Kate Middleton, Prince William issue statement as they make special announcement

Kate Middleton and Prince William issued a statement to make an exciting announcement after confirming that the Princess of Wales will host her fourth Together at Christmas Carol Service.

The Prince...

A representational image shows an illustration of the WhatsApp logo. — Unsplash

WhatsApp is set to revamp its feature for muting notifications from group chats in an upcoming update, making it simpler for users to better understand how this feature works.

Coldplay updates music lovers with another exciting announcement

Coldplay recently announced an exciting show in Ahmedabad, India.

The boy-band, who is set to in the Indian cities next year in January, declared that the show will take place at the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad...

It is a national tragedy and we will award him the status of national hero, says G-B CM

I was convinced that if my time is not up, this virus can never kill me

The report further showed that the additional SHO had been previously found guilty of framing a man in a fake case

CM Murad says province's daily testing capacity has been stretched to 12,000

Shehbaz expresses optimism that interest rate cut will boost investor confidence and increase investments in Pakistan

Privacy: Our parents were taking liberties for granted in their analog world, liberties that are not passed down to our children in the transition to digital — such as the simple right to send an anonymous letter.

Sometimes when speaking, I ask the audience how many would be okay with sites like The Pirate Bay, even if it means that artists are losing money from their operation. (Do note that this assertion is disputed: I’m asking the question on the basis of what-if the assertion is true.) Some people raise their hands, the proportion varying with audience and venue.

The copyright industry asserts that the offline laws don’t apply on the Internet when they want to sue and prosecute people sharing knowledge and culture. They’re right, but not in the way they think. They’re right that copyright law does apply online as well. But privacy laws don’t, and they should.

In the offline world, an analog letter was given a certain level of protection. This was not intended to cover just the physical letter as such, but correspondence in general; it was just that the letter was the only form of such correspondence when these liberties were drafted.

First, the letter was anonymous. It was your prerogative entirely whether you identified yourself as sender of the letter on the outside of the envelope, on the inside of the letter (so not even the postal service knew who sent it, only the recipient), or not at all.

Further, the letter was untracked in transit. The only governments tracking people’s correspondence were those we looked down on with enormous contempt.

Third, the letter was secret. The envelope would never we broken in transit.

Fourth, the carrier was never responsible for the contents, of nothing else for the simple reason they were not allowed to examine the content in the first place. But even if they could, like with a envelopeless postcard, they were never liable for executing their courier duties — this principle, the courier immunity or messenger immunity, is a principle that dates as far back as the Roman Empire.

These principles, the liberties of correspondence, should apply to offline correspondence (the letter) just as it should to online correspondence. But it doesn’t. You don’t have the right to send anything you like to anybody you like online, because it might be a copyright infringement — even though our parents had exactly this right in their offline world.

So the copyright industry is right – sending a copied drawing in a letter is a copyright infringement, and sending a copied piece of music over the net is the same kind of copyright infringement. But offline, there are checks and balances to these laws – even though it’s a copyright infringement, nobody is allowed to open the letter in transit just to see if it violates the law, because the secrecy of private correspondence is considered more important than discovering copyright infringements. This is key. This set of checks and balances has not been carried over into the digital environment.

The only time a letter is opened and prevented is when somebody is under individual and prior suspicion of a serious crime. The words “individual” and “prior” are important here — opening letters just to see if they contain a non-serious crime in progress, like copyright infringement, is simply not permitted in the slightest.

There is no reason for the offline liberties of our parents to not be carried over into the same online liberties for our children, regardless of whether that means somebody doesn’t know how to run a business anymore.

After highlighting these points, I repeat the question whether the audience would be okay with sites like The Pirate Bay, even if it means an artist is losing income. And after making these points, basically everybody raises their hand to say they would be fine with it; they would be fine with our children having the same liberty as our parents, and the checks and balances of the offline world to also apply online.

Next in the series, we’re going to look at a related topic – public anonymous announcements and the important role the city square soapbox filled in shaping liberty.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: The liberties of our parents are not being inherited by our children – they are being lost wholesale in the transition to digital. Today, we’ll look at the importance of posting anonymous public messages.

When I was in my teens, before the Internet (yes, really), there was something called BBSes – Bulletin Board Systems. They were digital equivalents of an analog Bulletin Board, which in turn was a glorified sheet of wood intended for posting messages to the public. In a sense, they were an anonymous equivalent of today’s webforum software, but you connected from your home computer directly to the BBS over a phone line, without connecting to the Internet first.

The analog Bulletin Boards are still in existence, of course, but mostly used for concert promotions and the occasional fringe political or religious announcement.

In the early 1990s, weird laws were coming into effect worldwide as a result of lobbying from the copyright industry: the owners of bulletin board systems could be held liable for what other people posted on them. The only way to avoid liability was to take down the post within seven days. Such liability had no analog equivalent at all; it was an outright ridiculous idea that the owner of a piece of land should be held responsible for a poster put up on a tree on that land, or even that the owner of a public piece of cardboard could be sued for the posters other people had glued up on that board.

Let’s take that again: it is extremely weird from a legal standpoint that an electronic hosting provider is in any way, shape, or form liable for the contents hosted on their platform. It has no analog equivalent whatsoever.

Sure, people could put up illegal analog posters on an analog bulletin board. That would be an illegal act. When that happened, it was the problem of law enforcement, and never of the bulletin board owner. The thought is ridiculous and has no place in the digital landscape either.

The proper digital equivalent isn’t to require logging to hand over upload IPs to law enforcement, either. An analog bulletin board owner is under no obligation whatsoever to somehow identify the people using the bulletin board, or even monitor whether it’s being used at all.

The Analog Equivalent Privacy Right for an electronic post hosting provider is for an uploader to be responsible for everything they upload for the public to see, with no liability at all for the hosting provider under any circumstance, including no requirement to log upload data to help law enforcement find an uploader. Such monitoring is not a requirement in the analog world of our parents, nor is there an analog liability for anything posted, and there is no reason to have it otherwise in the digital world of our children just because somebody doesn’t know how to run a business otherwise.

As a side note, the United States would not exist had today’s hosting liability laws in place when it formed. A lot of writing was being circulated at the time arguing for breaking with the British Crown and forming an Independent Republic; from a criminal standpoint, this was inciting and abetting high treason. This writing was commonly nailed to trees and public posts, for the public to read and make up their own minds. Imagine for a moment if the landowners where such trees happened to stand had been charged with high treason for “hosting content” — the thought is as ridiculous in the analog would, as it really is in the digital too. We just need to pull the illusion aside, that the current laws on digital hosting make any kind of sense. These laws really are as ridiculous in the digital world of our children, as they would have been in the analog world of our parents.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: Ross Ulbricht handed in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last week, highlighting an important Analog Equivalent Privacy Right in the process: Just because you’re using equipment that makes a third party aware of your circumstances, does that really nullify any expectation of privacy?

In most constitutions, there’s a protection of privacy of some kind. In the European Charter of Human Rights, this is specified as having the right to private and family life, home, and correspondence. In the U.S. Constitution, it’s framed slightly differently, but with the same outcome: it’s a ban for the government to invade privacy without good cause (“unreasonable search and seizure”).

U.S. Courts have long held, that if you have voluntarily given up some part of your digitally-stored privacy to a third party, then you can no longer expect to have privacy in that area. When looking at analog equivalence for privacy rights, this doctrine is atrocious, and in order to understand just how atrocious, we need to go back to the dawn of the manual telephone switchboards.

At the beginning of the telephone age, switchboards were fully manual. When you requested a telephone call, a manual switchboard operator would manually connect the wire from your telephone to the wire of the receiver’s telephone, and crank a mechanism that would make that telephone ring. The operators could hear every call if they wanted and knew who had been talking to whom and when.

Did you give up your privacy to a third party when using this manual telephone service? Yes, arguably, you did. Under the digital doctrine applied now, phonecalls would have no privacy at all, under any circumstance. But as we know, phonecalls are private. In fact, the phonecall operators were oathsworn to never utter the smallest part of what they learned on the job about people’s private dealings — so seriously was privacy considered, even by the companies running the switchboards.

Interestingly enough, this “third-party surrender of privacy” doctrine seems to have appeared the moment the last switchboard operator left their job for today’s automated phone-circuit switches. This was as late as 1983, just at the dawn of digital consumer-level technology such as the Commodore 64.

This false equivalence alone should be sufficient to scuttle the doctrine of “voluntarily” surrendering privacy to a third party in the digital world, and therefore giving up expectation of privacy: the equivalence in the analog world was the direct opposite.

But there’s more to the analog equivalent of third-party-service privacy. Somewhere in this concept is the notion that you’re voluntarily choosing to give up your privacy, as an active informed act — in particular, an act that stands out of the ordinary, since the Constitutions of the world are very clear that the ordinary default case is that you have an expectation of privacy.

In other words, since people’s everyday lives are covered by expectations of privacy, there must be something outside of the ordinary that a government can claim gives it the right to take away somebody’s privacy. And this “outside the ordinary” has been that the people in question were carrying a cellphone, and so “voluntarily” gave up their right to privacy, as the cellphone gives away their location to the network operator by contacting cellphone towers.

But carrying a cellphone is expected behavior today. It is completely within the boundaries of “ordinary”. In terms of expectations, this doesn’t differ much from wearing jeans or a jacket. This leads us to the question; in the thought experiment that yesterday’s jeans manufacturers had been able to pinpoint your location, had it been reasonable for the government to argue that you give up any expectation of privacy when you’re wearing jeans?

No. No, of course it hadn’t.

It’s not like you’re carrying a wilderness tracking device for the express purpose of rescue services to find you during a dangerous hike. In such a circumstance, it could be argued that you’re voluntarily carrying a locator device. But not when carrying something that everybody is expected to carry — indeed, something that everybody must carry in order to even function in today’s society.

When the only alternative to having your Constitutionally-guaranteed privacy is exile from modern society, a government should have a really thin case. Especially when the analog equivalent — analog phone switchboards — was never fair game in any case.

People deserve Analog Equivalent Privacy Rights.

Until a government recognizes this and voluntarily surrenders a power it has taken itself, which isn’t something people should hold their breath over, privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: Our analog parents had the ability to read news anonymously, however they wanted, wherever they wanted, and whenever they wanted. For our digital children, a government agent might as well be looking over their shoulder: the government knows what news sources they read, what articles, for how long, and in what order.

For our analog parents, reading the news was an affair the government had no part of, or indeed had any business being part of. Our analog parents bought a morning newspaper with a few coins on the street corner, brought it somewhere quiet where they had a few minutes to spare, and started reading without anybody interfering.

When our digital children read the news, the government doesn’t just know what news source they choose to read, but also what specific articles they read from that news source, in what order, and for how long. So do several commercial actors. There are at least three grave issues with this.

The first is that since the government has this data, it will attempt to use this data. More specifically, it will attempt to use the data against the individual concerned, possibly in some sort of pre-crime scheme. We know this that since all data collected by a government will eventually be used against the people concerned, with mathematical certainty.

In an attention economy, data about what we pay attention to, how much, and for how long, are absolutely crucial predictive behaviors. And in the hands of a government which makes the crucial mistake of using it to predict pre-crime, the results can be disastrous for the individual and plain wrong for the government.

Of course, the instant the government uses this data in any way imaginable, positive or negative, it will become Heisenberg Metrics — the act of using the data will shape the data itself. For example, if somebody in government decides that reading about frugality probably is an indicator of poverty, and so makes people more eligible for government handouts, then such a policy will immediately shape people’s behavior to read more about frugality. Heisenberg Metrics is when a metric can’t be measured without making it invalid in the process.

(The phenomenon is named after the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is traditionally confused with the Observer Effect, which states you can’t measure some things without changing them in the process. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually something else entirely; it states that you can’t measure precise momentum and position of a subatomic particle at the same time, and does not apply at all to Heisenberg Metrics.)

The second issue is that not only government, but also other commercial actors, will seek to act on these metrics, Heisenberg Metrics as they may be. Maybe somebody thinks that reading fanzines about motorcycle acrobatics should have an effect on your health and traffic insurance premiums?

The third issue is subtle and devious, but far more grave: the government doesn’t just know what articles you read and in what order, but as a corollary to that, knows what the last article you read was, and what you did right after reading it. In other words, it knows very precisely what piece of information leads you to stop reading and instead take a specific action. This is far more dangerous information than being aware of your general information feed patterns and preferences.

Being able to predict somebody’s actions with a high degree of certainty is a far more dangerous ability than being vaguely aware of somebody’s entertainment preferences.

Our analog parents had the privacy right of choosing their information source anonymously with nobody permitted (or able) to say what articles they read, in what order, or for what reason. It’s not unreasonable that our digital children should have the same privacy right, the analog equivalent privacy right.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: The anonymous cash of our analog parents is fast disappearing, and in its wake comes trackable and permissioned debit cards to our children. While convenient, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In the last article, we looked at how our analog parents could anonymously buy a newspaper on the street corner with some coins, and read their news of choice without anybody knowing about it. This observation extends to far more than just newspapers, of course.

This ability of our parents – the ability to conduct decentralized, secure transactions anonymously – has been all but lost in a landscape that keeps pushing card payments for convenience. The convenience of not paying upfront, with credit cards; the convenience of always paying an exact amount, with debit cards; the convenience of not needing to carry and find exact amounts with every purchase. Some could even argue that having every transaction listed on a bank statement is a convenience of accounting.

But with accounting comes tracking. With tracking comes predictability and unwanted accountability.

It’s been said that a VISA executive can predict a divorce one year ahead of the parties involved, based on changes in purchase patterns. Infamously, a Target store was targeting a high school-aged woman with maternity advertising, which at first made her father furious: but as things turned out, the young woman was indeed pregnant. Target knew, and her own father didn’t.

This is because when we’re no longer using anonymous cash, every single purchase is tracked and recorded with the express intent on using it against us — whether for influencing us to make a choice to deplete our resources (“buy more”) or for punishing us for buying something we shouldn’t have, in a wide variety of conceivable ways.

China is taking the concept one step further, as has been written here before, and in what must have been the inspiration for a Black Mirror episode, is weighting its citizens’ Obedience Scores based on whether they buy useful or lavish items — useful in the views of the regime, of course.

It’s not just the fact that transactions of our digital children are logged for later use against them, in ways our analog parents could never conceive of.

It’s also that the transactions of our digital children are permissioned. When our digital children buy a bottle of water with a debit card, a transaction clears somewhere in the background. But that also means that somebody can decide to have the transaction not clear; somebody has the right to arbitrarily decide what people get to buy and not buy, if this trend continues for our digital children. That is a horrifying thought.

Our parents were using decentralized, censorship resistant, anonymous transactions in using plain cash. There is no reason our digital children should have anything less. It’s a matter of liberty and self-determination.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: We’ve seen how our digital children’s privacy is violated in everything they buy with cash or credit, in a way our analog parents would have balked at. But even worse: our digital children’s privacy is also violated by tracking what they don’t buy — either actively decline or just plain walk away from.

Amazon just opened its first “Amazon Go” store, where you just pick things into a bag and leave, without ever going through a checkout process. As part of the introduction of this concept, Amazon points out that you can pick something off the shelves, at which point it’ll register in your purchase — and change your mind and put it back, at which point you’ll be registered and logged as having not purchased the item.

Sure, you’re not paying for something you changed your mind about, which is the point of the video presentation. But it’s not just about the deduction from your total amount to pay: Amazon also knows you considered buying it and eventually didn’t, and will be using that data.

Our digital children are tracked this way on a daily basis, if not an hourly basis. Our analog parents never were.

When we’re shopping for anything online, there are even simple plugins for the most common merchant solutions with the business terms “funnel analysis” — where in the so-called “purchase funnel” our digital children choose to leave the process of purchasing something — or “cart abandonment analysis”.

We can’t even simply walk away from something anymore without it being recorded, logged, and cataloged for later use against us.

But so-called “cart abandonment” is only one part of the bigger issue of tracking what we’re interested in in the age of our digital children, but didn’t buy. There is no shortage of people today who would swear they were just discussing a very specific type of product with their phone present (say, “black leather skirts”) and all of a sudden, advertising for that very specific type of product would pop up all over Facebook and/or Amazon ads. Is this really due to some company listening for keywords through the phone? Maybe, maybe not. All we know since Snowden is that if it’s technically possible to invade privacy, it is already happening.

(We have to assume here these people still need to learn how to install a simple adblocker. But still.)

At the worst ad-dense places, like (but not limited to) airports, there are eyeball trackers to find out which ads you look at. They don’t yet change to match your interests, as per Minority Report, but that’s already present on your phone and on your desktop, and so wouldn’t be foreign to see in public soon, either.

In the world of our analog parents, we weren’t registered and tracked when we bought something.

In the world of our digital children, we’re registered and tracked even when we don’t buy something.

Activism: In the ever-evolving landscape of politics, we often find ourselves confined to the traditional left-right spectrum. This binary view, with its emphasis on economic and social policies, sometimes obscures deeper motivations driving voter behavior and political trends. As a result, we might miss crucial insights that could enhance our understanding of why people vote the way they do, why political movements gain momentum, and why some ideas resonate while others falter. I have found an alternative framework to be far more helpful: the Maslow Pyramid.

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, typically illustrated as a pyramid, categorizes human needs into five levels: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow famously hypothesized, that a lower-level need must be satisfied before we start attempting to fulfill the needs of the next level — as an example, while we’re starving and live in fear of being robbed (level one), we’re not so much concerned with having the respect of the community (level four). By examining political trends through this lens, we can gain a richer, more nuanced perspective on what drives societal shifts and voter preferences.

Physiological Needs and the Politics of Survival

At the base of Maslow’s pyramid are physiological needs: food, water, warmth, and rest — as well as immediate physical safety. In times of economic crisis, political discourse often gravitates towards these fundamental concerns. Populist movements frequently gain traction by promising to address the immediate needs of the people. For instance, during the Great Recession, there was a surge in support for policies focused on job creation, healthcare access, and basic economic security. Politicians who can convincingly address these basic needs often see significant support from constituencies facing hardship just getting from one day to the next without getting beaten, robbed, or starved. Fear of getting to this state (fear of getting robbed on your way to/from work, school, etc.) will also suffice to place oneself at this level.

However, if established parties fail to address these concerns, voters will inevitably turn to whomever offers a solution, even if it’s an atrocious one. It’s like choosing Comcast for your Internet connection when no other provider is available—you know the service is subpar, but having some connection is better than none. Similarly, in politics, when mainstream parties neglect the foundational needs of the populace, fringe or extremist parties can gain support by simply acknowledging and addressing these unmet needs — and that is regardless of how flawed their solutions to said problems may be.

Safety Needs and the Demand for Stability

Moving up the pyramid, once the physical needs are met, then safety needs encompass longer-term personal security, employment, and health. Political rhetoric around law and order, immigration control, and national security taps into these safety concerns. When people feel their safety is threatened, whether by crime, terrorism, or economic instability, they are more likely to support policies and leaders who promise to restore stability and protect them from perceived threats. The post-9/11 era (just after 2001), with its heightened focus on national security, is a prime example of how safety needs can dominate the political agenda.

Yet again, if traditional parties fail to provide a sense of security, voters may gravitate towards any party that promises to deliver it, even if their methods are draconian and/or frankly ridiculous.

Love and Belonging: The Politics of Identity

The middle tier of the pyramid addresses social needs: relationships, friendships, and a sense of belonging. Identity politics, which includes movements advocating for the rights of specific social groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and more, finds its roots here. Political movements that foster a sense of community and belonging can galvanize supporters by addressing these intrinsic needs. The LGBPQRST+ rights movement, for instance, not only fights for legal rights but also seeks to create a supportive community for its members.

When mainstream parties overlook these social needs, people will seek out any group or party that offers them a sense of belonging, even if that party’s overall agenda is problematic. It’s a matter of seeking connection where it’s available.

Esteem: The Quest for Recognition

Esteem needs encompass respect, self-esteem, status, and recognition. Political leaders who can validate the contributions and worth of their supporters often build strong, loyal followings. This is evident in political campaigns that emphasize the dignity of work, the importance of patriotism, and the recognition of personal achievements. Policies aimed at rewarding hard work and providing opportunities for personal advancement resonate deeply with voters seeking validation and respect.

Self-Actualization: The Pursuit of Fulfillment

At the peak of the pyramid is self-actualization — the realization of one’s potential and the pursuit of personal growth and fulfillment. Politics at this level involves visionary thinking and appeals to higher ideals. Environmental movements with or without solutions based in reality, space exploration initiatives, and educational reforms often engage this need. Leaders who inspire through their vision of a better future, who challenge citizens to think beyond their immediate concerns and contribute to something greater than themselves, tap into this highest level of human motivation.

It’s rather telling that the biggest telltale sign for voters (and media), who are personally at this level of human needs, is that they often and happily paint the political parties and movements answering to level-one and level-two human needs as brutish, uneducated, simpleton and backwards — when in reality, what such name-calling voters who pretend to hold themselves to some sort of higher standard are really doing, is disacknowledging that other people’s most basic needs are simply not being met. Talk about being overprivileged in ivory towers! “Let them eat cake”, anyone?

If mainstream political parties neglect to engage voters at this level, people will align with any party that inspires them, even if the broader agenda is not entirely sound. It can be somewhat like signing up for a self-help seminar led by a guy who lives in his mom’s basement because he speaks so passionately about “unlocking your potential.”

A Holistic Approach to Political Analysis

By applying the Maslow Pyramid to our understanding of political trends, we gain a multi-dimensional view that goes beyond the simplicity of left versus right. This approach allows us to see how different policies and political messages resonate with various segments of the population based on their current needs and aspirations.

For instance, a comprehensive healthcare reform policy can address physiological needs by ensuring access to medical care, safety needs by providing financial security, love and belonging by reducing social disparities, esteem by recognizing healthcare as a right, and self-actualization by promoting a healthier society capable of achieving its full potential.

It’s further important to realize that an individual voter would vote for completely different parties, even at opposite ends of the traditional spectrum, depending on where they feel the most urgency in their personal needs at the moment, and that this is not a contradiction or uncertainty on policies.

In conclusion, the Maslow Pyramid provides a valuable framework for understanding the complex and dynamic nature of political trends. It reminds us that politics is fundamentally about people and their needs. By considering these needs in our political analysis, we can develop more empathetic, effective, and inclusive strategies that resonate deeply with the human condition. And crucially, we must remember that when these needs are ignored, voters will turn to any party that promises to meet them, even if it means accepting a deeply flawed solution. After all, in the absence of better options, you might just end up with Comcast.

Robin Kachfi - How to Nose manual

Our bro Robin Kachfi Shows you in the following video, how a nose manual works. Enjoy the video, your kunstform BMX shop team!

Video: Robin Kachfi

Subscribe our youtube channel: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/kunstformbmxshop

Freedombmx - HOW TO Nollie Barspin with Miguel Smajli

Our bro Miguel Smajli has filmed in cooperation with Freedombmx a short HOW TO video, in which Miguel will teach you the Nollie Barspin ! Enjoy the video, your kunstform BMX Shop Team!

Video: Freedombmx

subscribe to our youtube channel: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/kunstformbmxshop

We're really stoked that our team riders Felix Prangenberg, Robin Kachfi, Kevin Nikulski and also our own shop got nominated for the Freedombmx Awards 2017, thanks to everyone for voting our team riders and for us! If you haven't voted yet, click: VOTING
Vote for your favorite german Street,Park,Flatland oder Dirtfahrer, you can also vote for germanys best skatepark, germanys best webvideo 2017, best company and last but not least best international rider.

More infos here: Freedombmx.de

The Vans BMX Pro Cup Series, the world’s leading platform for elite BMX park terrain competition, announces the official 2018 World Tour dates and locations for the upcoming season. The celebrated BMX competition series will take place in Australia, California, Mexico and Spain, welcoming a top-ranking competitive field of invited pro BMX riders and Wildcards for their chance to compete on the world stage for a piece of the grand $155,000USD prize.



The Vans BMX Pro Cup Series is also proud to expand the 2018 World Tour with the addition of two new Regional Qualifier events in the United States and Chile, encouraging more talented BMX riders from around the world to earn their way to the Vans BMX Pro Cup World Championships. The five confirmed Regional Qualifier events are open to registration by all professional men and women BMX riders beginning in Santiago, Chile on March 23. The top three podium winners from each Regional Qualifier will advance to the Vans BMX Pro Cup Pro Tour, and secure their invite to the Vans BMX Pro Cup World Championships.



2018 VANS BMX PRO CUP SERIES WORLD TOUR ZEITPLAN



Regional Qualifiers

Santiago, Chile
March 23 & 25

Sydney, Australia
April 27

Woodward East, Pennsylvania
June 28

Guadalajara, Mexico
August 24

Málaga, Spain
September 21



*registration information is available on vansbmxprocup.com



Pro Tour

Sydney, Australia
April 29

Huntington Beach, CA
August 3 & 5

Guadalajara, Mexico
August 25 - 26



World Championship

Málaga, Spain
September 22 - 23



@vansbmxprocup on Instagram
#vansbmxprocup



All the best

Your kunstform BMX Shop Team

At the 5th of May the Northbrigade BMX Jam in Cologne took place, where our lads Felix Prangenberg, Robin Kachfi, Justin Rudd and Felix Donat enjoyed their day! Of course, our team riders produced a lot more clips, which you can check in the video below from Freedombmx.



Enjoy the videos, your kunstform BMX Shop Team!



Video I: Robin Kachfi

Video II: Freedombmx



Subscribe our youtube channel: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/kunstformbmxshop

Felix Prangenberg is always on the road, learns and produces every year insane bangers, get's one price after the other and is definitely one of the nicest homies out there! At this year's "Battle of Hastings" Team "Godwin" ended up as 3rd, in which Felix got invited from Jordan Godwin, and then, Felix just won the NORA CUP - Reader’s Choice Rider Of The Year Award. What an honor. Congrats Felix!
Watch now all Finals of this year's "Battle of Hastings" and the Live Feed of the NORA CUP 2018 (17. Minute - Felix Prangenberg), as well.



Viel Spaß bei den Videos, Dein kunstform BMX Shop Team!



Video: Ride BMX



Subscribe our youtube channel: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/kunstformbmxshop

Doomed Brand just dropped! With drop Fünf the guys around the team of Jordan Godwin, Felix Prangenberg, Miguel Smajli, Dan Coller, Lewis Mills and Co. have set new standards in design.


Check our online-shop for more new Doomed Brand products!


Have fun!



All the best,

Your kunstform BMX Shop Team

It's now been 20 years since Sebastian Pospischil registered the kunstform business and we want to celebrate this anniversary in our BMX shop in Stuttgart with a BMX Street and a BMX Flatland Jam. We invite you to celebrate this milestone on 11. November 2023 in Stuttgart to celebrate with us. At 12 noon we start in our BMX shop and explore some BMX street spots in Stuttgart. At the same time, a BMX flatland meeting will take place at the famous spot 'Haus der Geschichte'. Later the party continues in our shop and warehouse. We are happy to have you with us.

We'll be sharing some recaps in the coming days, so stay tuned. Thank you for your support; Without you this anniversary would never have been possible. A big thank you also goes to our supporters for this event: @odysseybmx & @demolitionparts via @sibmxdistro, @shadowridinggear & @mankindbmx via @unitybmx, @fitbikeco & @sandmbicycles via @allridebmx, @cultcrew & @eclatbmxbrand via @traffic .bmx and @ridetsg via @247bike.

When: Saturday November 11th, 2023 (from 12 p.m.): Meeting point in the Stuttgart shop

Where: kunstform BMX Shop, Rotebühlstr. 63, 70178 Stuttgart

Supported by: @odysseybmx & @demolitionparts via @sibmxdistro, @shadowridinggear & @mankindbmx via @unitybmx, @fitbikeco & @sandmbicycles via @allridebmx, @cultcrew & @eclatbmxbrand via @traffic.bmx and @ridetsg via @247bike

We look forward to seeing you!

Best regards

Your kunstform BMX Shop Team

Temperatures rise, the desire to be active outside grows, which is why we currently offer a variety of top offers for all rider levels: from children and beginners to advanced riders and professionals. But be careful: our offers are only valid until March 11th. valid and only valid while stocks last. Take advantage of the opportunity and start the new BMX season with a new ride.

LEGO will announce an upcoming set in three livestreams later today, with a German language stream at 20:15 CET / 19:15 GMT / 14:15 EST and two English language streams at 00:00 CET / 23:00 GMT / 18:00 EST.

The set revealed will be released on Black Friday and we will be bringing you the images here, of course. The links to each stream are below:

• German language livestream
• English language livestream (US)
• English language livestream (CA)

A promotional set will also be announced and there will be LEGO Insiders sweepstakes taking place too, to win either a signed set or a $100 or €100 gift card.

Check back later for more information.

© 2024 Brickset.com. Republication prohibited without prior permission.