Everybody is dissing Facebook right now. Cuban would just be one more voice proclaiming "Facebook is dying!" Throw Google in there, despite the fact that it doom dominates mobile search; and well now you've got a nice trollish article.
Having had two midrange HP printers have formatter boards kick the bucket after just a couple of years, I'm not even sure what kind of printer company they will be. They were once my first choice, but now.... They're fading fast.
There's a reason why Robbie Robertson is sitting pretty in Hollywood making records pnly when he feels like it, and why his former bandmates in The Band toured even while suffering serious depression or cancer, and that's because Robertson as the primary songwriter had publishing rights to a big chunk of a catalog for which an enormous number of covers have been made. Some songs like The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down were top 40 hits for two or three other artists in the same time period that The Band had recorded them. So while Robertson's bandmates would receive royalties for The Band's recording of the song, Robertson was getting additional royalties from covers. It's a notoriously inequitable situation which has been seen time and time again, because a song often is more profitable than any particular sound recording of it.
I'll wager Bob Dylan has made as much, if not more money off of other peoples' covers of his catalog as he made through recording royalties.
Well, there was an additional boost for songwriters, in that publishing rights could be quite lucrative. That's what makes, say, the Lennon-McCartney Northern Songs catalog so valuable. It's also one of the causes of a considerable amount of tension in bands where you have a main songwriter, who gets additional publishing royalties. You look at bands like The Who or The Band, where you had one guy who wrote most of the songs, and he's getting an additional cut on top of any recording royalties or touring proceeds. It's also why Colonel Tom Parker often insisted that guys writing songs for Elvis put him as a writer so that Elvis could get a cut of the publishing royalties, even if he had absolute nothing at all to do with the actual writing of the song. It's also why Paul McCartney was sued by his publishing company over songs he claimed he'd co-wrote with his wife, the publisher alleging that McCartney was intentionally diluting their share of the royalties.
Neil Peart recently bought a three million dollar house. How many people seriously think that it was funded by the sale of Rush CDs? It was paid for because Rush is a successful touring band, which has done a helluva lot of it over the last decade (four major world tours in that span, and they're about to kick another one off just over a year since they finished the last one). When Peart briefly retired after the death of his daughter and wife, there was a point at which he asked his accountant if he could actually retire completely and he was told "No.", this was somewhere around 1999-2000, so it gives you an idea that the fortune he has now didn't come from record sales.
Touring has always been the maker of vast fortunes. The Beatles were being paid absolutely shit in royalties, Brian Epstein having "negotiated" a terrible record deal. The publishing rights made them pretty good cash to be sure, but at the end of the day, I suspect a good deal of their personal wealth came from the brown paper bags filled with cash that each promoter would hand over to their road manager, Neil Aspinall, before each gig.
If guys like Tom Petty or B.B. King had had to rely on royalties, they would probably have starved to death.
It's not even am original scam. It's just an extension of the "marketing your record costs lots of money" scam. Stealing royalties via exaggerated expenses and inadequate invoice management is hardly an innovation. Why do you think everyone from the Beatles to King Crimson have had to take legal avenues to even get accurate sales figures?
It would mean a huge number of programs that utilized a huge number of reverse engineered protocols, formats and hidden system calls would now be thrown into chaos. Unless every goddamned piece of software that exposed an interface layer granted developers a license, huge portions of the industry would find the carpet being pulled out from underneath them.
If you're going to bring up how Islam expanded over a thousand years ago, then I might as well bring up how Christianity had expanded a few centuries before. I mean, that's how pointless going back to that distant time is. Everyone behaved badly in those days. I'm talkiing about the last two centuries. If we had managed the breakup of the Ottoman Empire better, Wahabism and all its nasty offspring would likely have remained simply a regional phenomenon (in its beginning it was largely a reaction to what was seen as the decadent ways of the late Ottoman period). But by basically dismantling the Empire and carving up chunks of it amongst the Great Powers, we let the genie out of the bottle. By supporting autocratic regimes like the Shah in Iran, we pushed people towards the likes of Khomeini.
This is the problem with Westerners, we refuse to see our part in the insanity, and just tar an entire religion, whose adherents come from a vast number of different cultural milieus, with a single brush. Honor killings are not universal, genital mutiliation is not universal, how Shariah is interpreted is not universal. All have varied significantly depending upon time and place.
At the end of the day, these people have to live their own lives. To Muslims coming to Western countries, you're damned straight, they have to live by our rules (although it's hard to justify banning Shariah when you've allowed Jewish courts, for instance, to rule on simple civil and family court matters). But in their own countries, they'll have to figure it out on their own. I suspect in the long run the younger generations are going to want to enjoy the same quality of life as their Western counterparts, and the Islamist parties are going to have to moderate significantly (that's already being seen with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).
Whatever you may think of their application now, anybody with even a modicum of knowledge of the civil rights era knows how important such laws were to ensuring crimes against African-Americans were prosecuted.
Of course those who objected to Federal laws that protected black Americans also made rude noises about Marxism and the poor white man.
Hate crimes were invented during the civil rights era, both out of recognition that certain kinds of crimes were very much intended as attacks against whole communities and, at least so far as Federal legislation goes, to give Federal authorities some ability to prosecute such crimes where state authorities were frequently much less willing to pursue such criminals.
All of it is true, and yet there's little enough we can do. For half a thousand years we have attempted to enforce our ideals on various peoples we have gained control of, and with few exceptions we have accomplished nothing, or made things worse.
In fact, the imposition of Western values in the the Islamic world has almost inevitably made things worse. We chiseled away at the Ottoman Empire and unleashed Wahabism (the granddaddy of Islamist fundamentalism). We carved territories out of the former Ottoman holdings, taking no heed of tribal, linguistic or religious differences, fueling all sorts of extremism. Even where a fairly modern political system had evolved in Iran, out of sheer self-interest, we re-imposed an unwanted and discarded despot on them, ultimately leading to the very kind of fundamentalist idiocy and evil you rail against.
The West has come a long way, but a lot of that progress was built on others' backs, and considering that our own legal and social systems so often get it wrong, and that slowly but surely we're edging towards a corporatocracy, I'm not so sure we're that much further ahead.
And you can show that these are religious based, right? Let's take two favorites; genital mutilation and honor killings. Both of these are cultural practices that extend beyond Muslim populations and likely predate Islam. Neither are religious tenets. In the case of honor killings, they seem to be a feature of a wide number of Central Asian cultures and were maintained by converted populations.
Do you actually think anyone questions their beliefs because you're a rude arrogant cunt? Are you that stupid, delusional and arrogant?
I've debated Creationists for the better part of 20 years, and the on thing I bring from that is that calling them superstitious idiots doesn't make them question anything. If you do it, you do it because you get your own rocks off, not because you think your performing some sort of public service.
Don't know too many atheists who think more of Islam than Christianity. Both religions are pretty absurd, and both have plenty of blood on their hands.
I don't quite understand any of it. Doesn't ActiveSync create a layer by which any software (regardless of the kind of device it may be running on) can insert objects into Exchange? Wouldn't it be Exchange itself which would be taking care of any duplication issues?
Or to put this in really simple terms, is ActiveSync not just an API that allows http(s) access to Exchange functionality? If that's the case, then the patent itself doesn't even actually describe what Motorola (and every other Android phone and iDevice does). Who the fuck cares what the patent says, all these fucking phones are doing is sending some nice little http encapsulated object off to an IIS server plugged into Exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody is dissing Facebook right now. Cuban would just be one more voice proclaiming "Facebook is dying!" Throw Google in there, despite the fact that it doom dominates mobile search; and well now you've got a nice trollish article.
The whole point of Android is to be a mobile search platform. You're not such an insufferably stupid moron that you think Google isn't making momy.
Having had two midrange HP printers have formatter boards kick the bucket after just a couple of years, I'm not even sure what kind of printer company they will be. They were once my first choice, but now.... They're fading fast.
I have to admit iSSH is a damned fine app. In thirty years of buying software, it sits near the top of the I've purchased.
The XBox division is only successful if you ignore the vast amount of money spent to buy its market division.
There's a reason why Robbie Robertson is sitting pretty in Hollywood making records pnly when he feels like it, and why his former bandmates in The Band toured even while suffering serious depression or cancer, and that's because Robertson as the primary songwriter had publishing rights to a big chunk of a catalog for which an enormous number of covers have been made. Some songs like The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down were top 40 hits for two or three other artists in the same time period that The Band had recorded them. So while Robertson's bandmates would receive royalties for The Band's recording of the song, Robertson was getting additional royalties from covers. It's a notoriously inequitable situation which has been seen time and time again, because a song often is more profitable than any particular sound recording of it.
I'll wager Bob Dylan has made as much, if not more money off of other peoples' covers of his catalog as he made through recording royalties.
Well, there was an additional boost for songwriters, in that publishing rights could be quite lucrative. That's what makes, say, the Lennon-McCartney Northern Songs catalog so valuable. It's also one of the causes of a considerable amount of tension in bands where you have a main songwriter, who gets additional publishing royalties. You look at bands like The Who or The Band, where you had one guy who wrote most of the songs, and he's getting an additional cut on top of any recording royalties or touring proceeds. It's also why Colonel Tom Parker often insisted that guys writing songs for Elvis put him as a writer so that Elvis could get a cut of the publishing royalties, even if he had absolute nothing at all to do with the actual writing of the song. It's also why Paul McCartney was sued by his publishing company over songs he claimed he'd co-wrote with his wife, the publisher alleging that McCartney was intentionally diluting their share of the royalties.
Because those didn't exist before the current distribution regime.
Neil Peart recently bought a three million dollar house. How many people seriously think that it was funded by the sale of Rush CDs? It was paid for because Rush is a successful touring band, which has done a helluva lot of it over the last decade (four major world tours in that span, and they're about to kick another one off just over a year since they finished the last one). When Peart briefly retired after the death of his daughter and wife, there was a point at which he asked his accountant if he could actually retire completely and he was told "No.", this was somewhere around 1999-2000, so it gives you an idea that the fortune he has now didn't come from record sales.
Touring has always been the maker of vast fortunes. The Beatles were being paid absolutely shit in royalties, Brian Epstein having "negotiated" a terrible record deal. The publishing rights made them pretty good cash to be sure, but at the end of the day, I suspect a good deal of their personal wealth came from the brown paper bags filled with cash that each promoter would hand over to their road manager, Neil Aspinall, before each gig.
If guys like Tom Petty or B.B. King had had to rely on royalties, they would probably have starved to death.
It's not even am original scam. It's just an extension of the "marketing your record costs lots of money" scam. Stealing royalties via exaggerated expenses and inadequate invoice management is hardly an innovation. Why do you think everyone from the Beatles to King Crimson have had to take legal avenues to even get accurate sales figures?
Yup, and they've innovated a new way to rob artists blind.
It would mean a huge number of programs that utilized a huge number of reverse engineered protocols, formats and hidden system calls would now be thrown into chaos. Unless every goddamned piece of software that exposed an interface layer granted developers a license, huge portions of the industry would find the carpet being pulled out from underneath them.
The Federalist Papers, you moron.
Fucking hell but it's a sad testament to the American education system that you could say something like that.
Not to mention the law would be completely unconstitutional.
If you're going to bring up how Islam expanded over a thousand years ago, then I might as well bring up how Christianity had expanded a few centuries before. I mean, that's how pointless going back to that distant time is. Everyone behaved badly in those days. I'm talkiing about the last two centuries. If we had managed the breakup of the Ottoman Empire better, Wahabism and all its nasty offspring would likely have remained simply a regional phenomenon (in its beginning it was largely a reaction to what was seen as the decadent ways of the late Ottoman period). But by basically dismantling the Empire and carving up chunks of it amongst the Great Powers, we let the genie out of the bottle. By supporting autocratic regimes like the Shah in Iran, we pushed people towards the likes of Khomeini.
This is the problem with Westerners, we refuse to see our part in the insanity, and just tar an entire religion, whose adherents come from a vast number of different cultural milieus, with a single brush. Honor killings are not universal, genital mutiliation is not universal, how Shariah is interpreted is not universal. All have varied significantly depending upon time and place.
At the end of the day, these people have to live their own lives. To Muslims coming to Western countries, you're damned straight, they have to live by our rules (although it's hard to justify banning Shariah when you've allowed Jewish courts, for instance, to rule on simple civil and family court matters). But in their own countries, they'll have to figure it out on their own. I suspect in the long run the younger generations are going to want to enjoy the same quality of life as their Western counterparts, and the Islamist parties are going to have to moderate significantly (that's already being seen with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).
Whatever you may think of their application now, anybody with even a modicum of knowledge of the civil rights era knows how important such laws were to ensuring crimes against African-Americans were prosecuted.
Of course those who objected to Federal laws that protected black Americans also made rude noises about Marxism and the poor white man.
Hate crimes were invented during the civil rights era, both out of recognition that certain kinds of crimes were very much intended as attacks against whole communities and, at least so far as Federal legislation goes, to give Federal authorities some ability to prosecute such crimes where state authorities were frequently much less willing to pursue such criminals.
All of it is true, and yet there's little enough we can do. For half a thousand years we have attempted to enforce our ideals on various peoples we have gained control of, and with few exceptions we have accomplished nothing, or made things worse.
In fact, the imposition of Western values in the the Islamic world has almost inevitably made things worse. We chiseled away at the Ottoman Empire and unleashed Wahabism (the granddaddy of Islamist fundamentalism). We carved territories out of the former Ottoman holdings, taking no heed of tribal, linguistic or religious differences, fueling all sorts of extremism. Even where a fairly modern political system had evolved in Iran, out of sheer self-interest, we re-imposed an unwanted and discarded despot on them, ultimately leading to the very kind of fundamentalist idiocy and evil you rail against.
The West has come a long way, but a lot of that progress was built on others' backs, and considering that our own legal and social systems so often get it wrong, and that slowly but surely we're edging towards a corporatocracy, I'm not so sure we're that much further ahead.
And you can show that these are religious based, right? Let's take two favorites; genital mutilation and honor killings. Both of these are cultural practices that extend beyond Muslim populations and likely predate Islam. Neither are religious tenets. In the case of honor killings, they seem to be a feature of a wide number of Central Asian cultures and were maintained by converted populations.
Read the Old Testament sometime. If you're going to judge the roots of Islam harshly, ponder the fate of the Amalekites sometime.
Your claim that these practices are universal to Islam is pure bullshit.
Do you actually think anyone questions their beliefs because you're a rude arrogant cunt? Are you that stupid, delusional and arrogant?
I've debated Creationists for the better part of 20 years, and the on thing I bring from that is that calling them superstitious idiots doesn't make them question anything. If you do it, you do it because you get your own rocks off, not because you think your performing some sort of public service.
Don't know too many atheists who think more of Islam than Christianity. Both religions are pretty absurd, and both have plenty of blood on their hands.
Really? And just how many conversions have you achieved by being an asshole?
I don't quite understand any of it. Doesn't ActiveSync create a layer by which any software (regardless of the kind of device it may be running on) can insert objects into Exchange? Wouldn't it be Exchange itself which would be taking care of any duplication issues?
Or to put this in really simple terms, is ActiveSync not just an API that allows http(s) access to Exchange functionality? If that's the case, then the patent itself doesn't even actually describe what Motorola (and every other Android phone and iDevice does). Who the fuck cares what the patent says, all these fucking phones are doing is sending some nice little http encapsulated object off to an IIS server plugged into Exchange.