Tuesday, June 10, 2008

أنجلينا جولي تضع مولودا صورته الاولي بـ 15 مليون دولار!

أثار التقاط الصورة الأولى للمولود الجديد لكل من أنجلينا جولي وبراد بيت معركة قوية بين اثنتين من كبرى المجلات الأمريكية ، ووصلت المزايدة بينهما إلى عرض دفع مبلغ 15 مليون دولار مقابل الحق الحصري لنشر هذه الصورة ، في الوقت الذي تضاربت فيه الأنباء حول كون هذا المولود قد استقبل الحياة أم لا أصلا
ووفقا لتقرير نشره موقع "wenn" الفني على شبكة الإنترنت ، فإن المنافسة احتدمت بين مجلتي "ok" و"people" حيث تحاول كلا المجلتين الحصول على الحق في تصوير المولود الذي أكد كل من جولي وبيت أنه سيكون توأما مزدوجا (ولدا وبنتا)!
وصرح متحدث باسم مجلة "people" بأنه يتمنى أن تكون مجلته أول من ينشر هذه الصور ، وقال -في تصريحات صحفية- "إننا نرجو أن نرى هذه الصور على صفحات مجلتنا ، وفي الوقت نفسه نتمنى كل الخير لهذه الأسرة الصغيرة".
وفي المقابل ، أعرب ممثل لمجلة "ok" عن اعتقاده بأن الصور مهمة لدرجه أن عدم المزايدة للفوز بها سيعد "عملا أحمق".
وكانت أزمة مماثلة ثارت عام 2006 حين رُزق بيت وجولي بابنتهما شيلواه ، إذ تسابقت أكثر من مجلة للفوز بالصورة الأولى لها بعد ولادتها، وحصلت مجلة people على حق نشرها في أمريكا الشمالية مقابل 4 ملايين دولار ، في حين حصلت مجلة "hello" البريطانية على حق نشرها على المستوى الدولي مقابل 3,5 مليون دولار

المناديل الورقية تنشر البكتيريا

حذرت دراسة طبية حديثة من أن المناديل الورقية المطهرة قد تشكل خطرا علي صحة المرضي في حال استخدامها بصورة خاطئة في المستشفيات والمؤسسات العلاجية. ولاحظ القائمون على الدراسة انتشار البكتيريا الضارة مع كثرة استخدام المناديل الورقية المطهرة خاصة عند سوء استخدامها.يأتي ذلك في الوقت الذي يزداد فيه استخدام المناديل الورقية المطهرة في المدارس لتقليل فرص العدوي البكتيرية بين الأطفال

"الجنس والسلطة في الكنيسة".. واتهام كاتبة سعودية بنشر الرذيلة

رفض أسقف استرالي بارز طلبا تقدم به 12 أسقفا بارزا في الولايات المتحدة لوقف رحلته إلى أمريكا للحديث عن كتابه الذي ينتقد الاعتداءات الجنسية لبعض الكهنة على أطفال في الكنيسة الكاثوليكية. وفي كتابه " مواجهة السلطة والجنس في الكنيسة الكاثوليكية "، يقول الأسقف جيفري روبنسون إن وجود كهنوت في الكنيسة يتمسكون برفض الزواج كان سببا مهما أدى لفضيحة الاعتداء الجنسي الشهيرة في الكنيسة الكاثوليكية في أمريكا واستراليا. وينتقد المؤلف فشل البابوية في قيادة الأزمة، متسائلا فيما إذا كانت الكنيسة قد انشغلت بإخفاء أمر الفضيحة أكثر من مواجهتها. وحذّر الكاردينال روجر ماهوني من لوس أنجلس و9 أساقفة أخرين من الولايات المتحدة، في رسالة مشتركة، الاسقف روبنسون أن زيارته للولايات المتحدة ستسبب الانقسام والارباك بين الكنائس التي نخدمها، كما ورد في صحيفة "سيدني مورننغ هيرالد"، الاثنين 9-7-2008.لكن الأسقف روبنسون رفض ذلك وأصر على المضي في رحلته وقال "أنا لا أريد المواجهة .. دعونا نناقش موضوع عزوبية بعض الكهنة منذ البداية.. وإذا كان لها صلة بموضوع الاعتداء الجنسي لنضع الموضوع للحوار على الطاولة". ومما جاء في كتابه: "الاعتداء الجنسي على القصر من قبل عدد من الكهنة البارزين بالتزامن مع محاولة عدد من الكنائس إخفاء هذا الاعتداء تشكل واحدة من أبشع القصص التي خرجت من الكنيسة الكاثوليكية". ويقول إن ما حصل من اعتداء على الاطفال ليس أزمة علاقات عامة أو إدارة وإنما أزمة في قلب الكنيسة نفسها.

ألف دولار غرامة بسبب صياح الديك!

انتقدت سيدة بريطانية قرار تغريمها بدفع مبلغ يعادل نحو ألف دولار بعد أن تعذر علي جيرانها النوم بسبب صوت ديكها، وقالت ان الأمر غريب .
وذكرت هيئة الإذاعة البريطانية (بي بي سي) ان كارين توماس اعترفت بأنها لم تتمكن من الامتثال بإشعار من مجلس مدينة كارمانثنشاير البريطانية الذي يطالبها بوقف الضجيج المنبعث من منزلها.
ووجد القضاة انها وضعت الديك في مكان بعيد عن منزلها وتماماً تحت غرفة نوم جيرانها.
وبعد إصدار الحكم بتغريم توماس، قالت جارتها باتريسيا بريكمان انها عانت هي وزوجها إيدي كثيراً .
وقال المدعي العام جون راين ان الزوجين تذمرا من صوت الديك عندما نقل الديك إلي مكان قريب من منزلهما في ربيع العام 2007، وأوضحا ان الصياح يبدأ منتصف الليل والصوت لا يحتمل ما يدفعهما إلي النوم في الطابق السفلي.
يشار إلي انه في إحدي الليالي سجلت اللجنة التي تعني بضبط الضجيج في المجلس ان الديك صاح 56 مرة بين الساعة الثالثة والسادسة صباحاً.
وتلقت السيدة توماس إشعاراً لمعالجة الموضوع وقال للمجلس ان ثعلباً قتل الديك في تموز (يوليو) الماضي لكن الصياح عاد من جديد في فصل الربيع هذه السنة عندما وضعت دجاجتين في المكان نفسه.
واعترفت كارينا هيوغز محامية توماس بالإزعاج الذي تسببت بها موكلتها لكنها أوضحت انه لم يكن مقصوداً.

Microsoft's standards bid stalled

Four countries have appealed a decision to fast-track the international standardisation of a Microsoft document format, called OpenXML.
Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela have complained that there was not enough time given to discuss improvements to the format.
The format is used for spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents.
Critics claim it is not fully compatible with other document formats.
The ratification of OpenXML would be an important seal of approval for Microsoft, which has long been held to task for its failure to embrace open standards.
Government bodies would be more likely to adopt the standard if it had an "open" rubber-stamp as many are concerned that storing documents in a proprietary format could cause problems for future archiving.
The Office OpenXML format was initially approved by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in April but will now remain on hold while the appeals are investigated.
This could take several months.
Magna Carta

Magna Carta was open source, say campaigners
Microsoft has been working towards a more open way of formatting documents based around the Extensible Markup Language (XML) in response to requests from government customers.
Open standards would help preserve the structure of data in a document, such as a spreadsheet, so that relationships between figures are preserved as they are opened in different programs or used for other purposes.
Microsoft's attempts to have the OpenXML format, recognised as interoperable has courted much controversy.
The British Standard's Institute voted in favour of adopting it but now faces a legal challenge from the UK's Unix and Open Systems User Group.

UEFA supports Dutch goal decision

UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal. UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal.
Not offsideUEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."
Still involvedThe starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Rare incident"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "
Law appliedMr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."
Not offsideUEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."
Still involvedThe starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Rare incident"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "
Law appliedMr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."