhibit toxic effects when administered orally to rats for 28 days, was not a skin irritant in rabbi
Pyrrole Red, used as an automotive paint and as a colorant in plastics, was developed as one of a range of pigments to replace lead based pigments. In art materials, it is often used as a synthetic and lightfast replacement for carmine, a laked pigment that was originally produced from the body of the cochineal insect. It is also used to replace the older naphthol reds, organic red pigments that are sometimes only marginally lightfast and weatherfast.
Safety Data Sheet
UPC Code: 720867070489


text:
UPDATE: Libyan Dictator Muammar Gadhafi Killed by Rebels in Sirte
Former Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, who's been in hiding since August when a NATO-backed rebel force seized his headquarters in Tripoli, was killed on Thursday after rebels stormed his hometown of Sirte, where the last remnants of troops loyal to him were hiding. He was 69 years old.
Gadhafi, who came to power in a bloodless military coup in 1969, was the longest-ruling Arab leader in history. During his reign, he abolished the Libyan constitution and instead imposed laws based on his own theories of political ideology.
And while many of Libya's human development indicators improved significantly while he was in power, he was largely reviled — and sanctioned — by many nations for his repeated and flagrant crimes against humanity, which resulted in warrants for his arrest from Interpol and the International Criminal Court.
Gadhafi was known to support anti-Western militant organizations around the world. The UK government accused him of supplying weapons to the Irish Republican Army, and after Libyan agents bombed the La Belle nightclub in West Berlin in 1986, his support for anti-American government organizations intensified. He financed the Nation of Islam and Al-Rukn; members of the latter group were convicted in 1987 of "offering to commit bombings and assassinations on US soil for Libyan payment."
In 1988, after a Pan Am flight was destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members on board, Gadhafi refused to extradite two Libyan intelligence agents indicted for the crime. At the urging of South African President Nelson Mandela, he eventually turned the defendants over to the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, where they faced trial in 1999, and Gadhafi himself later paid $2.7 billion to the victims' families — actions that caused the UN sanctions against him to be lifted.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Gadhafi admitted he had active weapons of mass destruction and agreed to dismantle the program, even allowing inspectors into the country to verify his actions. By 2006, the US had re-established diplomatic relations with Libya and removed it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, causing US oil companies to make drilling agreements in the oil-rich nation.
But despite his improved standing in the world, he remained unpopular with own people — eventually leading to his demise.
"We have been waiting for this moment for a long time," de facto Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril told a news conference. "Moammar Gadhafi has been killed."
[CBS News]


text:
HOUSTON – Ex-Enron Corp. CEO Jeffrey Skilling – seen by many as exemplifying the worst in corporate fraud and greed in America – could be released from prison in about four years after a federal judge on Friday shaved off a decade from his original sentence of more than 24 years.
Skilling's resentencing during a packed courtroom hearing brought one of the country's most notorious financial scandals – the collapse of the once-mighty energy giant – to a conclusion that upset some former Enron workers.
Ex-Enron worker Diana Peters, the only victim who spoke at the resentencing hearing, said afterward in a phone interview that Skilling should have to serve his entire original sentence.
"Jeffrey Skilling has never taken any responsibility for his actions," said the 63-year-old Peters, who lives in Huntsville, north of Houston. "He has no remorse for the end result of what happened."
Even before Friday's resentencing, which was part of a court-ordered reduction and a separate agreement with prosecutors, Skilling had already been set to have his sentence of about 8½ years shortened after an appeals court vacated his original sentence by U.S. District Judge Sim Lake.
The appeals court ruled that a sentencing guideline was improperly applied. However, Skilling's resentencing was delayed for years as he unsuccessfully sought to overturn his convictions, including appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Justice Department said in order to resolve a case that's gone on for more than 10 years, it agreed to an additional reduction of about 20 months as part of a deal to stop Skilling from filing any more appeals. Federal prosecutors say it will allow for $41.8 million of Skilling's assets to be distributed as restitution to victims of Enron's 2001 collapse.
Skilling, 59, who has been in prison since 2006, declined to make a statement during Friday's hearing.
His attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, said he disagrees with claims that his client, who "still maintains his innocence," never expressed remorse for what happened at Enron. He said Skilling wasn't aware of the illegal activities of others but "took complete responsibility for all the actions" at the company.
Petrocelli said the reduction, combined with time off for good behavior and other factors, means Skilling is likely to be released by 2017.
During the hearing, prosecutor Patrick Stokes criticized Skilling for continuing "to cast himself as a victim" and said Skilling "is anything but a victim."
"Mr. Skilling was not only at the pinnacle of Enron, he was at the pinnacle of the fraud schemes," Stokes said.
Once the money from Skilling's assets is added, about $560 million in restitution will have been collected for victims of the Enron scandal, Stokes said.
Former Enron employee George Maddox said he still blames Skilling for his losing $1.3 million in retirement savings when Enron collapsed. Maddox worked for 30 years as a plant manager with the company.
"Long sentences are for no one but poor people," said Maddox, 79, who lives in the East Texas town of Van and is now supporting his 16-year-old grandson and himself mainly on Social Security income.
Even with the reduced sentence, Skilling's prison term is still the longest of those involved in the Enron scandal. He was the highest-ranking executive to be punished. Enron founder Kenneth Lay's similar convictions were vacated after he died of heart disease less than two months after his trial.
Philip Hilder, a Houston attorney who represented several ex-Enron executives who cooperated with prosecutors, called Skilling's new sentence "a fair resolution" to his case.
But Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based attorney who represented 10 people who lost money in Enron's collapse, called the new sentence "a slap in the face" to ex-Enron workers and investors.
Skilling was convicted in 2006 on 19 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors for his role in the downfall of Houston-based Enron. The company, once the seventh-largest in the U.S., went bankrupt under the weight of years of illicit business deals and accounting tricks.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in 2010 that one of Skilling's convictions was flawed when it sharply curtailed the use of the "honest services" fraud law – a short addendum to the federal mail and wire fraud statute that makes it illegal to scheme to deprive investors of "the intangible right to honest services."
The high court ruled prosecutors can use the law only in cases where evidence shows the defendant accepted bribes or kickbacks, and because Skilling's misconduct entailed no such things, he did not conspire to commit honest services fraud.
The Supreme Court told a lower court to decide whether he deserved a new trial; the lower court said no.
Enron's collapse put more than 5,000 people out of work, wiped out more than $2 billion in employee pensions and rendered worthless $60 billion in Enron stock. Its aftershocks were felt across Houston and the U.S. energy industry.
Follow Juan A. Lozano at http://www.twitter.com/juanlozano70 .


text:
The Clemson Rowing boathouse is located on the western edge of Clemson's campus, overlooking beautiful Lake Hartwell. Only a quarter of a mile from the other athletic facilities, the boathouse seems worlds apart lying in a secluded wooded area on the shore of one of the Southeast's largest lakes. With 56,000 acres of water and 962 miles of shoreline, Lake Hartwell offers plenty of rowable water. Built as an Army Corps of Engineers project in 1962, the lake includes many pristine rivers, creeks and inlets that provide sheltered water on even the windiest of days.
Construction was recently completed on a new training facility, which is one of the best facilities in the ACC and the South Region. The 11,500 square foot facility houses an expanded locker room, additional workout space, a team meeting room, an athlete lounge, a kitchen, and coaches' offices.
Lake Hartwell facilitates an ideal venue for the Tigers' fully bouyed, six-lane 2000m race course. The entire course is visible from the boathouse.


text:
Nicholas Shehadie
This article forms part of the series Orthodoxy in Australasia | |
History | |
Orthodoxy in Australia Timeline Orthodoxy in New Zealand Timeline Antiochian Orthodox Gk Orthodox Archd. of ANZ | |
Jurisdictions | |
GOA Aus - Abp Makarios Antiochian - Metr. Basilios ROCOR - Bp George Serbian - Bp Siluan Romanian - Bp Michael GOM NZ - Met Myron | |
Pan-Orthodox Synaxes | |
Episcopal Assembly of Oceania SCCOCA | |
Institutions | |
Antiochian Orthodox Greek Orthodox (Aus) | |
Notable Monasteries | |
Complete List | |
St Anna Holy Cross Gorgoepikoos O.L. of Kazan Presentation |
Proph. Elias St John Mtn Pantanassa St Sava (Elaine) Transfiguration Archangels, NZ |
Edit this box |
The Very Reverend Exarch Nicholas Shehadie was the first priest of the Antiochian Orthodox parishes in Australia and New Zealand. He served in Australia and New Zealand from 1913 until his repose in 1934.
In 1898 the Greek-speaking Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East was deposed for prohibiting church services in Arabic. His Arabic-speaking successor elected in 1899 was not recognised by the Patriarchate of Constantinople who agitated against all Arabic-speaking Orthodox. This resulted in a world-wide fracture between the Greek-speaking and the Arabic-speaking Orthodox.
Until this fracture, relations between the two linguistic groupings had been most amicable. In Australia, until this fracture, both groups worked together to establish community churches for all Orthodox, regardless of linguistic or ethnic origin. The Russian-speaking Orthodox also suffered fallout following this fracture.
In 1908 Constantinople removed the Orthodox churches in Australia from the jurisdiction of neutral Jerusalem, and gave them to the Church of Greece with the stipulation that all services were to be in Church Greek only. This deprived the Arabic-speaking Orthodox and the Russian-speaking Orthodox of effective spiritual comfort.
Exarch of Australia and New Zealand
Born in 1862, Father Nicholas Shehadie was sent to Australia in 1913 as Patriarchal Exarch for Australia and New Zealand to determine the extent of the deprivation and to find possible solutions. While this was intended to be temporary, World War I intervened, preventing Father Nicholas from returning to Lebanon and his family. After the war his stay became permanent and he exported his wife and children from Lebanon to Australia.
He realised the need for a church for the Syrian Orthodox (as they were then known), and determined to build it, with Divine Liturgies being held in parishioners' homes until that time.
In 1920, the State Government leased a block of land to the Church on the corner of Walker and Redfern Streets Redfern, and the first Syrian (later Antiochian) Orthodox church was built and placed under the patronage of Saint George. This church was demolished by the State Government shortly after the last worship service there on 14 May 1950. In October 1953 a replacement church was opened on the corner of Walker and Cooper Streets Redfern. This church is now the Antiochian Orthodox cathedral for Australia, New Zealand, and All Oceania.
Father Nicholas sent for his family over a number of years, and the family came in stages. His sons George and Albert, and daughter Mary arrived first, followed by John and Pauline (16-year-old twins) in 1922, and then fully reunited with the arrival of his wife Alexandra, his son Elias, and his son Michael's family - wife Hannah, and baby girls Alexandra and Paulette.
On 15 May 1934, Exarch Nicholas Shehadie reposed as a result of an asthma attack, aged 72. The funeral service held at Saint George Redfern, was presided over by Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Australia Timotheous. Burial was at Botany Cemetery.
Following his father's repose his second son, Michael, was ordained priest, and succeeded his father as parish priest of Saint George Redfern. Later another son, John, became a priest.
Nicholas Shehadie | ||
Preceded by: — |
Patriarchal Exarch of Australia and New Zealand (Church of Antioch) 1913-1934 |
Succeeded by: Antonious (Mobayed) |
External link
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand
Categories > Church History
Categories > Church History
Categories > OrthodoxWiki > Articles in a series
Categories > OrthodoxWiki > Articles in a series
Categories > People > Clergy > Priests
Categories > Places > Orthodoxy by country > Orthodoxy in Australia
Categories > Places > Orthodoxy by country > Orthodoxy in New Zealand


text:
Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
What about the applicable law?
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free? In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.
- I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob
- The license should not declare itself subject to applicable law (which differs widely and is a moving target dictated to governments by vested interests), otherwise it becomes effectively meaningless and impotent. It should grant its freedoms independently of applicable law. Then if some applicable law tries to restrict it, the finger of blame falls on those who have made the restrictive law, and not on the license. The phrase "subject to applicable law" effectively says "This license offers only those freedoms which those in power wish to legally allow you", and that is not at all in the spirit of the Definition. Let applicable law commit its own crimes against openness --- don't do it for them. Morgaine Dinova 22:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
First Thoughts
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:
- Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)
- Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.
I hope this is helpful. --Rgladwell 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)
- Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to Talk:Definition/Unstable and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--Erik Möller 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)
- I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --Antoine 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)
- Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-
- In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, nota: you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem 220.127.116.11 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.
The Open Knowledge Definition
Last september/october the Open Knowledge Foundation 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the Open Knowledge Definition (full text).
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.
My take
- "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but more. An important distinction to my mind.
- the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
- the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?
- My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.
- "Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right.
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru (188.8.131.52 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))
Please also consult the Adelphi charter.
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. i.e. public property vs. free to use
The freedom to use and perform the work
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.Geni 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)
- Since we speak of any use, private or public, and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--Erik Möller 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)
Discussion list
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --Antoine 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)
- I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. Angela Beesley 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)
- Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--Erik Möller 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)
- Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --Antoine 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)
Metaphor suggestion
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:
Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.--Pharos 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)
- I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--Erik Möller 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)
- Thanks, I've written something at Free to marionette. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--Pharos 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)
- I've collected that and some other material I found here at Portal:Free Culture Soapbox. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--Pharos 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)
Source data
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--Erik Möller 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --Inkwina 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. Kat Walsh 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)
Adding a "... to the same extent as the author"
I think I very much agree with Inkwina. I'm wondering whether actually the extent of any of the four freedoms is not quite clear. And all points in the section "Protection of Freedoms" are only tackling specific examples where the missing extent of these four freedoms could be problematic. Would it be possible to find a more general criteria which covers everything in the "Protection of Freedoms" section? I first thought about maybe changing for instance the first sentence in the summary of Definition/Unstable to:
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can Use, Study, Copy, Change and Improve to the same extent as the author.
So if the author can for instance use and study it at any time, then the author would not be allowed to place any additional restrictions. And any tools and raw data that make it easier for the author to modify the work would have to be available to anyone else too. An author would also not be allowed for instance to publish a work for instance under the mpeg4 format, as the author can for instance use or copy it at any time, but not anyone else could due to the license fees under certain other conditions. I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works, works which are actually non-"free", as a Free Cultural Work for one thing. And for another whether it'd be problematic that in certain cases it might not be easily provable whether the author is using additional data / tools to modify the work: For instance someone publishes a text under a CC-BY license within a pdf document from which anyone can easily copy and then modify the text. However, if the author has additional source data, for instance LaTex files, which allows the author to change certain content easier, then it'd probably be quite difficult to prove whether the author has and uses such LaTex source code. --T X 12:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
- Ah, now found a good example for my feeling, "I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works [as Free Cultural Works]": If the author's work is a derivative of a non Free Cultural Work, then suddenly the new work could become a Free Cultural Work. For instance the original work only allowed the usage of the work while making a headstand on a 1.23m high table. Then suddenly the derivative work inheriting this requirement would be marked as a Free Cultural Work. This could be fixed with the addition of a requirement that a derivative work would only be a Free Cultural Work if the original work was a Free Cultural Work too. --T X 13:02, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
- Grr, and just found another example why a "to the same extent as the author" won't quite work: For any license the author is usually allowed to distribute his/her own work under another, additional license later. For instance although a software is licensed under GPL, the author can additionally allow explicit usage under non-GPL terms to certain people or parties. Therefore a GPL work would not be considered a "Free Cultural Work" under my modified version... --T X 04:51, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
Well anyways, maybe someone else gets my point and intent behind that addition and can come up with a better modification.
Copyleft suggestion
I would like to see a discussion of copyleft and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.
Moral rights
There are some moral rights (droit d'auteur not copyright) that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or Permissible restrictions does not address this issue.
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." Samulili from Wikimedia projects
- I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. 18.104.22.168 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)
- In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --Antoine 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)
Commercial Restrictions
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.
- That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not permissible restrictions. Angela Beesley 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)
In the summary...
considered "free." --> considered "free".--Alnokta 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)
El concepto de la palabra free es muy amplio debido a esto a modo de reestructurar la definición existente todo los softwares utilizado para bienes comerciales ya sean por alguna empresa, negocio, marca o persona alguna a partir de 11/11/2022 deberá pagar una cuota de uso de carácter monetario con el objetivo de contribuir al desarrollo de mejores tecnologías al alcance de todos (esta definición a modo aclaratorio incluye todos los softwares que sean utilizados con fines de lucro personal o empresarial): --Pac0710
"god-like creators"?
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, GChriss (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)
- True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the Original intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur.
- I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a Definition ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium is the message. --Inkwina 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
- By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.
- I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, GChriss 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
- By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions
- So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see here for e.g. --Inkwina 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
- Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, GChriss 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
- So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see here for e.g. --Inkwina 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' 22.214.171.124 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Un autor es aquel que es capas de crear o recrear (algo) en la mayor extencion de la palabra con tal divinidad admiracion gratitud y retribucion por su esfuerso y dedicacion a crear para el disfrute de todos aquellos que se benefician ya sea en lo personal o en lo laboral o el acceso a una forma mas sencilla de interactuar con el mundo ya sea a través de softwares o un programa,esa divina persona o institución o medio debe ser retribuida financieramente,retribuida económicamente por su trabajo y tiempo debido a esta lógica que rige el mundo un autor debe tener sus prestaciones correspondientes por el trabajo creado. --Pac0710 11/11/2022.
Photos should not be modified
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --184.108.40.206 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
- Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?
- Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --Balleyne 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section No other restrictions or limitations also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the w:Empire State Building is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / commons:User:Fred J 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
- This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark and [1]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. w:User:Nadav1 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)
- See also m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification, where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... Lupo 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)
- Child Pornography is absolutely illegal in all jurisdictions.If the subject being photographed is not of legal age to consent to their photo\\and the legal guardian is not looking out for the minors best interest. Once the child reaches the legal age of consent, in the juris of the minors residence, the minor will be able to give "Free Will" consent.
Wiki content license
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --Qubodup 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)
- What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--Erik Möller 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)
- Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --Qubodup 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)
- PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --Tgr 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)
- Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --Andy 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)
- The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's it. overkill is the right word. read this. --Qubodup 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Existing exemptions
Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses can take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --Tgr 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)
An Objective Definition of Free?
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.
GregLondon 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)
TECHNICAL: Upload not functional
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --Qubodup 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Save It
Can we save it to a music CD
Box at top
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):
Jtneill 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
- "the" added, thank you! Finn Rindahl 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
TECHNICAL: favicon
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --Tgr 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Mako has added this. Angela Beesley 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
It doesn't seem to be working any more. --Tgr 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's back now [2] but favicons can take a while to show up so you might not see it straight away. Angela Beesley 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Preamble for 1.1
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:
- In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--Erik Möller 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes Eric, this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. Leigh Blackall 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.
- I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted from the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition.
--Mackiwg 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
- I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? Leigh Blackall 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.
I've made an edit to Definition/Unstable per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--Erik Möller 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. →Spiritia 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Updated.--Erik Möller 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
- Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --Leighblackall 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) Omegatron 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Photos and their use
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.
The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use"
The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.
The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used.
The freedom to distribute derivative works
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for.
Probably most of this could be added in the Permissible restrictions section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. Soundvisions1 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc...
The present definition is unclear concerning
- Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)
- Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant... but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern.
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?
Teofilo 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : (diff). Teofilo 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation. Teofilo 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- If I understand the intent correctly, it seems to me that it would help to express the "without limitation" principle by explicitly stating that rights granted by any free license should be both perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. Do all of the current stock licenses explicitly express this? Danorton 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a very important clarification to make in the definition. It seems that wording to this effect has been added and removed from various versions of the official definition over the years (and is absent in the current version). I'm not sure why its inclusion has been inconsistent, as it seems to have been part of the unstable version consistently since at least 2006. Perhaps Erik could respond to this, as he is the person who has actually implemented most of the version updates. Is there a reason we don't want to define free licenses as unrevokable or is it just that most people consider this to be obvious? Kaldari 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall that this has been added before - perhaps I missed it? If you can find it, could you provide a diff? I don't have any problem with adding this to the definition, but I'll post the issue to our mailing list so other people are aware of it as well.--Erik Möller 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The very specific language that has been in the unstable version for a while has never been in this version, as far as I know, but the statement that the freedoms "should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime" was in both version 0.9 and version 1.0, but was stripped out of version 1.1. This led to a discussion about whether that phrase should be included in the commons licensing policy or not. Personally, I don't think the sentence itself is that important, but the definition should specifically address the issue of revokability somewhere. Kaldari 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall that this has been added before - perhaps I missed it? If you can find it, could you provide a diff? I don't have any problem with adding this to the definition, but I'll post the issue to our mailing list so other people are aware of it as well.--Erik Möller 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" should be added. Popular free licenses already do so, and the fear that the author can revoke the work any time and thereby disrupt your financial plans can be a very large barrier to reuse for e.g. a book publisher. --Tgr 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Perpetual and non-revocable" are core tenets of open licensing, and need to be stated explicitly. The can of worms which is created by revocable licensing would make this whole endeavor unworkable and open to massive a posteriori abuse. What's more, it would also create an atmosphere of uncertainty about the freedoms being granted, and potentially also tie up the community in courtrooms. This is why free software and CC licenses state it plainly, and OSHW needs to do likewise. Morgaine Dinova 22:46, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Permanent URLs
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. Definition/1.0 and Definition/1.1 should contain unchanging texts, and so should Definition/1.0/de etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize Definition is not a stable text.
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --Tgr 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. Teofilo 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their licensing policy resolution, and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --Tgr 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... →Spiritia 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. →Spiritia 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)
First sentence
The first sentence of this article currently says:
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose.
I propose that it be changed to:
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely applied, studied, copied, modified, and/or distributed, by anyone, for any purpose.
I have just added "distributed", which appears in other parts of the article, but is strangely missing in the first sentence. In my opinion, "distributed" is important enough to merit inclusion in the first sentence. --Antonielly 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Box at top: link correction
I think the link to "Please help updating it ..." should go to Definition/Unstable and not to Template:Definition-langs. - K 17:45, 4 March 2012 (EST)
- Agreed. I changed the link. --Mormegil 13:15, 10 March 2012 (EST)
New Translations
Please add Croatian language translation to the page. BTW, is there a policy on red links? Could you perhaps fall back to sans /<LanguageCode> and show a template with a translated text message of why this has happened, and where to click to create a /<LanguageCode> page --Paxcoder (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
- Croatian added, thanks for the translation.
- I don't understand the proposal – which language codes would we show? There is a link to Translations; maybe the page should be improved with better documentation on how to create a new translation, but that's about it?
- --Mormegil (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
- Hey, thanks for adding it. What I meant was: For pages that do not exist in a certain language, redirect to the original page (English, thus sans the language code suffix), and display a message above the article explaining what happened. This template would be translated in each language, and would look something like this: "This is the original (English) version of the requested article, please contribute a [[<CurrentPage>/<LanguageCode>|<Language> Translation]]". --Paxcoder (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT: --Paxcoder (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
It would be wonderful if the wiki implements Extension:Translate. It would be some work to be done to move existing translations to the new system but that is not that hard. It is much easier to track changes to the original page and update them in a translation this way (not to say that the translation itself becomes easier). --Base (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
- That's correct, but I'd say changes to the original page are very rare on this wiki, so it might not be worth it. --Mormegil (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
Propose numbering of freedoms
When I am talking about free software, I link people to the GNU.org philosophy page. The numbering of the four essential freedoms, 0 through 3, helps me refer to individual ones. However, when referring to a free cultural work or free culture generally, it feels confusing or almost off-topic to link to a page specifically about software. So I link to the Definition here, but I wish it was numbered; preferably the same scheme. This code:
<ol start="0"> <li>Use</li> <li>Hack</li> <li>Share</li> <li>Derive</li> </ol>
- Use
- Hack
- Share
- Derive
Arlo James Barnes (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
Meaning of "We discourage you to ..."
While I'm translating into Japanese, I'm wondering which "We discourage you to use other terms" (in the Identifying Free Cultural Works section) means, "We don't recommend you to use other terms" or "We're not glad to use other terms." Does anyone have any idea?
The old 1.0 translation says "...あなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。", that would be literally interpreted as meaning "We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms... --MaySoMusician (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (CEST)
- I am not sure I understand the distinction you are making. I understand it to be "We don't recommend you to use other terms", which is for me basically equal to "We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms..." (only differing in tone, not in the basic meaning). I.e. the definition is asking the creators to mark the free content they made as "free content", because if the authors were to use other terms (like "open access"), the potential consumers (other people, the public) might be confused about the meaning of those terms. For that reason, "we" (the community of Free Cultural Works) do not recommend you to use other terms. Hope that helps. --Mormegil (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2020 (CEST)
- In Japanese, "we would be disappointed" gives us an impression of them thinking with their hearts, while "we do not recommend" gives a sense of them thinking rationally.
- I'll change the translation so as to enable to convey the difinition more correctly. Thanks a lot!
- P.S. I totally forgot to sign my name --MaySoMusician (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (CEST)
Please revert Existing Movements to Special:PermaLink/23031
The page was blanked, and it is linked by both 1.0 and 1.1 versions of the definition. However I was disallowed by the abusefilter from undoing the edits. Thanks. Dylsss (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2021 (CEST)
Post updated stats every few years!
Stats on translations, visits, use, or the # and breadth of materials available under FCW licenses, would be excellent. And perhaps an essay on the state of play every five years or so. What changes are taking place in policy, norms, meta-license gaming? Sj (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2023 (CEST)


text:
Ella - House for Sale in Silang
5-Bedroom House on a 110 Lot in Camella Terrazas
Ella has a lot area of 110 and a house area of 100 sqm. It's a single attached 2-storey house with five bedrooms, three toilets and baths, a living area, dining area, kitchen, a carport, provision for a balcony, and a laundry and service area. The grand master's bedroom is located at the ground floor with exclusive toilet and bathroom. If you want the biggest space and all the extra rooms that you can have, Ella model is for you!
House finishes upon turn-over:
- Reinforced concrete walls
- Solid wood panel main door
- Sliding windows
- Straight to finish reinforced concrete floor
- Painted reinforced concrete walls
- Ceramic floor tiled toilet and bath
- Fiber cement board partitions
- Pre formed simulated tile galvanized roofing
- Provision for balcony
Bigger lot sizes as big as 207 sqm are available.
Please contact us for more information.


text:
Oobu (or Ubu, or Ubb-Ubb) was the octopus who befriended and rescued Tarvu when he landed in the ocean from the Heavens.
Oobu appears as a vision to a group of shepherds. He often appeared like this to random people throughout the world.
Oobu and his wife Ootati, their children Oppo and Ippi along with Oobu's father Oopapa, kept Tarvu alive by feeding him ink and shrimps. They lived together in the seas for nine years, and Tarvu became a very good swimmer. Oopapa sadly died along the way, being eaten by a giant wooly sea-tortoise, called Karkippenah. This species (known as 'Tortimikeppi') is now extinct. Tarvuists believe that this was Tarvu's revenge for the death of his adopted aquamarine grandfather. However, some zoologists have reported sightings of tortimikeppi in lakes in Hungary, Romania and Sri Lanka, although they have never been photographed.
Tarvu never forgot his adopted octopus family, and forbad the eating of calamari.


text:
Tracking this morning:
*Chargers-Pats: De facto SBXLI?
*Eagles-Saints: Who to root against?
*Giants: What next? (Fire/Hire)
*Is Petrino the new Saban?
*BCS Title Game: Gameday ramp-up
Remember when the NFC title game used to be the de facto Super Bowl? Who else suspects that the same will apply to next week's Pats-Chargers winner?
If any team can derail the Chargers – even in
As for the other AFC semifinal, I have zero faith in the Ravens. I also have zero faith in the Colts. However, I think this is the year that the teams who had zero expectations (like Indy and Philly) will ultimately succeed where they have previously failed with far stronger teams and greater expectations. It's just the ironic way this shit inevitably works out sometimes.
Eagles bounce out the Giants: Tony Romo could take a lesson from Koy Detmer about how to field (and hold onto) a snap on a game-winning playoff field goal. The Eagles' surreal season, mercifully, continues. The Giants surreal season, mercifully, ends.
I'm baffled by the Eagles-Saints matchup next week. Obviously, this season's Saints are the NFL Feel-Good Story of the Year (if not of all time). No one with a soul wants to see the ride end next week in
As for the other NFC semifinal, the Bears are going to cram some ugly down the throat of the defending NFC champs, clubbing the crown from the Seahawks' head (no matter how bad Rex Grossman might look while doing it).
Meanwhile, what about this past weekend's playoff losers?
What next for the Giants? Let's start with this: They have GOT to dump Tom Coughlin as coach, and their best move would be to make a strong play to lure Charlie Weis away from Notre Dame. (And, based on last week's bowl result and the prospects of NEVER truly being a national-title contender at ND, he should be amenable.)
And good riddance to retiring GM Ernie Accorsi, who was so blinded by his lifelong man-crush on Johnny Unitas that, in his final act, he ruined the franchise by developing a myopia for Eli Manning that has turned his team into a Super Bowl contender. (Too bad I'm talking about the team that originally drafted him –
What next for the Jets? I'd like to buy stock in Eric Mangini, if his rookie season resulted in a playoff run. The Jets are on the rise, the Pats are static (at best) and the rest of the division is a disaster. Not a bad position for Mangini to be in.
Falcons hire Bobby Petrino from
After all, he's bolting from Louisville just one year after signing a 10-year, $25 million contract, which strikes me as at least as skeevy as what Saban did (whether Petrino ever made any claims or not).
I honestly wonder if there's a perception difference between bolting from the NFL to college (Saban) and bolting from college to the NFL (Petrino), with the Petrino spin being "Can you blame him? The NFL jobs are SO much rarer than the college jobs" rather than "He made a prominent commitment for 10 years but only stuck it out for one, the rat bastard."
Anyway, if the Falcons wanted an innovative offensive mind to re-invent Michael Vick's career, they found it. Petrino is the top offensive mind in college football (and, perhaps, all of football). I presume that during the interview, he blew owner Blank and GM McKay away with the ways he'd innovatively use Vick.
(As for
Rich Rodriguez spurned
College Hoops: Who's No. 1? Who cares? UNC beat FSU last night, which should lift them directly up from No. 2 to the No. 1 spot. I'm still not convinced that UNC is better than
Congrats to Cal Tech, which snapped an 11-year, 207-game losing streak in Division 3 hoops by absolutely destroying Bard (NY) College, 81-52. Where the hell did THAT rout come from, and how bad must Bard be?
MLB Hot Stove: Randy Johnson agrees to 2Y/$26M deal with the D'backs. Let's get to the trade already, so we can start the feverish speculation of when the Yankees will sign Roger Clemens.
From today's USA Today Sports Media column: ESPNU is going to use my former ESPN.com colleague Bill Simmons as a guest-commentator on two college hoops games in the next two weeks. Very interesting!
I'm curious about the depth of his role in the broadcast. And is this a signal that BSG will become the Tony Kornheiser of ESPNU college hoops broadcasts?
Maybe they will add him to the College GameDay mix (though I can't imagine that Bilas, Digger or Rece would appreciate that Bill would be a bigger on-campus star than any of them)?
And will they ever let Bill crash an NBA telecast on ESPN, where he would REALLY add some value?
BCS Title Game Preview: Game Day! Full post coming around midday, where we can have it out over our pre-game analysis for the rest of the day. Here's a great recap of the improbability of
Consider the way the Gators defy conventional wisdom about what makes a CFB champ contender: (1) No reliable true RB, (2) atrocious kicking game, (3) second-to-last in yards penalized, (4) top NFL prospect kicked off the team mid-season.


text:
Preview of Nokia Maps 3.0 on Windows Phone 8
It's no secret that we're fans of mapping applications and with Windows Phone 7 we had a very capable built in mapping app created by Microsoft themselves that used the Bing mapping at the backend. Since then Microsoft have switched Bing to use Nokia's mapping platform on the web and now with the latest version of Windows Phone.
With Windows Phone 8 we see a marked upgrade to the baked-in capabilities of maps, as Nokia have embedded their "where" platform right into the heart of the OS. Nokia have just updated their Nokia Maps app to 3.0 and with it we start to see some of the big improvements that these underlying changes to the OS will bring. We think you're going to like it.
With Windows Phone 8 all apps will now be able to take advantage of the underlying improvements to mapping platform so offline mapping and turn by turn will be available to all. We have seen how well Nokia's mapping apps perform on Windows Phone 7 with products like Nokia Drive so we know they can bring the goods to the table. It's of no surprise to see that the company are already hard at work to make sure their location apps have some of the best experiences available in the marketplace.
Nokia Maps 3.0 offers true offline use so that you won't be caught out while navigating in poor signal areas and the first truly discoverable mobile implementation of venue maps . You'll also get vastly improved directions while navigating on foot.
There is still more to come with Nokia Maps, pedestrian navigation will get spoken turn-by-turn events in a future update and we know Nokia are keen to keep these things fresh. Following is how things are looking as the app reached its 3.0 milestone..
About, Settings and What's New..
Pedestrian Walking Maps
When selecting a pedestrian route in the new version of Nokia Maps the view changes to show you which way to turn at each corner. Also at the bottom of you get the option to slide through each part of the route by swiping left and right as desired. In testing the map swang around and moved fluidly throughout this process and kept pace with my movements well even in an urban setting.
Get the Windows Central Newsletter
All the latest news, reviews, and guides for Windows and Xbox diehards.
The coming version will feature voice guidance which should mean we can finally put the phone in the pocket and just listen to the prompts. For now the map experience in this mode is much improved and points the way to how this should be done.
Pedestrian Turn by turn view
Venue Maps
This is a feature many have been excited about for some time, Nokia have been busy amassing detailed internal maps of key public locations. These venue maps were available in Bing Maps through the web interface but have so far been absent from Windows Phone (in an intuitive and fully fleshed out way) until now. Initial reaction to this is Nokia have done a really good job of the user experience around this potentially complex feature. The improved underlying performance of the platform has allowed them to provide a new visualisation layer to help make this visually more comprehendible.
When using the maps, you'll see that certain buildings like a shopping mall will have a blue icon near or even on top of it, if you press this it highlights the venue and shows more information about the inside layout. If the building has public spaces on multiple levels then you'll be presented with a sliding selector to choose different floors, it all works rather well.
When you have selected the venue, the bottom section of the screen shows you a peek at what lays inside, for instance you can select 'directory' and it will list every business in the mall or if you slide over to facilities then it will list key points of interest such as ATMs and such. If you want more information on a shop that's inside a mall then you can retrieve that by clicking on its name in the map and it will bring up the address and other details.
I found the experience to be very intuitive and didn't have any problems figuring out the entire feature, this is a really good implementation of this new level of mapping. I look forward to seeing how this feature gets developed and tuned over time, the continual adding of venue data will be key to ensuring the utility of such a feature. It must be pervasive and not the exception to the rule to be able to see the venue maps for public space, as long as Nokia can continue to add new venues this shouldn't be an issue.
Want to know where to go inside the building? Nokia can help with that!
Map options in Nokia Drive 3.0
Integrated Transit Directions
One notable improvement many have sought is the integration of public transit directions in the mapping experience. That's here too and works in just the way you would expect although it's not quite as fully featured as Nokia's dedicated Nokia Transport App. With Nokia's Transport app it presents multiple routes depending on when you leave and includes bus routes.
In my testing I wasn't able to bring up any routing options for a bus but that may not be conclusive as to the possibility it exists. In my testing only underground lines and metropolitan surface lines presented themselves as routing possibilities. I will check with Nokia and update when I get feedback.
Public Transport is now an option along with walking and driving routes...
Downloadable Maps
This is something of a back-end feature now in Windows Phone 8 but it's good to see how this works. I live in the UK so added the entire map for our little island, it took up 280MB of storage. You get to add as many maps as you please and drill into each region if you only want part of a country if you wish. I looked at the map download for the entire US which came in at a cool 2.5GB.
The new devices will all have more space on them generally so these sizes shouldn't be too much of a concern. It's just good to know that when you need to do some serious mapping you can pack your phone out with everything you need and not worry about getting a mobile signal to use it. Enough memory and you can have all the worlds offline maps on your phone.
In Windows Phone 8, the maps can also be independently updated so Nokia can provide faster updates to mapping data on the phone. This should improve the experience greatly while providing that all-important accuracy.
Download, update and stay current with your map data okay?
Refreshed platform brings new experiences
The mapping experience in Windows Phone 7 with the native mapping app was good. The problem with it was that it was locked into the OS and so could only be changed when the whole OS was updated. Thankfully we're moving away from this way of doing things with Maps and even the phone itself can be updated on fly without the need for carrier intervention or major OS upgrades to change certain core experiences.
Mapping on smartphones has become incredibly popular, we saw with the issues that Apple had when it launched its mapping product how much people rely on this feature. The outrage that followed the mapping snafu did real damage to the normally Teflon-coated fruit themed company. With maps we see a huge opportunity for Windows Phone 8 and Nokia to really lead in this area, we hope to see them fully promote this advantage.
In using maps for this short amount of time, it's hard not to be impressed with the speed and fluidity of the user interface. Where there are 3d elements to the maps you'll see those move around at nice high frame rates. That isn't to say there are never slowdowns, the maps occasionally doesn't update fluidly but this is likely a sign of the platforms relative newness. With more updates in the pipeline including the turn by turn pedestrian guidance things are looking good indeed for maps on Windows Phone 8.
We'd like to hear what you think of these improvements, if you have any questions send them along and I'll do my best to answer them. We know that folks from Nokia do read these comments as much as we do and they do often wade in to provide some answers where they can.