We've certainly covered many different practices by Apple that harm its developers, from arbitrarily choosing what gets approved to arbitrarily shutting down apps with little or no explanation. Now, the EFF has used a Freedom of Information Act request to NASA (who recently released an iPhone app) to get a look at the amazingly one-sided agreement that Apple forces developers to sign. The reason that the EFF was forced to file an FOIA request to see and post the document is that part of the agreement itself is that you won't make any "public statements" about the agreement itself, a la fight club.

As the EFF notes, this is an incredibly one-sided document, which isn't all that surprising, given Apple's standard operating procedures. And while Apple remains a giant player in the market, many developers will just suck it up and accept it. But Apple may find, over the long term, that this comes back to bite them in some pretty serious ways. Treating your developers -- the people who really make your platform valuable -- like crap means that they'll be ready to jump to other platforms as they become viable. Perhaps Steve Jobs believes that Apple can keep innovating ahead of the curve far enough that demand will remain ridiculously high for the iPhone and iPad, but it's definitely a high wire act for the company, who could face serious developer defections if an alternative platform becomes really viable.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

After last week's disastrous news that two LibDem Lords had introduced a web-censorship amendment to the Labour Digital Economy Bill, a group of LibDems have pulled together a pro-net-freedom emergency motion that's being taken to this weekend's party conference in Birmingham. If you're a LibDem or know LibDems headed to the conference this weekend, please urge support for this motion: help the LibDems get on the right side of the net-freedom debate! We condemn a) web-blocking and disconnecting internet connections b) the threat to the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals and businesses from the monitoring of their internet activity, the potential blocking of their websites and the potential termination of their internet connections. c) the Digital Economy Bill for focusing on illegal filesharing rather than on nurturing creativity and innovative business models. We support a) the principle of net neutrality, through which the freedom of connection with any application to any party is guaranteed, except to address security threats or due to unexpected network congestion. b) the rights of creators and performers to be rewarded for their work in a way that is fair, proportionate and appropriate to the medium. Conference therefore opposes excessive regulatory attempts to monitor, control and limit internet access or internet publication, whether at local, national, European or global level. LibDems Save the Net (Thanks, Obhi!) Previously:LibDem Lords seek to ban web-lockers (YouSendIt, etc) in the UK ... Brits: tell the LibDem Peers not to bring web-censorship to ... Guardian column on LibDem proposal to block web-lockers LibDem candidates come out against anti-web-locker proposal ... Last week's web-censorship proposal shows that supporters of every ......

Free Software Magazine: "Barely a day goes by when you switch on your computer, plug into the web and come across yet another deranged scheme to restrict freedom in the name of security, safety or morality. RIAA, DMCA, RIPA, Pallidium computing, the list almost seems to grow exponentially."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has acquired a recent copy of Apple’s iPhone Developer Program License Agreement (PDF Link) and posted it online. Previously seen only by those applying to be a licensed iPhone developer, the EFF used the Freedom of Information Act to ask NASA, which distributes a free NASA App through the App Store, for a copy. Contained within the agreement is a section prohibiting developers from making any “public...

Apple's agreement with iPhone developers contains several "troubling" clauses that paint the company as a "jealous and arbitrary feudal lord," the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said yesterday.

The nonprofit digital rights advocacy group on Tuesday published a January 2010 version of the iPhone Developer License Agreement obtained from NASA through a Freedom of Information Act request.

New law prohibits parties taking part in this year's election from having members with a court conviction

Burma's military government is to force Aung San Suu Kyi's political party to expel her if it wants to participate in the upcoming election, under the terms of a new law announced today.

The political parties registration law, published in official newspapers, requires the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other parties to re-register within 60 days with a new election commission.

It prohibits anyone convicted by a court from joining a political party, and instructs parties to expel members who are "not in conformity with the qualification to be members of a party". Parties that do not register automatically cease to exist, the law says.

The Nobel peace prize winner, who has spent 14 of the last 20 years in detention, was convicted last August of violating the terms of her house arrest by briefly sheltering an American who swam uninvited to her lakeside residence. She was sentenced to a new term of house arrest that is due to end in November.

The sentence was seen as a way to keep Aung San Suu Kyi locked up during the election campaign. Last month, the supreme court dismissed her latest appeal for freedom.

The new election law was immediately criticised by the NLD and by the US and Britain. The NLD's deputy chairman, Tin Oo, called the law unfair, politically motivated and designed to restrict activities of the party, which has already been battered by arrests and harassment.

"The fact that [party] registration will be allowed only after expulsion of a convicted member is too much. This is politically motivated," he said.

The junta enacted five election-related laws on Monday, two of which have now been made public. Three more are to be unveiled in the coming days.

The US assistant secretary of state Kurt Campbell said Suu Kyi should be released from house arrest so she could "play an active role in the political life of the country going forward".

"We've seen the first of five [laws]. I think it would be fair to say that what we've seen so far is disappointing and regrettable," Campbell said during a visit to Malaysia.

The date of the election has not been announced, and the NLD has not said whether it will take part. The government announced in 2008 that the election would take place in 2010. The last election in 1990 was won overwhelmingly by the NLD but the military refused to hand over power.

Aung San Suu Kyi's lawyer, Nyan Win, said the new law also barred people who had lodged an appeal against a conviction, which he said "clearly refers" to his client.

Aung Thein, a lawyer who has defended activists in the country, said: "It is very unfair that a party member serving a prison term for his or her political convictions has to be expelled from the party. This clause amounts to interfering in party internal affairs."

He said the provision would exclude many pro-democracy individuals who had been imprisoned for their beliefs. Human rights groups say the junta has jailed about 2,100 political prisoners.

It was widely assumed that Aung San Suu Kyi would be shut out since a provision in the constitution bars anyone with foreign ties from taking part in elections. Her late husband was British, her two sons have British citizenship, and she has been described by the junta as enjoying special links with Britain.

"We're going to need to study the election laws carefully once they've all been released," said the British ambassador, Andrew Heyn. "But it's regrettable and very disappointing that the laws are not based on a dialogue with a range of political opinion."

He stressed that the release of political prisoners, freedom for all to participate in the elections, freedom to campaign and access to media were essential for the election to be credible.

• Aung San Suu Kyi
• Burma
• Human rights

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Al Jazeera English’s Listening Post has an excellent film about the new Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) proposal, which, if successful, could make Iceland an investigative journalism haven. Read more about IMMI here: http://immi.is/?l=en: “The goal of the IMMI proposal is to task the government with finding ways to strengthen freedom of expression around world and [...]

In the past few days in Azerbaijan, some users have complained that many sites, including Yahoo Mail, Gmail and Facebook, were inaccessible. In a region such as the Caucasus where the Internet is less than reliable at the best of times, such things happen from time to time.

However, because the problems also included users having problems accessing the web site of Radio Free Europe's Azeri service, some automatically assumed it was a government block. Azadliq was prevented from broadcasting on radio frequencies at the beginning of last year after controversial legislation effectively banned foreign stations from doing so.

Such fears were probably also well founded given Azadliq's publication of reports related to last week's expose by the Washington Post concerning apparently suspect real estate deals in Dubai by the family of the president, Ilham Aliyev.

Word of the apparent problems also spread on Facebook, with some reporting that it only affected some secondary providers. Indeed, when Global Voices Online contacted several Internet users in Azerbaijan, they reported experiencing no problems at all.

Some even chatted over Gmail chat and sent mails from Yahoo at the same time as others reported the sites were inaccessible or not working properly while one even updated his status advising on how they could access the site.

When typing www.azadliq.org instead of Azadliq.Org it opens. Check it!

Problems were occurring, however, pushing the Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (IRFS) to publish a news item.

Restriction of access to Radio Liberty website from several internet providers operating in Azerbaijan including Bakinternet”, “Azeronline”, “Uninet”, “Ultel”, “Connect” and “Adanet” is continuing.

The “Facebook” social network disseminated information regarding this. The Institute for Reporters` Freedom and Safety conducted an investigation into this issue. “Ultel” provider told IRFS that the problem is linked to the website itself.

“Connect” provider’s operator Tofig Huseynov said that “Connect” did not impose any restriction on access to Radio Liberty website.

“Azeronline” representative on customer services Tural Omarov said that it is possible to access website by writing www at the beginning of azadliq.org.

Yesterday, IRFS published a statement based on some of the Facebook user reports.

The Institute for Reporters` Freedom and Safety condemns the restriction of access to Radio Liberty’s website by internet providers operating in Azerbaijan and assesses this as censorship by Azerbaijan government on the internet indirectly.

On 6 March, at 3:00 p.m., access to Radio Liberty’s website from several internet providers operating in Azerbaijan was restricted. Comprehensive information regarding this issue was disseminated on the “Facebook” social network. This restriction is still being continued.

IRFS does not rule out the possibility that due to the fact that an Azeri version of the critical article regarding Azerbaijan leadership published in the Washington Post was put onto Radio Liberty’s website is the reason for this censorship.

However, when Global Voices Online contacted two Internet specialists in Azerbaijan asking for their opinion, they ruled out the possibility of a government block, and not least because several other sites of a non-political nature were also affected and the fact that it only affected a few ISPs.

Another specialist even updated his Facebook status.

The problems encountered within a few days while entering Azadliq Radio and at the same time a number of other sites have nothing to do with providers - the problem was caused by a temporary technical glitch in the communication channel between Delta Telecom and Turk Telekom.

You don't want to help anybody. The only thing you do in our country is money laundering and you act as a political destabilizator. That's the end. Happy Women Day dear Ladies.

Because of the confusion and differing opinions on why and to what extent Azadliq was inaccessible, Global Voices Online contacted one European visitor to Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, to ask for further assessment, especially as the web site of the Open Society Institute (OSI) had been hacked at roughly the same time.

At time of writing, while some allege a block and technical specialists and others who could access the sites in question dispute such speculation, the reality is that confusion prevails. However, similar problems were encountered in Turkey a week earlier with Facebook at least, perhaps backing up the opinion of the technical specialists that there was no block.

Nevertheless, with two video blogging youth activists currently in prison and more activists going online, fears over the possibility of online censorship in the future are very real indeed. Meanwhile, confusion continues to prevail as to the reason for some users experiencing difficulties in accessing Azadliq and other sites.

Thanks to A. for translation from Azerbaijani into English.

March 8, 2010 - 1st Annual Ubuntu Women Project "How I discovered Ubuntu." International Women’s Day Competition

The Competition which was announced back in January, asked women and girls who use Ubuntu to submit their "How I discovered Ubuntu" stories. We as a Project acknowledge that there is no one definite answer to "How do you get women to use Ubuntu?", but wanted a way to highlight some of the various ways that women become Ubuntu users, contributors, and developers and at the same time not only have those stories as examples but also as a growing gift of encouragement and inspiration to women.

In order for events/competitions to be successful it takes community participation, and a heart felt thank you to all those who participated by submitting their personal "How I discovered Ubuntu." stories, those who took the time to vote, those who helped promote, and those who supported this initiative as well as offer encouragement to those might not have submitted their stories otherwise. I am grateful for everyone involved in the Ubuntu Women Project and greater Ubuntu Community as a whole who are continually helping to provide both the platform and encouragement for women to contribute to Ubuntu.

The winners of an awesome prize pack are: Elvira Martinez and Karen Y. Perez with honorable mention going to Jen Phillips as well. CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Here are there stories:

***Elvira Martinez "tatica1" ***

Today my Honduran team mate Diego Turcios shared with me this link to Amber’s blog that excited me to finally write about how I met Ubuntu. I wanted to share this a while ago but I feel motivated about doing it through Ubuntu-women and not just for the sole interest in participating in the contest. I think it will be very interesting to hear how other women became interested in Ubuntu and others may be interested in my experience, specially considering that I am not the “computer girl” precisely.

After nearly 20 years after my high school graduation in Colombia Lycée Français Paul Valery, I found again one of my classmates through Facebook (I guess) Fabian Rodriguez known as MagicFab who after asking him what he was doing today, he mentioned Ubuntu as part of his activities. And I say activities, because Ubuntu is much more than an operating system.

I’ve always liked the world of computer science and unfortunately that was not what I studied, but I learned on my own how to manage, fix, clean my home machines. I could say that the world of computers is my passion and when Fabian told me about this, I knew it was no fluke.

I remember the first thing I said was: Ubuntu what?? How do you eat that?? And then after a brief speach about it and some information he sent to me to read on the subject, dropped his usual phrase, “If you want to install it, I can help you do it now”. Well, two days later, I was harrassing Fabian to help me install Ubuntu after a bunch of questions I had.

Some of my concerns were:

• If I would be able to use MSN and Skype with camera and audio included.
• My biggest question was if I could run iTunes on the computer (tool my daughters and my husband use).
• If Windows had to be removed to use Ubuntu.
• If I’ll have Office, PowerPoint or Excel with Ubuntu also and if so, would be so easy to use as those.
• If I was going to be able to install Ubuntu alone, long distance with Fabian’s instructions.

Well, the day I gave a YES myself to Ubuntu, began with a phone call from Fabian from Canada. After downloading into my own computer some files, we start by checking whether they were good and then install it. I remember Fabian told me, don’t install it yet first test it. Then after his explanations that I could partition the computer and leave Windows intact but also have Ubuntu too I said “Let’s do it and install it now”. And so it was, on the phone, with his help, that I installed for the first time in one of my computers Hardy 8.04 and some months later in another Ubuntu 8.10.

When he finally said, “Take a last click and you’re done, finished,” I could not believe it!! First, I had allowed to risk to install another operating system on my computer and two, that I had done through instructions by telephone. That meant that it could be do so easily! That’s how my story began with Ubuntu in June 2008 : D

Months later I bought an Acer Aspire One that came with Linpus and my next challenge was to install Ubuntu on it. It was a laptop (and not a desktop) and needed a version for netbooks so I tried first to fight with LPIA platform with which I ended up frustrated because after installing it did not work and gave me error. Then it was new to me to download an ISO file to my laptop and also install it throught a USB. I think it was two weeks without my computer, sweating and suffering, but with some help of several friends of the Honduran community I finally had Ubuntu on my Acer. I remember I installed 8.10 version which gave me enough slow problems on my laptop, but when I upgraded to 9.10, I was sooo happy;)

From Ubuntu, I further research, looking and learning how to move in the Ubuntu world. As part of that and then again by MagicFab’s suggestions I learned how to participate via IRC in different communities, to tell my experiences with applications in Ubuntu, I dared to start my own blog for the first time telling my experience with the Ubuntu Desktop Course (elearning), learned to use my blog as a tool through which I can inform others about Ubuntu, participating in lists of the communities I belong and learned how to handle wiki, blueprint and documentation pages to share information to others.

Today I am part of the community and am in several team where I hope to be able to support as I learn from everyone’s experiences too. I am a member in the communities of Ubuntu Honduras, Colombia, Women, Guatemala and El Salvador. Almost daily I am present in IRC channels of Honduras, Colombia and Women getting feedback and contributing wherever I can. I still can not work actively participate in all these media but try to do when I feel more confident about the subject. English is my third language, so I am kind of shy in the ubuntu-women channel.

Today I know that there is Free Software and Ubuntu exists there with all its benefits over other systems. I also know that although I did not study computers, I can handle and learn thousands of things about it and help knowing others that will benefit too.

Today I belong and work hand by hand with others in the Honduras Ubuntu community, promoting Ubuntu in the country, mostly in San Pedro Sula where I currently reside. With the support Fabian gave me, I revived the group that was practically abandoned and we are trying again today to show people of Honduras that Ubuntu is the best choice when it comes to choosing an operating system. Every day I try to learn more and see how I can support other Ubuntu users here and elsewhere. I am very excited to be part of this team and I love to learn and collaborate with this good cause;)

Since I started being part of this community, I had the opportunity to share with others from other distros like Fedora or Debian. There is little that I have experienced them, but for now I’m only interested in Ubuntu.

My name is Elvira Martinez or tatica1 as I I’m known in the community and my main challenge is to convince my daughters and my husband that Ubuntu is the best choice when we talk about operating systems.

***Karen Y. Perez***

When I was a little girl i saw my dad studying computer science to eventually working on projects. Like most little girls I admire my dad more than anyone in the world and I always tried to be just like him. I read many books like him, I begged for my own laptop and fell in love with space. Since then my passion for science, math and technology developed. There were moments where I loved chemistry more than physics and times where math was better than astronomy. But, my passion for computers never faded once. Each year I pleaded my dad to teach me how to program because his code was like a puzzle i need to understand. So, every so often he would teach me bits and pieces but only enough to keep my curiosity afloat and have me do my own research. One day I stumbled across one of my dad’s Unix books in his library. I didn’t really understand much at the time so I tried my very best to read it and eventually I did some research on-line. While doing my research I read about Linux and I saw what the open source revolution was all about. I taught myself as much as I could and I decided to convert my laptop to Linux for the first time in ‘09. Ubuntu has helped me with my studies in computer science and helped me stay open to new things of course including technologies. The last thing a geek needs is to not want to explore outside of the box. I guess you can say I’m a self pro-claimed fem-geek and I couldn’t imagine life any other way. Although, I am no professional yet I do try to talk to other girls and show them how great of an experience using Linux Ubuntu is as well as many other great “geeky” technologies. I hope to one day show young girls that there is more to life than fashion. That you can be as “fashionable” as Barbie and yet be an astronaut.

***Jen Phillips***

Learning to Fly

Some years ago, I used to travel everywhere by bus. The company that ran it was called Microsoft, and I used the Number 3.1. It generally got me where I needed to be, but it took a bit of an odd route to get there, and it would often stop at seemingly random points. If I fancied a change, I could take my walkman, or a book. It wasn’t the most comfortable ride, but it did ok, and I was used to it. After a while, the company decided to upgrade all their busses and change all the routes - and put the fares up. I went onto the Number 95, and everything looked nice and shiny, although I missed my stop a couple of times because I wasn’t used to the route. After a while I realised that although the route didn’t take the same detours, it took new ones, so I didn’t really get where I was going any faster. The busses all seemed to get a bit dingy after a while, too. Still, I had my CD walkman, and it became familiar again.

Eventually, I took the plunge, and got a car. I loved the freedom - I could go where I wanted to go, when I wanted to go. I wasn’t constrained by having to have the right money, and I didn’t have to stop for the sake of everyone else. It was a SuSE, and it was mine and I loved it. Except, any time anything went wrong I had to ask for help. When the radio stopped working, I had to get someone else to fix it. If i couldn’t find a particular stick or button, I had to get someone to show me where it was. It also wouldn’t play any of my old CDs. In short, it was frustrating. I tried a couple of other cars, but they weren’t any better. I took ages getting my Debian to even start, and somehow had a knack for stalling it before I got to the end of the street. Eventually, I gave up and went back to the bus - the XP route now had air conditioning and contoured seats, and I could cope with the delays (and occasional breakdowns) because it did tend to get me there in the end.

Then one day, something quite miraculous happened: someone gave me a pair of wings. In only a couple of lessons, I was flying! I no longer have to wait for the bus, and I don’t need a mechanic to come and rescue me any more. If I want different music, I can just pick up a media player and set it going. If I want to dye my wings a different colour, that’s easy too. I decide which route to take - I’m not even limited by roads any more. The best thing is that flying feels so natural - like walking only better. I call these wings “Ubuntu”.

These story submissions along with all the others are available on the Ubuntu Women Project wiki pages.

Without the efforts of Ubuntu Women Project team member, Melissa Draper, the competition may have never made it to the community, the time and talent she personally put into this competition by drafting the competition as well as writing the voting submission application was awesome! - Thanks Melissa!

It is also important to say thank you to the sponsors of this competition, Rikki Kite, Associate Publisher, Linux Pro and Ubuntu User Magazines, for donating Linux Pro or Ubuntu User Magazine subscriptions (choice of one per winner), to Canonical for donating the Ubuntu Backpacks, notebooks, pens, lanyards, pins and T-shirts, at last but not least to Jono Bacon for making the announcement of the winners as well as for copies of Art of Community.

Again, Congratulations to the winners of the prize packs as well as all those who submitted your person Ubuntu discovery stories. I can’t wait to read the submissions for the 2nd Annual Ubuntu Women Project “How I discovered Ubuntu.” International Women’s Day Competition, so mark your calendars and work on YOUR personal discovery of Ubuntu to help celebrate 100 years of International Women’s Day.

REMINDER: If you or someone you know would like to find out more information about the Ubuntu Women Project there are several ways to do so - website, mailing list, IRC channel(s), and Ubuntu Women Forums

[Discuss the International Women’s Day Competition Winners on the Forum]

Originally sent to the ubuntu-news-team mailing list by Amber Graner on Tue Mar 9 04:46:28 GMT 2010

Tamron vient de présenter son dernier objectif SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD destiné aux appareils Reflex plein-format de Nikon. Equipé de la technologie « Vibration Compensation » de Tamron, cet objectif offre une stabilisation optique. L’optique embarque également un moteur « Ultrasonic Silent Drive » pour des opérations plus rapides et plus silencieuses.
Cet objectif vient en fait fêter le 60ème anniversaire de la marque.
Des montures Sony Alpha et Canon devraient suivre après la sortie officielle de la monture Canon.
Enfin, l’objectif peut-être utilisé avec les appareils APS-C où l’équivalent en 35mm sera de 109-465mm

Communiqué de presse:

New optical system optimized for digital cameras achieves top resolution in the 70-300mm class with specialized glass elements including an XLD (Extra Low Dispersion) lens
This lens’ advanced optical design employs a sophisticated XLD (Extra Low Dispersion) lens element made from specialized high-grade glass that has lower dispersive properties than standard LD lenses (where refraction causes the dispersion of white light into spectral hues). The dispersive properties of the XLD lens are at a level similar to fluorite, and in combination with a LD element make for an optimal optical design that delivers best in class resolution with advanced axial chromatic and magnification aberration correction – major inhibitors of image quality enhancement. The result is a lens that delivers sharp contrast and better descriptive performance throughout the entire zoom range.

Fast focusing USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive), the ultrasonic autofocus drive
The lens is equipped with Tamron’s first-ever ultrasonic auto-focus drive USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive). It achieves faster focusing making this telephoto lens perfect for photography of sports, motor racing, and other fast-moving subjects. With advanced motor technology and newly developed software, Tamron’s USD delivers precise and noiseless focusing at turbo speed.

USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive)
Tamron’s USD works with the high-frequency ultrasonic vibrations that are produced by a ring called a ‘stator’. Energy from the vibrations is used to rotate an attached metallic ring known as the ‘rotor’. Piezoelectric ceramic, an element that produces ultrasonic vibrations when voltage of a specific frequency is applied is arranged in a ring formation on the stator. This electrode configuration of piezoelectric ceramic causes two ultrasonic vibrations to occur in the stator.

By effectively combining these two ultrasonic vibrations, it is possible to convert the energy from the vibrations that produced simple motion into energy known as ‘deflective traveling waves’, which then moves around the circumference (rotation direction) of the ring.

With the USD, the friction between these deflective traveling waves created on the metallic surface of the stator and the surface of the rotor produce force, causing the rotor to rotate. The focusing ring lens, which is linked to the rotor, is thus moved, creating a fast and smooth auto-focus drive.

Equipped with Tamron’s VC (Vibration Compensation) image stabilization
The SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD employs Tamron’s esteemed image stabilization mechanism–VC (Vibration Compensation) seen in both the AF18-270mm Di II VC (Model B003) and SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC (Model B005). With VC, the photographer has the freedom to shoot at a shutter speed that is an extra four stops slower without having to worry about blurring. This makes capturing handheld, evening, night, and interior shots much easier.

VC (Vibration Compensation) Tamron’s VC mechanism employs a three-coil system, whereby three driving coils activate the shake-compensating VC lens group electromagnetically via three steel balls. The VC lens elements are held in place only by contact with the steel balls, achieving smooth movement with little friction. This provides a stable viewfinder image with excellent tracking performance that eliminates the blur from camera shake for cleaner, crisper shots.

Full time manual focus at your fingertips
Auto-focus has many benefits but sometimes the photographer needs the control of manual focus. Full time manual offers just that: the crossover from auto-focus to manual focus by simply adjusting the focus ring, allowing the photographer to make adjustments on the fly. This feature helps the lens produce impressive results even in telephoto situations where the depth of field is narrow.

Better balance and consistent length with internal focusing
When focusing, the internal elements of the lens move and the lens’ external size does not change. This offers better balance and easier telephoto shots. Moreover, the barrel is not subject to stray light entering from external helicoids that can negatively affect images. And because the external elements do not move, it makes it easier to utilize polarizing filters and the flower shape hood to control the amount of light that enters the lens.

Enjoyable photography for a wide range of enthusiasts, from those using traditional film cameras, to digital SLRs with full-frame or APS-C size sensors
With a full-frame digital or 35mm SLR, portrait and medium telephoto shots can be achieved on the wider 70mm end of the range and spectacular telephoto shots at the longer 300mm side. When using an ASP-C sensor camera the angle of view changes, giving it the equivalent range of 109-465mm for bold ultra-telephoto shots. And with a maximum magnification ratio 1:4, the lens can be used to explore in the realm of semi-macro photography.

Uncompromising countermeasures to reduce ghosting and flare
Digital photography requires extreme precision, which is why Tamron incorporates new BBAR (Broad-Band Anti Reflection) multilayer coatings that reduce reflection into the lens elements. This ensures excellent performance in all photographic conditions and enhances light transmission on both long and short wavelengths. Also, Tamron applies internal surface coatings on cemented surfaces of lens elements to make images sharper with better color reproduction and balance.

Simple yet beautiful exterior design
Tamron adopted a simple design with a smooth silhouette to ensure that this lens fits well with various SLR cameras. The exquisite textured paint gives a well-crafted finish to the exterior.

Flower-shaped hood with excellent stray light shielding properties–a standard accessory
The flower-shaped hood has been designed specifically to block out damaging light rays and ensures clear, sharp descriptive performance.

Tamron have introduced a SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens for Nikon full-frame DSLR cameras. Equipped with Tamron’s ‘Vibration Compensation’ technology, the lens offers optical stabilization. The lens also features an ‘Ultrasonic Silent Drive’ motor for fast, quiet operation. It is being marketed as a 60th anniversary edition lens.  Sony Alpha and Canon mounts will follow shortly after the Nikon mount is released.

The lens can be used with APS-C sensor cameras where the 35mm equivalent zoom range will be 109-465mm.

Press Release:

New optical system optimized for digital cameras achieves top resolution in the 70-300mm class with specialized glass elements including an XLD (Extra Low Dispersion) lens
This lens’ advanced optical design employs a sophisticated XLD (Extra Low Dispersion) lens element made from specialized high-grade glass that has lower dispersive properties than standard LD lenses (where refraction causes the dispersion of white light into spectral hues). The dispersive properties of the XLD lens are at a level similar to fluorite, and in combination with a LD element make for an optimal optical design that delivers best in class resolution with advanced axial chromatic and magnification aberration correction – major inhibitors of image quality enhancement. The result is a lens that delivers sharp contrast and better descriptive performance throughout the entire zoom range.

Fast focusing USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive), the ultrasonic autofocus drive
The lens is equipped with Tamron’s first-ever ultrasonic auto-focus drive USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive). It achieves faster focusing making this telephoto lens perfect for photography of sports, motor racing, and other fast-moving subjects. With advanced motor technology and newly developed software, Tamron’s USD delivers precise and noiseless focusing at turbo speed.

USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive)
Tamron’s USD works with the high-frequency ultrasonic vibrations that are produced by a ring called a ‘stator’. Energy from the vibrations is used to rotate an attached metallic ring known as the ‘rotor’. Piezoelectric ceramic, an element that produces ultrasonic vibrations when voltage of a specific frequency is applied is arranged in a ring formation on the stator. This electrode configuration of piezoelectric ceramic causes two ultrasonic vibrations to occur in the stator.

By effectively combining these two ultrasonic vibrations, it is possible to convert the energy from the vibrations that produced simple motion into energy known as ‘deflective traveling waves’, which then moves around the circumference (rotation direction) of the ring.

With the USD, the friction between these deflective traveling waves created on the metallic surface of the stator and the surface of the rotor produce force, causing the rotor to rotate. The focusing ring lens, which is linked to the rotor, is thus moved, creating a fast and smooth auto-focus drive.

Equipped with Tamron’s VC (Vibration Compensation) image stabilization
The SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD employs Tamron’s esteemed image stabilization mechanism–VC (Vibration Compensation) seen in both the AF18-270mm Di II VC (Model B003) and SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC (Model B005). With VC, the photographer has the freedom to shoot at a shutter speed that is an extra four stops slower without having to worry about blurring. This makes capturing handheld, evening, night, and interior shots much easier.

VC (Vibration Compensation) Tamron’s VC mechanism employs a three-coil system, whereby three driving coils activate the shake-compensating VC lens group electromagnetically via three steel balls. The VC lens elements are held in place only by contact with the steel balls, achieving smooth movement with little friction. This provides a stable viewfinder image with excellent tracking performance that eliminates the blur from camera shake for cleaner, crisper shots.

Full time manual focus at your fingertips
Auto-focus has many benefits but sometimes the photographer needs the control of manual focus. Full time manual offers just that: the crossover from auto-focus to manual focus by simply adjusting the focus ring, allowing the photographer to make adjustments on the fly. This feature helps the lens produce impressive results even in telephoto situations where the depth of field is narrow.

Better balance and consistent length with internal focusing
When focusing, the internal elements of the lens move and the lens’ external size does not change. This offers better balance and easier telephoto shots. Moreover, the barrel is not subject to stray light entering from external helicoids that can negatively affect images. And because the external elements do not move, it makes it easier to utilize polarizing filters and the flower shape hood to control the amount of light that enters the lens.

Enjoyable photography for a wide range of enthusiasts, from those using traditional film cameras, to digital SLRs with full-frame or APS-C size sensors
With a full-frame digital or 35mm SLR, portrait and medium telephoto shots can be achieved on the wider 70mm end of the range and spectacular telephoto shots at the longer 300mm side. When using an ASP-C sensor camera the angle of view changes, giving it the equivalent range of 109-465mm for bold ultra-telephoto shots. And with a maximum magnification ratio 1:4, the lens can be used to explore in the realm of semi-macro photography.

Uncompromising countermeasures to reduce ghosting and flare
Digital photography requires extreme precision, which is why Tamron incorporates new BBAR (Broad-Band Anti Reflection) multilayer coatings that reduce reflection into the lens elements. This ensures excellent performance in all photographic conditions and enhances light transmission on both long and short wavelengths. Also, Tamron applies internal surface coatings on cemented surfaces of lens elements to make images sharper with better color reproduction and balance.

Simple yet beautiful exterior design
Tamron adopted a simple design with a smooth silhouette to ensure that this lens fits well with various SLR cameras. The exquisite textured paint gives a well-crafted finish to the exterior.

Flower-shaped hood with excellent stray light shielding properties–a standard accessory
The flower-shaped hood has been designed specifically to block out damaging light rays and ensures clear, sharp descriptive performance.

James Swan

I'm not particularly keen on reinventing wheels. Part of the fortunate heritage of the Reformed worldview is that much better minds than mine have studied the Biblical text, then formulated its information into concise doctrinal statements. Of course the statements are only as good as the verses they're based on. For instance, chapter three of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33
If one were going to dispute this statement, it shouldn't be by philosophic speculation, tradition, or an emotional feeling. It should be done by proving the Biblical texts used don't support the statement being made. Such though typically isn't the case. The counter charge often begins with the assertion that Reformed theology turns God into a puppet master and the author of evil. The ingredient said to be missing is free will. It's touted that by adding free willto a biblical summary statement, a completely different view of sovereignty emerges, one which absolves God of being the author of evil and provides humanity with true freedom. Some go as far to say that the God of Reformed theology is far from Biblical.
Before a Reformed person pounces on such a counter view, one thing shouldn't be overlooked. Those who find Reformed theology illogical often have no other intent than to vigorously defend the honor of God as not being the author of evil, and wanting to place responsibility for evil and sin clearly on the shoulders of mankind. The irony of course is that the Reformed don't hold God to be the author of evil, nor do they consider men to be mere puppets. We agree with them that God is good and men are responsible. We're on a similar page in some respects, but the theological explanation as to how we both got there is very different. There are also crucial ramifications on other important areas of soteriology based on those differing explanations.

When non-Reformed people argue against the Reformed understanding of sovereignty, I have to immediately ask them how they also avoid their own argument. If we apply their argument against their own position what happens? They similarly believe God created all that is, and knew the beginning from the end before He created. If I knew in advance that a person was going to get in their car by their own choice, and while driving down the road strike and kill someone, and I let them do it,I share responsibility. It's actually a severely culpable responsibility because I knew and they didn't. When God chooses to create knowing full well what evil will happen, and creates anyway, I don't see how a non-Reformed person can avoid the same charge they place on us. Also, if God knows what we're going to choose when he creates us, do we really have free will? We certainly can't choose otherwise at that point. Further, to really make a free choice, those choices would have to be uncaused by circumstances surrounding us. Don't genetic and environmental factors place quite a burden on the proper and pure operation of free will? The long chain of events leading up to our point of choosing can't in any way be caused by God for our choices to be truly free. If God is behind that long chain of events, shouldn't God share at least some responsibility?

Many of you probably realize the above arguments are those typically launched by atheists against theists that use free will to absolve God of evil and determinism. One thing should jump out immediately: garden variety non-Reformed people really share a similar dilemma as the Reformed. Rarely though will a non-Reformed person admit that their view of sovereignty if scrutinized by an atheist, ends up with the conclusion that people are puppets and God is ultimately the author of evil. When the non-Reformed argue against us, they need to explain why they aren't arguing against themselves. Then they should explain why they use our paradigms when trouble or evil enters their lives. They can't escape their own heart of faith that knows "God is in control" and that all works according to His purposes. Everything is a free will adventure until tough circumstance befall a non-Reformed person. Then come cries for God's sovereign control.

The battle therefore really shouldn't be the Reformed versus the non-Reformed. The battle should be Christian theism versus atheism. The battle is between belief and unbelief. If you have non-Reformed friends that attack your Reformed understanding of sovereignty, with love and respect you have to show them they are standing right next to you facing common enemies: the world, the flesh, and the Devil. If their own arguments work just as well against their own position, they don't have valid arguments. Then it's to the Biblical text, to see whose view fits the evidence of Scripture. There, free will as understood by the non-Reformed crumbles under the weight of clear Scripture.

One of the problems with non-Reformed argumentation on this subject is it's application of extra-Biblical reasoning rather than simply taking sola scriptura to its logical conclusion. This isn't readily admitted. No Christian wants to admit their core belief on this issue is tainted. Of course, making generalized statements typically isn't safe, but I've found probing through typical non-Reformed explanations of sin and the nature of the will ultimately turn "The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" into "That man has a will and the ability to choose from his heart (indeed that he must in order to please God) is abundantly clear from the repeated references to 'heart' throughout Scripture" (Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism pp.339-340). The Reformed hold whatever views we have of God's sovereignty and man''s will must be based only on the Scriptures. If God says he's sovereign, we're enslaved to sin and responsible, and he's not the author of sin, that is precisely who God is and how the world is. It doesn't matter how many times the word "heart" is used. If the Bible repeatedly describes the will and heart as enslaved and dead in sin, that's indeed what it is.

Only the eyes of faith want to know who God is and what the exact plight of man is according to Scripture. By worldly standards, a sovereign God and a spiritually dead sinner sounds absurd, utterly foolish. The God invented by mankind is more of a loving aged grandfather. It holds all each person, though they make mistakes, all have a spark of goodness within them simply needing to be ignited. Contrary to this, 1 Corinthians tells us how a central tenet of our theology, the cross of Jesus Christ, is foolishness to the world. The passage should serve as a reminder that much of what we believe as Christians will be considered foolish. Is it foolish to believe that a sovereign God created everything from nothing, knew the beginning from the end, is not the author of evil, and that men are responsible? I say without the eyes of faith, it is, but it's just as foolish as other central beliefs of Christianity:

Christians believe that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that this baby was fully God and fully man, infinite and finite at the same time. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God almighty spent his infancy being taken care of by a woman, nursed and diapered. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God Almighty had a job. He was a carpenter. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that a man deemed to be a criminal by his own people and by the governing powers was God. God Almighty, the most powerful force that is, was nailed to a cross and died in weakness. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God has communicated to us via a book. The book is perfect, even though written by sinful human beings. The book also is authored by God the Holy Spirit. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

This of course is only a partial list. We could go on, exploring many more facets of Christian theology. I think non-Reformed Christians often forget the deep mysteries of the faith. There are simply facets of Christianity that can't be dissected philosophically or understood completely. God's sovereignty and human responsibility is just as mysterious as all those things listed above. As Christians, we don't simply pick and choose what we're going to believe based on if it makes sense to us. When our non-Reformed friends chastise us for believing something that sounds utterly foolish, we need to remind them of all the foolish things they likewise believe along with us. We have to press them to choose either the world's wisdom of the loving grandfather and humanity's spark of goodness, or the foolish paradigm of a holy sovereign king and enslaved sinful humanity.

Attempting to get an infinite being off the hook because of his sovereignty is a difficult plight for anyone claiming to adhere to Christian theism. It's a built in failure that the finite will never be able to fully comprehend the infinite. I can't even wrap my brain around the fact that a simple line with two points on either end has an infinite amount of points in between. How is it possible I can see the beginning and ending of a line, yet have infinity in the middle? As Christians, we're surrounded by more mysteries than we even realize. But some of those mysteries are holy. In terms of getting God's sovereignty off the hook, perhaps it would be wiser to simply stand back in awe of his holiness and infinitude.

Simply because it is a mystery though, doesn't mean Reformed people don't have any Biblical information to prove their view. The Bible repeatedly shows us that God decreed all things, and that people are still held accountable for their actions, especially their sinful actions.Theologians refers to this as compatibilism: God's decree is compatible with a person?s will. They don't contradict each other.

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good. The text shows one action with two intentions. This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel. The text shows one action with two intentions, a sinful intention and a holy intention.The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God?s predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

R.C. Sproul wrote a chapter a number of years ago entitled, "The Trauma of Holiness." Similarly, I think looking at this issue as "the trauma of God's sovereignty" is a good beginning. We need to remind the non-Reformed of the danger is defining God's sovereignty differently than the way the Bible has expressed it. It's not simply an issue that we can be haphazard with. It demands reverence, caution, and meekness. The Belgic Confession rightly puts the humble spirit of a Christian before us on this issue:
As to what God does surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgment of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which he has revealed to us in His word, without transgressing these limits.

Surely you remember those Sixense motion controls that we caught lounging around at Razer's CES booth, right? Yeah. Today at the Game Developers Conference, both outfits have teamed up in order to distribute the Ultra-Precise Motion Controller SDK and FPS utility library via Steam, which should give devs the ability to create new games and port existing titles for use with the aforementioned sticks. We're told that these new tools will require "require virtually no knowledge of the inner workings of the controller," enabling coders to craft titles that take full advantage of the six degrees of freedom. Will this turn the PC into the next Wii? We kind of doubt it, but at least someone's looking out for non-console gamers who have a secret obsession with Nintendo's Wiimote.

Continue reading Razer and Sixense distribute SDK and FPS shooter utility through Steam

Razer and Sixense distribute SDK and FPS shooter utility through Steam originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:55:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  Razer  | Email this | Comments

Michael Scott points us to a blog post by Peter Fleischer, the Global Privacy Counsel for Google -- perhaps better known as one of the three Google execs to be convicted on criminal charges due to a video some kids uploaded to Google Video, which the Italian courts believe Google did not take down fast enough. In the blog post, Fleischer discusses the balance between the right to privacy and the right to free expression, noting that posting a photo online is part of free expression, but if that photo shows anyone else, European privacy laws suggest you may be guilty of violating someone's privacy (which is what Fleischer and the Google executives were convicted of doing). In discussing this balance, Fleischer notes that while there are plenty of regulators in charge of protecting privacy in Europe, there don't seem to be the equivalent regulators in charge of protecting freedom of expression: Both freedom of expression and privacy are fundamental human rights. But those rights are not both equally enforced, protected or policed. There are literally thousands of data protection bureaucrats in Europe whose job is to enforce European data protection regulations. As far as I can tell, there is not a single government official in all of Europe whose sole job is to do the same for freedom of expression. Curious, no?

As I go to privacy-centric conferences where people invariably talk about the problems and risks of social networking sites, I'm often the odd guy out who seems to think that they're also precious platforms for freedom of expression. Lots of guys in power lecture about how lives or careers or futures are jeopardized by a single embarrassing photo posted to a platform....

A privacy regulator in Europe told me the other day that he thought it was a data protection violation for anyone to post a photo online if it captured someone's face or property without their consent. I asked him whether he thought this restricted the right to freedom of expression. He didn't seem to understand the question. The right to privacy and the right to free expression are both important rights -- and they're certainly ones that can, conceivably, conflict. This is one case where figuring out where the line is drawn is important, and the lack of anyone fighting for freedom of expression in Europe suggests that only one side of the debate is being heard there.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A representative of Google and of the United Nations International Telecommunication Union today spoke of internet freedom in repressive regimes and censorship in Western democracies.

In a Washington Times' op-ed, Chris Horner revived a discredited study to conclude that green jobs initiatives in Spain were "economic and employment disasters." Horner also accused the Center of American Progress, the American Wind Energy Association, and the Department of Energy of coordinating "to produce an attack that would serve all their interests," ignoring news reports and the Spanish government itself that are also critical of the study.

Horner cites "Spanish academics and experts" who concluded "Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters"

Horner: Spanish experts "reveal[ed] Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters." From a March 9 Washington Times op-ed by Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Obama told Americans on no fewer than eight occasions to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" to see his model for successful "green jobs" policies, and what we should expect here.

Some Spanish academics and experts on that country's wind- and solar-energy policies and outcomes took Mr. Obama up on his invitation, revealing Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters. The political embarrassment to the administration was obvious, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asked about the Spanish study at a press conference, and the president hurriedly substituted Denmark for Spain in his stump speech.

In a March 3 PajamasMedia blog post, Horner stated, "In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: 'Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.' The paper concludes that Spain's 'green jobs' program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs."

Horner suggests criticism of study is rooted in conspiracy involving Department of Energy and CAP. Citing documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute using the Freedom of Information Act, Horner asserted: "What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests."

Study Horner cited roundly criticized for "lack of scientific rigor"

U.S. Department of Energy: "[T]he primary conclusion made by the authors ... is not supported by their work." In an August 2009 White Paper responding to the Spanish study, which was written by Gabriel Calzada, a professor of economics at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain and fellow of the Centre for the New Europe, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory stated that the Spanish study "represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors -- policy support of renewable energy results in net job losses -- is not supported by their work." The paper further concluded:

The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

WSJ's Johnson: "Study doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed." Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson challenged a key premise of the study, writing on March 30, 2009, that it "doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending." He went on to write: "The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it's hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January."

Spanish government criticized study for "non rigorous methodology." In a May 20, 2009, letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate Change, wrote that Calzada's analysis used a "low reliable and non rigorous methodology" and that the data he used are "totally out of keeping with the current reality of the sector." Stating that "the Spanish Government would like to express its views," Rodríguez further wrote:

In Spain, according to the last data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade the [renewable energy] sector employs 73.900 direct workers, while other report by ISTAS-CCOO (labour union institute of work, environment and health) estimates 89000 direct jobs plus 99681 indirect jobs, against de 52200 direct and indirect jobs of the Calzada's figures (unknown source). According to data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade and of the wind power business association, the wind power sector employed 37730 people instead of the 15000 jobs considered in the Calzada's paper.

ISTAS: "The lack of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming." In an analysis of the Calzada study, Spain's Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS) stated that the study contained a "lack of scientific rigor." ISTAS also said that the lack "of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming" and that Calzada had written not "a study ... but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts." ISTAS also stated that one of the "real intention[s] behind the document" was to "try and influence the U.S. media."

Study's author reportedly has ties to oil industry

Study reportedly "supported" by oil-funded Institute for Energy Research. Washington Post columnist George Will cited Calzada's study on June 25, 2009, and stated that Calzada's "study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech.)" As Media Matters noted, ExxonMobil Corp. has disclosed that it has provided funding for the institute. Moreover, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation -- the president of which is an executive vice president of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940" -- donated $85,000 in grants to the institute between 1997 and 2005, according Internal Revenue Service data compiled by mediatransparency.org, a website of the Media Matters Action Network.

Calzada is fellow at Centre for the New Europe, which has also taken oil-industry money. Calzada's biography from a Heartland Institute conference states that he is a "fellow of the Centre for the New Europe (Brussels, Belgium)." The president of the Centre for the New Europe has acknowledged receiving money from ExxonMobil in 2005, according to a December 7, 2006, article in London's Independent.

The Turkish courts banned YouTube in May 2008, and now a new protest campaign launched by the editorial team of the Milliyet newspaper is drawing attention to how long the country has been prevented from using the website.

The initiative, which was was launched on February 19, is not the first campaign of this type. But it's notable because previous protests came from the blogosphere and, as a result, did not receive international coverage. The current ban is the fourth such action by the Turkish courts since 2007; hopefully, this campaign will draw attention to this policy of censorship.

WSJ Piece Sparks Outcry

The editors of Milliyet were inspired to act by a February 16 piece in the Wall Street Journal by David Keyes, a founding member of Cyberdissidents.org. Keyes wrote that "there is nothing European, let alone cultural, about prohibiting citizens from viewing YouTube. Turkey's status as the 2010 European 'Capital of Culture' should be suspended until this ban is repealed."

The article received significant pick-up in the Turkish press. A columnist at Haberturk, a national daily, commented that the ban and the resulting situation were an embarrassment. The ban of YouTube was issued on May 5, 2008, by three Ankara magistrate courts who ruled that YouTube had not acquired a certificate of authorization to operate in the country. The columnist at Haberturk wrote that the minister of transportation should do everything in his power to change the relevant law, and then ask YouTube to pay taxes.

In announcing the protest campaign, Milliyet columnist MehveÅŸ Emin said:

Everybody has changed their DNS settings and can access YouTube, just like the Prime Minister does and has said he does. This is why people have become insensitive about this ban. But YouTube is still blocked in Turkey and this affects Turkey's image negatively and this issue needs to be resolved. So as the editorial team of Milliyet Cadde, we agreed to show everyday how many days have passed since the ban.

Following that, on February 17, technology journalists at the daily newspaper Hürriyet published their view on Internet Freedom in Turkey:

We as Turkish technology journalists have stressed the importance of a free Internet over and over again. Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review did a remarkable job by documenting non-censored computers for the use of the IMF and World Bank delegations during their summit this summer. We said it was not a clever move to try to hide something you are ashamed of, especially if the rest of the world knows about it. The fact that Iran is on the same level as Turkey in terms of free Internet is a shame on the politicians of a free, democratic society. Just as Iran, Turkey would like to create a national search engine and a national Internet, which is an oxymoron to many.

3,700 Websites Blocked

According to Reporters Without Borders' 2009 Press Freedom Index, Turkey is ranked 102 out of 173 countries. In testimony given during a Congressional hearing held on Dec. 3, 2009, Reporters Without Borders noted that, "In 2009, Turkey has experienced a surge in cases of censorship, especially censorship of media that represent minorities [especially the Kurds]."

In Turkey, law No. 5651, "On the fight against online crime," allows a prosecutor to ban access to any website that incites suicide, pedophilia or drug use, or that defames Kemal Atatürk. During 2008, ten web sites, including YouTube, Dailymotion and Google Groups, were blocked by court decisions. Clearly, this law is being applied indiscriminately and as a tool to suppress free speech.

"In its current form, Law 5651, commonly known as the Internet Law of Turkey, not only limits freedom of expression, but severely restricts citizens' right to access information," said Milos Haraszti, media freedom monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in a January Reuters story.

He said that Turkey, a European Union candidate, was blocking access to 3,700 Internet sites because Ankara's Internet law was "too broad and too subject to political interests."

Turkish newspapers also reported that in April 2009 the army sorted 292 Turkish-language websites and 138 foreign-language sites into categories such as "separatist," "in favour of the EU," "Islamist." The list included a number of human rights websites, as well as newspapers such as The Independent and the New York Times.

The question now is whether Turkey's online censorship will land it on the list of "Internet Enemies" that we at Reporters Without Borders will publish this Friday":http://www.rsf.org/World-Day-Against-Cyber-Censorship.html -- and how its Internet policies will impact its EU membership.

Clothilde Le Coz has been working for Reporters Without Borders in Paris since 2007. She is now the Washington director for this organization, helping to promote press freedom and free speech around the world. In Paris, she was in charge of the Internet Freedom desk and worked especially on China, Iran, Egypt and Thailand. During the time she spent in Paris, she was also updating the "Handbook for Bloggers and Cyberdissidents," published in 2005. Her role is now to get the message out for readers and politicians to be aware of the constant threat journalists are submitted to in many countries.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

The Electronic Frontier Foundation used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the iPhone developer agreement from a federal agency and doesn't like what it found.

Previously secret, the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement has been acquired and published with the help of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Electonic Frontier Foundation recently used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of Apple's iPhone OS developer agreement...

Ted Rall is a columnist/cartoonist, who, a couple years ago, wrote one of the most ridiculous opinion pieces we've seen in a long time -- suggesting that the answer to newspapers' current economic woes is that they should all take their websites down. That column was so full of economic and legal ignorance I thought there was a good chance that it was actually satire -- but people insisted he was serious. Now reader Mandy alerts us to a new column from Rall that again is so devoid of basic logic that I wonder if it's satire. This time he's standing way out on a limb arguing that Italy got it right in finding three Google execs criminally liable for a video some kids posted to Google Video.

Rall's reasoning once again defies logic. He seems unable to comprehend the difference between a publisher and a tool or service provider. Instead, he just insists that Google (and any other online service provider) should be forced to carefully review and fact check every piece of content uploaded before it can be available. Apparently, he doesn't quite recognize what he's asking for. On YouTube alone, more than 20 hours of video are uploaded every minute. And that's just YouTube. Rall also suggests that every blog post, every Tweet and every Facebook message should first be reviewed by an editor before it can be posted.

I think this really goes back to Rall's previous clueless column. He can't stand competition, so his solution is to put in place ridiculous free speech destroying rules and regulations to effectively kill off the internet, because someone might misuse it. His argument is based on the scenario that what if he ran a story falsely accusing you of being a drug-addicted child pornographer. He claims -- falsely -- that if he just published it online, there's nothing you can do about it. He later admits he's lying by saying you could sue him, but he brushes that off by saying no one would sue him because he has no money. Of course, people sue for libel all the time -- even those with no money.

But the really scary thing is that Rall seems to think that basically destroying the freedom to communicate and to express yourself online makes sense, just because the tool might possibly be used to spread a false statement. Does he not recognize the unintended consequences of this? Does he not realize that his "suggestion" for fixing the internet is effectively how much of China's internet censorship program works? Does he not think there might be more effective ways of dealing with such situations? For example, if Rall were to falsely accuse you of being a drug-addicted child pornographer, and it's clearly bogus, then you have an opportunity to fight back, and point out that Rall is wrong, destroy his reputation, and make sure he never gets another job again. Why not let free speech combat free speech?

Instead, Rall seems terrified of free speech, and would prefer that it only come from the "professionals" like himself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

So have you actually read the iPhone Developer Program[me] License Agreement? The EFF, using a freedom of information act to shrewdly get a copy legally off of NASA, look into the details and don't like what they find. As well as trying to prevent anybody from so much as mentioning the existence of these terms, Apple owe you no more than $50 if they sink your company by removing your apps for any reason they so please. It makes for scary reading, that is--if you think the terms are enforceable in court. I hope to see this very thing challenged as soon as possible.

So have you actually read the iPhone Developer Program[me] License Agreement? The EFF, using a freedom of information act to shrewdly get a copy legally off of NASA, look into the details and don't like what they find. As well as trying to prevent anybody from so much as mentioning the existence of these terms, Apple owe you no more than $50 if they sink your company by removing your apps for any reason they so please. It makes for scary reading, that is--if you think the terms are enforceable in court. I hope to see this very thing challenged as soon as possible.

CC BY-SA by Film Annex

Last October, Film Annex, “an online film distribution platform and Web Television Network,” launched CC license support, enabling filmmakers to release their films under one of our licenses.

Since then, the number of CC-licensed films on the site has grown, with each license having its own Web TV channel (CC BY to CC BY-NC for example). They even have a channel dedicated to the public domain. All of these “Web TV” channels are available under the terms of said license for you to share or remix.

Creative Commons has its own channel where we’ve uploaded some of our videos. We wanted to learn more about how Film Annex helps filmmakers make money on their CC licensed content, so we caught up with Eren and Francesco, pictured above, to pick their brains.

How is Film Annex different from other online film distribution platforms?

In terms of profitability – Unlike most film distribution platforms that host videos on their main platforms only, Film Annex creates free Web TVs for filmmakers who want to present their work under specific domain names. This way, Film Annex creates a brand out of the filmmaker’s name, company, or project and reduces the implementation of the forward-slash (/) mentality as seen on Vimeo, YouTube, and other similar platforms. For example, for the acclaimed director Abel Ferrara, Film Annex created www.AbelFerraraTV.com. There is a monthly 50/50 revenue share on every Web TV so the filmmakers can maintain a regular income through showing their films on their Film Annex Web TVs. Statistics show that Film Annex shares 6 to 9 times more revenues with its content providers compared to YouTube.

In addition to its Web TV Network, Film Annex offers filmmakers all of its tools and technology for free on its main platform, www.filmannex.com. There’s no cost for registering to Film Annex, and all common video formats are accepted for uploads. Upon signing up to Film Annex, content providers get the option to sell their films for a price of their choice and/or stream them for free. Filmmakers receive 100% of the sales revenues on their films.

In terms of flexibility – Film Annex does not take any copyrights from content providers, and therefore allows them to maintain complete control and freedom over their content at all times. Film Annex’s online contract is non-exclusive, so content providers can share their films and videos on other platforms as well. In addition, Film Annex gives the content providers the flexibility to add to and remove content from its platform any time. Most importantly, Film Annex offers its content providers the option to choose from different Creative Commons licenses when they upload their films on its platform. This means, in addition to the standard “All Rights Reserved” license, Film Annex offers CC licenses to filmmakers, such as Attribution, Attribution Share-Alike, etc. with the intention to make Film Annex a more open and collaborative platform and encourage the sharing and remixing of content for the creation of better and more interesting collaborative work.

Why does Film Annex support Creative Commons?

Film Annex supports Creative Commons, because we believe that the usage of CC licenses can cause a significant increase in the creation and sharing of content on the web. The standard “All rights reserved” license, though protects the copyright owner, prevents content providers from sharing their work with others in an “open” way. An “All rights reserved” license restricts content to being viewed only, whereas CC licensed content can be shared, remixed, and reused in a safe, legal way. This encourages productivity and further creation/distribution of content among filmmakers who start finding it more comfortable to collaborate with other content creators and share their work freely on the Internet.

How can filmmakers make money by using CC licenses on Film Annex?

Filmmakers who have CC licensed films on Film Annex can get their own free Film Annex Web TVs, where they will get paid 50% of the generated advertising revenues every month. Moreover, Film Annex gives filmmakers the option to syndicate their Web TV players on third-party websites (including their own), where they will receive an additional 33% of the advertising revenues. Filmmakers can also earn money by participating in Film Annex’s online film contest, the War of Films.

What is the War of Films and how does it work?

The War of Films is a monthly online film contest to help filmmakers with the promotion and advertising of their films by increasing their interaction with their fans, followers, and the film community at large. The film that gets the highest number of votes on Film Annex’s platform at the end of the month is the winner of the $1000 cash award. Film Annex also rewards the most active voter with $100 (US, Canada and UK) or $25 (other countries) at the end of each day. Viewers can vote once a day for or against a film to support the filmmakers of their choice. The total number of votes will be visible to all viewers at all times, and the films with the highest number of votes will be featured on Film Annex’s homepage.

Any exciting new developments in the works?

From March 5th through the 15th, Film Annex will be at the Miami International Film Festival as an official sponsor and to conduct interviews with the filmmakers and industry professionals attending the festival. Film Annex will also do further festival coverage, such as red carpet events, opening and closing night screenings, award ceremonies, etc.

Film Annex has recently updated its Web TV layout to make it more user-friendly and easier to navigate. From now on, every Web TV will have its own community section so that the filmmakers can create a fan base around their content.  Viewers will also be able to comment on films on the Web TVs, message each other, etc.

Film Annex is in the pre-production period for ‘Red Notice,’ a web series, inspired by Dante’s Inferno and INTERPOL stories, that will involve the participation of actors and production teams from around the world.  We have opened up the auditions to candidates both in and outside the United States who will be uploading their audition videos on www.RedNoticeTV.com.

The contract which each iPhone or iPad app developer must sign before submitting their creations has leaked online. Though developers are banned from speaking of the agreements they must accept, the Electronic Freedom Foundation has acquired a copy and posted...

When news broke last Thursday that a deranged gunman had opened fire outside a Pentagon security checkpoint, wounding two officers before being stopped by return fire (the gunman later died from his wounds), the reaction from some oddly giddy right-wing bloggers was swift. They wanted everyone to pay attention to the story. Why? Because bloggers claimed the gunman, John Patrick Bedell, was a loony liberal.

Under increased scrutiny for the rampant anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, along with its often violent imagery and open talk of insurrection, right-wingers seemed anxious, even frantic, to hold up the Pentagon killer as proof that they weren't responsible for -- or connected with -- every political act of vigilante violence that makes headlines these days.

But as more details emerge about the incident, the far-right bloggers may wish they hadn't shone a spotlight on the disturbing Pentagon story. If anything, as we learn more about the anti-government rantings and writings of Bedell, this madman attack looks an awful lot like a string of other "lone wolf" attacks, such as the recent kamikaze pilot who flew his plane into an IRS office in Austin.

They're attacks that appear to be fueled by an almost pathological hatred for the U.S. government -- the same open hatred that right-wing bloggers, AM talk radio hosts, Fox News' lineup of anti-government prophets, and Tea Party leaders have been frantically fueling for the last year; pushing radical propaganda and warning of America's permanent, democratic demise under President Obama.

As I noted last year when the first red flags were raised about the specter of anti-government violence, what the GOP Noise Machine is doing today is embracing, and mainstreaming, the same kind of hate rhetoric and doomsday conspiratorial talk that flourished on the far-right fringes during the '90s. (Think Waco and black helicopters.) And legitimizing that kind of talk is dangerous.

On the one hand, right-wing media love mainstreaming vile, alarmist, anti-government rhetoric. Yet they're also hyper-sensitive to the charge that they're, y'know, mainstreaming vile, alarmist anti-government rhetoric and might also be goading some crazies into action. Consumed with Obama Derangement Syndrome, 'wingers literally cannot help themselves. Just this weekend, one prominent, albeit unhinged, right-wing site branded Obama as "suicide-bomber-in-chief." They've removed all sensible filters, which means the crazy talk flows 24-7.

Similar to the problematic birther brigade, the right-wing's crazy uncle who keeps showing up at public functions, radical insurrectionist rhetoric (i.e. war may have to be waged against the government) has been unleashed into the far-right masses and there's nothing that supposed leaders can do to contain it. They can't limit the violence that it continues to set off, either. Instead they scramble, like after last week's Pentagon attack, to shift the blame to the political left.

But the clumsy scapegoating doesn't work for obvious reasons: There are no major American liberal players, in media or politics, who today routinely preach the need to take up arms against the federal government. Conservative blogger Erick Erickson certainly couldn't point to any in his laugh-out-loud funny rewriting of history, in which he dutifully absolved the right-wing of any responsibility for anti-government violence, and instead blamed liberals.

Sorry, right-wingers, but you fostered this toxic environment. You're the ones who rally around Rush Limbaugh when he calls the president of the United States a Nazi. You're the ones who cheer when Glenn Beck compares our commander in chief to a dangerous, Hitler-like tyrant who wants to "take your gun away one way or another."

You're the ones who toasted the anti-Obama mobs last summer when members marched around with Swastika posters, brandished guns, and gave speeches about the need to wage bloody war against the federal government. You're the ones who compare health care reform to a bloody terrorism campaign waged by the government against its own citizens.

You cultivated this poisonous, arm-yourself-against-the-government hysteria -- and now you own it. You have to deal with increasingly predictable, and at times deadly consequences.

For instance, last year, it was Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a right-wing media darling and Tea Party favorite, who said to Glenn Beck during an interview on his radio show that she wanted "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous" to oppose the Obama administration. She also stressed that Thomas Jefferson "told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."

We've been down this road before.

On April 19, 1995, feeding off his hatred of the federal government, Timothy McVeigh drove a rented 20-foot Ryder truck and parked it in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. His truck's three-ton ammonium nitrate bomb detonated and sheared the north side off the Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. McVeigh later wrote, "I reached the decision to go on the offensive -- to put a check on government abuse of power." McVeigh wanted to "send a message to a government" by "bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government."

Back in 1995, McVeigh, keyed into far-right conspiracies and still seething about the siege at Waco, declared war on the federal government. Today, more and more combatants seem to be signing up for duty.

Last week's shooter, who traveled all the way from California to attack the Pentagon, certainly expressed a dark and unstable contempt for the government:

When the government can control how private property is used, and especially when the government controls the monetary system that is use to exchange private property, the government has the mechanisms and the motivation to control individuals to the smallest detail.

And:

When governments are able to confiscate the resources of their citizens to fund schemes that need only be justified by lies and deception enormous disasters can result.

And:

The imperative to defend the freedom of conscience must lead us to eliminate the role of the government in education and leave parents and communities free to raise their children as they see fit.

As blogger Charles Johnson, at Little Green Footballs correctly pointed out: "If you gave a speech at a tea party rally consisting of nothing but the quotes from Bedell you see above, you'd get a standing ovation."

But today, far-right bloggers scramble to deflect the connection. They excitedly point to the fact that Bedell was a 9-11 "truther," who demanded answers about the government's supposed involvement in the attacks that day, and so that automatically made the mentally ill gunman a liberal. But wait, wasn't it a right-wing Tea Party candidate for governor who recently made news when she refused to knock down the anti-government "truther" conspiracy?

Indeed. Texas Tea Party activist and candidate Debra Medina appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show and suggested she was open to the idea that the 9-11 attacks were an inside government job. "I have not taken a position on that," said Medina. (It's the same insurrectionist Medina who told a Tea Party crowd that "we are aware that stepping off into secession may in fact be a bloody war. We understand that the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.")

And meanwhile, aren't lots of Ron Paul supporters famously attached to the 9-11 conspiracy theory? And isn't that the same Ron Paul who ran away with the straw poll at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference convention in Washington, D.C.?

And isn't the 9-11 truther movement's most famous advocate the conspiratorial radio nut (and full-time Obama hater) Alex Jones, who has been mainstreamed by Fox News? And isn't that the same Alex Jones who today complains that Glenn Beck's show now sounds so much like Jones' that Beck is just ripping him off?

From this month's issue of Texas Monthly (subscription required):

More troubling, [Jones] told me, is the way personalities at the top of the media food chain have been co-opting his message. Glenn Beck is the worst, he said. "Two weeks after I have a guest on, they have him on. ... Glenn Beck is literally word for word taking everything I do and twisting it and turning it into a Roger Ailes Fox News evil doppelgänger of my show," he said" [emphasis added].

Bloggers also pointed to the fact that Bedell was reportedly a registered Democrat as more proof of his allegiance to the left. But that doesn't make much sense, either. Are bloggers really suggesting that no registered Democrats have attended anti-government Tea Party rallies this year? Haven't Tea Party leaders been bragging about how they're attracting a wide range of disaffected voters? And in fact, haven't Tea Party leaders been stressing how wrong it is to assume the movement is synonymous with the Republican Party? But suddenly a distant political registration proves all.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that Bedell was a dedicated Glenn Beck fan, or that Rush Limbaugh made him do it. I think the specifics of this case are too muddled for those kinds of conclusions. But the idea that panicked right-wing bloggers can turn Bedell into a tree-hugging Greenpeace activist is ludicrous. The allegation doesn't withstand scrutiny, simply because dangerous, anti-government rhetoric is not part of today's liberal dialogue.

It is however, a proud cornerstone of the conservative one.

Brian Garret Schuur est un gars plutôt doué, ce qui explique pourquoi l'entreprise de prototypage rapide Freedom of Creation a sélectionné ses créations acoustico-artistiques. Ces casques fabriqués sur demande font apparaître les noms de vos chanteurs et groupes préférés, en 3D. Ils ne semblent pas très confortables sans coussins molletonnés ...

A joint resolution on Transparency and State of Play of ACTA negotiations from virtually all party groups in the European Parliament was tabled earlier today.  It will debated tonight and faces a vote on Wednesday.  If approved, the resolution marks a major development in the fight over ACTA transparency.  It calls for public access to negotiation texts and rules out further confidential negotiations.  Moreover, the EP wants a ban on imposing a three-strikes model, assurances that ACTA will not result in personal searchers at the border, and an ACTA impact assessment on fundamental rights and data protection.  The full resolution:


The European Parliament,
–     having regard to Articles 207 and 218 TFEU
-    having regard to its Resolution of 9 February 2010 on a "Renewed Framework Agreement between the Parliament and the Commission for the next legislative term" (B7-0091/2010)
–     having regard to its Resolution of 11 March 2009 on "Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast)" to be considered as Parliaments position in First Reading  (COM(2008)0229 – C6-0184/2008 – 2008/0090(COD))
–     having regard to its Resolution of 18 December 2008 on "the impact of counterfeiting on international trade" (2008/2133(INI))
-    having regard to the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 22 February 2010 on "the current negotiations by the European Union of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)"
-    having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 8,
-    having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of European Parliament and Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, as last amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009
-    having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of European Parliament and Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce)
-    having regard to Rule 110 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.    whereas in 2008 the European Union and other OECD countries opened negotiations on a new plurilateral agreement designed to strengthen the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and combat counterfeiting and piracy (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - ACTA), and jointly agreed on a confidentiality clause,

B.    whereas in its report of 11 March 2009 Parliament called on the Commission to "immediately make all documents related to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) publicly available",

C.    whereas the Commission on 27 January 2010 assured its commitment to a reinforced association with Parliament in the terms of its Resolution of 9 February 2010 on a renewed Framework Agreement with the Commission, demanding "immediate and full information at every stage of negotiations on international agreements, in particular on trade matters and other negotiations involving the consent procedure, to give full effect to Article 218 TFEU",

D.    whereas Council representatives have attended ACTA negotiation rounds alongside with Commission representatives,

E.    whereas the Commission as guardian of the Treaties is obliged to uphold the acquis communitaire when negotiating international agreements affecting legislation in the EU,

F.    whereas, according to documents leaked, the ACTA negotiations touch, among others, on pending EU legislation regarding the enforcement of IPRs (COD/2005/0127, Criminal measures aimed at assuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights, (IPRED-II)) and the so-called "Telecom Package", and on existing EU legislation regarding E-Commerce and data protection,

G.    whereas the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures should not be circumvented by trade negotiations which are outside the scope of the normal EU decision-making processes,

H.    whereas it is crucial to ensure that the development of IPR enforcement measures is accomplished in a manner that does not impede innovation or competition, undermine IPR limitations and personal data protection, restrict the free flow of information, or unduly burden legitimate trade,

I.     whereas any agreement reached by the European Union on ACTA must comply with the legal obligations imposed on the EU with respect to privacy and data protection law, as notably set forth in Directive 95/46/EC, in Directive 2002/58/EC and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Justice,

J.    whereas the Treaty of Lisbon is in force since 1 December 2009,

K.    whereas as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament will have to give its consent to the ACTA Treaty text, prior to its entry into force in the EU,

L.    whereas the Commission committed itself to provide immediate and full information to the European Parliament at every stage of negotiations on international agreements,

1.    Reminds that the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations;

2.    Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations which contradicts the letter and the spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base has been established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that no parliamentary approval has been asked for the mandate;

3.    Calls on the Commission and Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries in accordance with the Treaty and the Regulation 1049/2001 on Public Access to Documents;

4.    Calls on the Commission and Council to pro-actively engage with ACTA partners to rule out any further negotiations of an a piori confidential nature and to timely and entirely inform Parliament about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals already prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010 and to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting, and to refer to Parliament the outcome of this round immediately after its conclusion;

5.    Stresses that, unless the Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, Parliament reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives;

6.    Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of ACTA's implementation on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and on E-Commerce, prior to any EU agreement to a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to timely consult with Parliament about the results of this assessment;

7.    Welcomes affirmations by the Commission that any ACTA agreement will be limited to the enforcement of existing IPRs, with no prejudice for the development of substantive IP law in the European Union;

8.    Calls on the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA in order to improve the effectiveness of the IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting;

9.    Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions - especially its provisions on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment - are fully in line with the acquis communitaire; demands that no personal search is undertaken at the EU borders and requests full clarification of any clauses that would allow for warrantless searches and confiscation of information storage devices, such as laptops, cell phones and MP3 players, by border and customs authorities;

10.    Considers that in order to respect fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy, with full respect for subsidiarity, the proposed Agreement must refrain from imposing any so called "three strikes" procedures, in full respect of the decision of Parliament on article 1.1b in the (amending) Directive 2009/140/EC that calls to insert a new para 3 a to article 1 Directive 2002/21/EC on the matter of  "three strikes"

11.    Emphasizes that privacy and data protection are core values of the European Union, recognised in Article 8 ECHR and Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which must be respected in all the policies and rules adopted by the EU pursuant to Article 16 of the TFEU;

12.    Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the Governments and Parliaments of ACTA negotiation participants.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Internet was built on freedom of expression. Society wants someone held accountable when that freedom is abused. And major Internet companies like Google and Facebook are finding themselves caught between those ideals.

Karl Rove's forthcoming memoir Courage and Consequence purports to respond to critics by "putting the record straight," but Media Matters has found that Rove's book is full of falsehoods. Below is an ongoing list of Rove's misinformation in the book, which Media Matters obtained in advance of its scheduled release.

1. Rove distorts Senate report to claim Bush didn't "lie us into the war"

2. Rove falsehood: Obama claims "Obamacare would not add to the deficit ... evidence shows just the opposite"

3. Rove revives tired smear that Gore wrongly said "that he had created the Internet"

4. Rove revives Gore-Love Story smear

5. Rove falsehood: Gore said he had "discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster"

6. Rove pals around with falsehood that Ayers was "Obama's great friend"

7. Rove wrong on number of presidents who left office by "assassination or resignation"

1. Rove distorts Senate report to claim Bush didn't "lie us into war"

Rove claims Senate report said Bush statements were backed up by intelligence. From Pages 340-341 of Courage and Consequence:

So, then, did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not.

[...]

From my perch inside the West Wing -- but outside the frantic activity in the Situation Room -- I could see the care everyone was taking to not overstate the case or exaggerate the danger. The president emphasized this when we reviewed his speeches, and this care was reflected everywhere else in the administration.

[...]

And what about Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism? Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee 2004 report.

Senate report actually found that Bush made some statements that were not substantiated -- or were "contradicted" -- by intelligence.  Rove is presumably referring to a June 5, 2008, Senate Intelligence Committee report examining government officials' pre-war statements about Iraq. (Rove identifies it as a "2004" report in the excerpt above, but he cites the 2008 report in the relevant endnote.) Rove is correct that the committee found that some Bush claims -- specifically, "[s]tatements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda" -- were substantiated by the intelligence at the time. But the committee also concluded that Bush's allegations suggesting "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence"; and that Bush's statements indicating Saddam was prepared to give WMD to terrorists were "contradicted by available intelligence."

2. Rove falsehood: Obama claims "Obamacare would not add to the deficit ... evidence shows just the opposite"

From Page 513 of Courage and Consequence:

Another thing that has badly hurt President Obama is that his claims -- especially on health care -- are simply at odds with reality. He said ObamaCare would not add to the deficit, would bend the cost curve down, and would reduce premiums, while the evidence shows just the opposite.

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment: "CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

CBO also estimated on December 20, 2009, that the bill will continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 "with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP."

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6, 2009, estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

3. Rove revives tired smear that Gore wrongly said "he had created the Internet"

From Pages 161-162 of Courage and Consequence:

Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true.

In fact, Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" while in Congress. During the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth -- Rove sources his false claim to the CNN interview -- Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Blitzer set the record straight on the July 6, 2008, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, stating that Gore "never said, 'I invented the Internet.' "

Gingrich also said Gore "most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.' " In a September 22, 2000, article, the Los Angeles Times reported: "Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a Republican who is no friend of the Gore campaign, said earlier this month, 'Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.' "

"Father of the Internet" Cerf wrote that Gore "deserves significant credit" for his efforts. On September 28, 2000, Vinton Cerf, considered to be a "father of the Internet," submitted an essay he and Robert Kahn wrote about Gore's contributions to the creation of the Internet. Cerf and Kahn, who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bush for their work designing the TCP/IP internet protocol, wrote that they "would like to we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time." They added that "there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."

4. Rove revives Gore-Love Story smear

From Pages 161-162 of Courage and Consequence:

Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true.

In fact, Gore attributed the claim to a newspaper article he had read, and was misquoted. In a November 30, 2002, The American Prospect article about political "pseudo-scandals," Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz wrote that Gore "never made the claim." According to a December 14, 1997, New York Times article, [Love Story author Erich] Segal "knocked down" a report in Time magazine that asserted that Gore, while on the campaign trail, "spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in 'Love Story.' '' From the article:

The Time magazine article about the Vice President included this passage: ''Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, the Vice President came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force Two. Sliding behind a table with the two reporters covering him that day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in 'Love Story.' ''

[...]

In their phone conversation a few days ago, Mr. Gore reminded Mr. Segal that while Mr. Segal was on his book tour for ''Love Story,'' a reporter for The Nashville Tennessean who knew that Mr. Gore and the author were friends had asked if there was not a little bit of Al Gore in Oliver Barrett. Mr. Segal said yes, there was, but the reporter ''just exaggerated,'' Mr. Segal said. ''He made it to be the local-hero angle.''

Mr. Segal said the Vice President told him that all he had said on the plane was that the article had made the connection -- and got it wrong.

''Al said, 'I didn't say that' about being the model,'' Mr. Segal said.

''Al attributed it to the newspaper, he talked about the newspaper,'' Mr. Segal said at another point in the interview. ''They conveniently omitted that part. Time thought it was more piquant to leave that out. He was talking on the plane off the record, a drink with the boys after a tiring day. I don't think he will be reminiscing much anymore.''

5. Rove falsehood: Gore said he had "discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster"

From Pages 161-162 of Courage and Consequence:

Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true.

In fact, Gore was misqoted by Wash. Post, NY Times. As Media Matters for America noted, Slate.com editor-at-large Jack Shafer wrote on February 17, 2000, that New York Times reporter Katharine Q. "Kit" Seelye and Washington Post staff writer Ceci Connolly were responsible for creating the false Love Canal story: "[I]t's Seelye's fault -- and the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly's -- that folks think Gore claimed credit for Love Canal in the first place. Which he didn't" [emphasis in original]. Indeed, in December 1 and December 2, 1999, Post articles, Connolly quoted Gore as saying of the Love Canal disaster, "I was the one that started it all." In fact, as a December 7, 1999, correction made clear, Gore actually said " 'That was the one that started it all,' referring to the congressional hearings on the subject that he called." Additionally, the Post's obmbudman wrote in a March 5, 2000, column that what Gore actually said about Love Canal was "a whole lot different from The Post's version ... which fits the role The Post seems to have assigned him in Campaign 2000." Similarly, Seelye quoted Gore as saying "I was the one that started it all" on a December 1, 1999, Times article, which was corrected by the Times on December 10, 1999.

6. Rove pals around with falsehood that Ayers was "Obama's great friend"

From Pages 515-516 of Courage and Consequence:

Though we didn't discuss it in our West Wing encounter, Obama also went on in his book to describe me and other conservatives as "eerily reminiscent of some of the New Left's leaders during the sixties," who "viewed politics as a contest not just between competing policy visions, but between good and evil." Now that's rich, isn't it? The last time I checked, I hadn't bombed any government buildings (like, say, Obama's great friend William Ayers); or asked that God "damn" America (like, say, Obama's former pastor and close friend Jeremiah Wright); or declared that I was proud of my country for the first time in my life only when I was in my forties (like, say, Obama's wife, Michelle).

NY Times: Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close." The New York Times reported on October 4, 2008, that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

McClatchy: "There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to [Obama's] campaign." McClatchy reported on October 9, 2008, that "Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign." [accessed via the Nexis databse]

The AP: "[T]here is no evidence that they ever palled around." Reporting on then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim that Obama sees America as so imperfect "that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," the Associated Press reported on October 5, 2008 that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around," and "it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts."

FactCheck.org: Obama and Ayers were "never very close." In an October 10, 2008, article, FactCheck.org wrote of the 2008 presidential campaign: "What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign's attempts to sway voters -- in ads and on the stump -- with false and misleading statements about the relationship [between Obama and Ayers], which was never very close.

7. Rove wrong on number of presidents who left office by "assassination or resignation"

Rove: Eight presidents "gained the Oval Office as a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor." From Page 518 of Courage and Consequence:

But others find themselves forced to face the unknowable. Eight presidents -- from John Tyler to Gerald Ford -- gained the Oval Office as a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor.

Five presidents have left office via "assassination or resignation." As detailed by Stanford University history professor David M. Kennedy, four presidents have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. The only president to resign from office was Richard Nixon. Four others -- William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding, and Franklin Roosevelt -- died of natural causes while in office.