Lambert keen for duo to stay

first_img Defender Vlaar was heavily linked with Southampton in the summer after an impressive World Cup with Holland. And, after Lambert committed himself to the club until 2018, he wants to tie his key players down. “That’s the next agenda, to speak to those lads and see if we can do things,” he said. “Other lads have re-signed again and if we can get those lads tied up that’s what we’ll try to do.” Villa host Arsenal on Saturday second in the Barclays Premier League with Vlaar a major doubt with the calf injury which forced him to miss the 1-0 win at Liverpool at the weekend. Christian Benteke is also still sidelined but has trained this week without trouble. The striker returned on Monday following five months out with a ruptured Achilles and Lambert insisted he is not guaranteed a starting spot once he is fit. “It’s massive for him, he has trained all week and had no adverse reaction. He has got to work hard to try to get back in the side,” he said. Aston Villa boss Paul Lambert has revealed resolving the futures of Ron Vlaar and Fabian Delph is his main priority. The manager penned a new four-year deal this week and Gabriel Agbonlahor signed his own contract extension last week. New England international Delph and skipper Vlaar only have a year left on their deals at Villa Park. Press Association “Gabby and Andi (Weimann) are playing great, the front lads are on form, but this week Christian has done really well. “I’m not sure (when he’ll be back), it’s his first week. He trained this morning and speaking to him after training he felt good.” Fellow forward Libor Kozak will have a routine check-up at hospital on Friday as he recovers from the broken leg he suffered in January. last_img read more

Real-life terror: Ballybofey mum reveals daughter’s fear as she spots burglar in garden

first_imgA Donegal mother-of-two has told of the panic in her daughter’s voice after she had spotted a man trying to gain access to their home in the early hours of yesterday morning. Ursula Quigley-Moore, who lives in The Beeches area of Ballybofey, told Donegal Daily how her 16-year-old daughter panicked when she saw a ‘hooded man’ lurking in the garden.Quigley-Moore said: “My daughter came home at around 2.30 am as she was at an Irish Dancing party in Harvey’s Point. “She wasn’t in her room five minutes when she came running into my room in a panic saying there was a man in a black hoody lurking in our front garden looking up at the bedroom windows.“I looked out and he was still there standing in the middle of the garden. We knocked on the window to let him know we could see him and he started to walk away.”She explained that neighbours revealed to her the following morning that the man had attempted to secure entry into several properties in the estate before having one final attempt at the Quigley-Moore residence.“After that, we could hear a lot of commotion outside. We looked out again and the guards had arrived into the cul de sac. “They called into our house to make sure everyone was ok,” she added.“Yesterday we got an updated story on events. Our neighbour and her boyfriend got home from a night out just after my daughter got home.“They saw the offender coming from the side of my house and they shouted to him what he was doing. He continued to hide behind the bushes in my garden and my neighbour’s boyfriend came over to confront him and see what he was at.“He then chased my neighbours into their house and starting banging on their door and shouting at them.“At this stage, they rang the guards who arrived at the scene promptly, chased the assailant, caught him and arrested him. “Apparently he had been across the road at my other neighbour’s house who also saw him and knocked out at him and then he proceeded to check my house.”It is understood that a chase ensued when Gardai arrived at the scene at which point the man tried to flee.“At this stage, the guards arrived at the scene promptly, chased the man, caught him and arrested him.“Nobody likes to hear their daughter in a panic at any time of the day but in the early hours of the morning your stomach just lurches. “Her voice was between a cry and pure panic,” the Donegal mother explained.“When she said he was looking up at the windows and just lurking in the garden with a hoody up I knew he was up to no good.“I felt relieved when he was arrested and then angry the next day thinking how dare someone violate our privacy as we sleep.“We try to build a nice environment for our children in a nice estate and try to give them nice things for some low life to come in and take it all away.”Real-life terror: Ballybofey mum reveals daughter’s fear as she spots burglar in garden was last modified: October 2nd, 2019 by Shaun KeenanShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:BallybofeyburglarfearGardaimumlast_img read more

Sharks’ Erik Karlsson says reduced ice time wasn’t due to injury

first_imgCLICK HERE if you are having a problem viewing the photos on a mobile deviceLAS VEGAS — Sharks defenseman Erik Karlsson’s time on ice dropped off substantially from Game 2 to Game 3 against the Vegas Golden Knights. But both Karlsson and Sharks coach Pete DeBoer said Monday that it had nothing to do with a recurrence of the groin injuries that have bothered the two-time Norris Trophy winner since January.Karlsson played 29 minutes and eight seconds in Game 2, a 5-3 Sharks loss, as host San …last_img

History Highlight: The Two Wilberforces

first_imgThose seeing the new movie Amazing Grace (opened Feb 2, 2007) about England’s long political battle to end slavery may not realize the family connection of the film’s hero with the controversy over Darwinism. William Wilberforce, the champion of abolition who brought an end to the slave trade as depicted in the film, had a son, Samuel, who became a leader in the fight against Darwinism in 1860. The Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce stood strong not only against the rising tide of liberal theology in the mid-19th century, but took particular umbrage at Darwin’s “flimsy speculation” as he called it. He wrote a strident review against The Origin of Species for the Quarterly Review that really got under Charles Darwin’s skin. Darwin recognized the input of his arch-foe, Richard Owen, director of the British Museum, the leading paleontologist of the day.Bishop Wilberforce was at the focal point of a pivotal event in the rise of Darwinism. At a lively series of lectures at the meeting of the British Association at Oxford, just months after the publication of Darwin’s Origin, Wilberforce faced off against Thomas Huxley in a famous interchange about evolution. Contrary to later depictions of the event as a victory of Huxley’s rationalist science against Wilberforce’s theological dogmatism, each side felt they had made the better case. Wilberforce, not only a theologian but a professor of mathematics, spoke for nearly half an hour before Huxley. Apparently he got strong support from the audience. It is highly doubtful he uttered an insulting jibe about Huxley’s ape ancestry as later revisionists alleged, or that Huxley delivered a devastating counter-thrust. In fact, Huxley and Wilberforce both acted on amicable terms of mutual respect after the episode.1 Darwin himself, though, glad that illness prevented his attendance at the meeting, told Huxley, “I would as soon have died as tried to answer the Bishop in such an assembly.” He probably would have also had died to have heard his former Beagle captain FitzRoy at the meeting giving an impassioned denunciation of the evolutionary views of the erstwhile shipboard naturalist.Many came to the meeting lusting for a fight over the new evolutionary views. Activists on both sides tended to hear what they wanted to hear and report it accordingly. Unfortunately for Wilberforce and other theists, the apparent progress of materialist science (as evidence through industrial progress), coupled with discontent over established religion, combined to give Darwin’s views a more “trendy” air that appealed especially to young scientists. Darwin’s aides capitalized on this in a rapid-fire sequence of articles, attacks, pamphlets, new journals and other publicity strategies in the days following the June meeting at Oxford. Within 10 years, most opposition to evolution had been swept away.2 Throughout his life, Bishop Wilberforce continued to be an adamant opponent of Darwinism. His prestige and trenchant criticisms gave the father of evolution fits. See also the postscript in an article about Amazing Grace by Jonathan Sarfati on Creation on the Web and an analysis of the urban legend by a pro-evolution writer, J.R. Lucas.1This was also apparently the meeting where Huxley presented his famous “monkeys and typewriters” illustration that has also become an urban legend. It is not at all credible that Wilberforce, a mathematics professor, was stupefied by Huxley’s imaginative story as often depicted. See the article by Russell Grigg on CMI.2The event also took place during a sea change in natural science. A new class of researchers dubbed “scientists” by Anglican priest and historian William Whewell in 1834 was beginning to carve out its turf. Formerly “natural philosophers” who worked either from their independent means or within church-run academic institutions, this growing class was seeking academic respectability and a unique professional domain (and the auspices of the universities). Darwin’s theory came just at the time the “scientist” was emerging as a new kind of professional animal. Historian of science Lawrence Principe, for example, has emphasized this very period as a kind of turf war for the emerging scientist class. Books characterizing a “warfare between science and religion” became popular at this time. One particularly awful example, Principe relates in his Teaching Company series Science and Religion, was written by John Draper – who, incidentally, was the first (and a rather boring) speaker at that same British Association meeting!Wilberforce understood better than most that Darwin’s views, if accepted, would be dangerous. He also perceived that they were less scientific than anti-Christian, relying not on evidence but on “flimsy speculations.”Nevertheless, the Huxley-Wilberforce debate became a pivotal event in the history of science. Its effects rippled far beyond the question of how species arise. The significance of this event was described by Janet Browne, one of the most respected biographers of Darwin, in a penetrating analysis of the occasion after her depiction of the events as they unfolded on June 30, 1860 at Oxford. Notice the references to strategy, propaganda, and jockeying for position by the “Darwinites” as she calls them:The significant thing is that a contest had taken place.  This occasion presented a clearly demarcated display of the respective powers of conflicting authorities as represented in two opposing figures. Wilberforce and Huxley were perceived as fighting over the right to explain origins—a dispute over the proper boundary between science and the church that seemed as physically real to the participants and to the audience as any territorial or geographical warfare.  Each side was convinced that its claims about the natural world were credible and trustworthy, that its procedures were the only valid account of reality.  As it happened, these opposing forces were unequally balanced in Victorian England. Science at that time held little innate authority in itself, and its status was sustained mainly through the the rhetorical exertions of its practitioners, among whom Huxley would come to shine, whereas the church was the strongest body in the nation, attracting and retaining the very best intellects of the age. Afterwards, it was rumored that Huxley’s victory for science was falsely embellished by science’s supporters. In this dispute, the challenge was clear. Any success for the Darwinian scheme would require renegotiating—often with bitter controversy—the lines to be drawn between cultural domains. Science was not yet vested with the authority that would come with the modern era. Its practitioners were exerting themselves to create professional communities, struggling to receive due acknowledgement of their expertise and the right to choose and investigate issues in their own manner. As Wilberforce demonstrated, that authority currently lay for the most part with theology. The gossip running through the crowd afterwards quickly crafted an epic narrative, a collective fiction with an inbuilt meaning much more tangible and important than reality. All felt they were witnessing history in the making.     A public polarization of opinion had emerged.  The issue became excitingly simple. Were humans descended from monkeys or made by God? —Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton, 2002), pp. 124-125.Browne launched from this episode into a chapter about Darwin’s “Four Musketeers” (Huxley, Hooker, Lyell, and Asa Grey, 01/04/2004) who capitalized on this public relations bonanza.  Within a decade, through an almost master-planned campaign of smearing opponents and popularizing Darwin’s views, they pretty much won over the entire intellectual world. Now you see why J. P. Moreland said that the Darwinian revolution was primarily a movement to rid science of theology.The supposed “warfare between science and religion” was not started by the theologians. Science and theology had a long, mutually supportive history. It was started by the Darwinites, like Americans John Draper and Andrew D. White, whose revisionist histories (Draper, 1863; White, 1896) needed to demonize churchmen in order to legitimate the Darwinian revolution. Historian Lawrence Principe emphasizes that the conflict model of the science-religion interaction is dismissed by all modern historians. For today’s Darwin Party to insist they need to defend science from creationism rings as hollow as hearing Ahmedinejad say he needs nukes for defense.Evolutionist J. R. Lucas agrees in his analysis of the Huxley-Wilberforce interchange. “This is the most important reason why the legend grew,” he says; “At the time, Wilberforce was perfectly entitled to have an opinion about science, but in the later years of the century scientists were increasingly jealous of their autonomy, and would see in Huxley’s retort a claim they were increasingly anxious to assert.” In matters of science, effectively, the opinions of theologians were no longer welcome—an ironic outcome considering Darwin himself had but one degree—in theology!One cannot ignore the sociopolitical and economic forces that contributed to the rise of Darwinism. Other evolutionary theories had been proposed in prior decades (Erasmus Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Robert Chambers), with only a modicum of success. Why did Darwin succeed so triumphantly? Was it the genius of his theory of natural selection, and the scientific evidence he amassed to support it? Certainly his theory contained more detail and logical development, but to what extent was it a well-timed pretext for more substantive social factors to come into play?As evidence, consider that natural selection theory fell into disrepute over the next four decades and was nearly moribund by the turn of the century. Darwin himself had to concede more to Lamarck under repeated attacks on his mechanism by other scientists. It cannot be, therefore, that evolutionism became popular because of the scientific soundness of Darwin’s mechanism.  There were highly-educated, well-trained and eminently-respected scientists who vigorously opposed Darwin’s ideas: e.g., Adam Sedgwick, Darwin’s geology teacher; Richard Owen, founder and director of the British Museum; John Phillips, Oxford geology professor and president of the Geological Society of London; Louis Agassiz, one of the most famous American scientists of the period, and many others. In fact, ironically, most of the early criticisms of Darwin’s thesis came from scientists, not theologians.Nevertheless, the vision of a “fact” of evolution (i.e., common ancestry through material mechanisms, whatever they were) rapidly took over the intellectual world right at the time three powerful social movements were in place to empower its acceptance: (1) the widespread belief in progress (evidenced by the apparent superiority of the British Empire), (2) discontent with establishment Victorian religion (with a resulting value put on secularism), and (3) the rise of the scientist class as an independent profession. Given these forces, any cause celebre that facilitated movements already underway could have been more celebre than cause. One can see how the Huxley-Wilberforce story could be blown out of proportion. It became a distortion, exploited by an avant garde ready to claim its portion by extortion.The upshot was that science was taken captive by materialism, not by force of evidence, but by revolutionary tactics of agenda-driven advocates on a turf war against a weakened church (whose own leaders were either undermining the historical foundations of the faith, or were living lives inconsistent with the teachings of Christ). By 1874, in a presidential address to the British Association, John Tyndall had pretty much established the claim of institutionalized naturalistic science to explore anything and everything it desired, including origins, meaning and ultimate destiny, baptizing its speculations (e.g., 01/17/2007) in the name of science (see James Clerk Maxwell’s satirical poem in the 08/10/2005 commentary). This went far beyond the first limited claims by Darwin to explain the origin of species. Like communists, the Darwinites seldom concede power once they have usurped it.  That explains the histrionics of today’s professional science elites when creationism and intelligent design proponents, despite a much longer experience in natural philosophy, move to reassert rights to their historic domains of inquiry (e.g., 01/11/2007, 01/06/2007).Samuel Wilberforce’s fight against the incipient intellectual slavery of science to materialism is another story that must be told, because the Darwinite propaganda and subterfuge continues unabated to this day. There are only preliminary signs its grip is weakening. The science of the 21st century is too big a challenge for an outdated, simplistic philosophy devised by a 19th century bearded Buddha and his disciples.Meanwhile, go see Amazing Grace: the Movie.  It’s an excellent use of the film medium to educate and inspire. Here is a movie that brings to life a period of history that should be known by everyone.  Watching William Wilberforce struggle through the darkest days of opposition presents a sober lesson: never underestimate the lengths to which those who allow evil to exist will rationalize their positions with pragmatic and intellectual-sounding arguments – as his son Samuel Wilberforce would discover again in 1860. But never underestimate also the power of perseverance and the courage of rightly-based convictions. And, as the film illustrates, a little creativity and strategizing can help when dealing with entrenched, self-serving interests.(Visited 52 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Evolutionary Contradiction As Mental Illness

first_img It is not clear how one goes about evolutionizing one’s life, if evolution is a passive, unguided process that happens to the human race.  Does the verb evolutionize imply purpose and forethought – i.e., intelligent design?  It is also not clear how Dowd and Barlow can defend the idea that integrity, joy, or science itself evolved, much less that by following a purposely-designed course one can achieve them or know what has been achieved.  Further, his mission would seem to play into the hands of Darwin critics who argue that evolutionism has become a religion.  Nevertheless, his course has garnered praise from ardent evolutionists and skeptics, including well-known anti-ID skeptic Michael Shermer, who teaches a bonus session entitled, “Why the Science of Good and Evil Matters.” Apparently, Shermer is not turning his skeptical lens on himself or Dowd.  A good skeptic should be trained in elementary logic, which begins, “A is not non-A.”  The self-refuting fallacy errs by violating this basic premise of rationality, leading to self-contradiction.  Shermer needs to be reminded that an argument which refutes itself is necessarily false.  If evolution teaches that Stuff Happens, it is impossible to activate it by choice – to Happen-ize your Stuff.  In the second item above, it appears that Patrick Davies never even considered that his notion of divergent evolution in living infants, by explaining opposite outcomes, explains nothing.  Every parent knows that both hawks and doves can be found within one family.  Not only that, doves can turn into hawks, and vice versa, at different stages in their development, without evolving.  And even it were possible, he certainly did not provide any evidence from genetics or fossils to trace the development of these opposite adaptive behaviors.  As such, it appears that trying to explain opposite outcomes with reference to “the evolution of” this or that has no more scientific explanatory power than invoking “the demon of” this or that.  As for Niko Alm (first item), bless his spaghetti brain.  More power to him.  Let’s encourage him to start a trend.  Anybody want to donate the money for pasta strainers for his church?  This can be a win-win situation; it can help them feel a mystical purpose in life, and it can help the sane ones among us identify them easier.  Then, we can take them all to land donated by a benevolent society where they can carry on their Evolutionary experiments in peace, the Fun E-Farm.(Visited 27 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 In their efforts to get their theory accepted, have some evolutionists crossed the line into irrationality?  It is mentally sound to espouse well-argued points of view, even if controversial.  What is marginal is arguing self-contradictory beliefs.  Let the reader judge whether any of these ideas from evolutionists make sense. Alien headgear:  Back in 2005, Bobby Henderson wrote a strange letter to the Kansas School Board opposing the board’s consideration of criticisms of evolution in science classes, which he interpreted to mean that intelligent design was threatening to gain a foothold in the science curriculim.  In a bizarre parody, he asked whether his new Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should also be allowed as an alternative.  This parody took on a life of its own in the ensuing months and years, with mockers of intelligent design invoking the FSM symbol (also called Pastafarianism) on bumper stickers, signs and even books (Wikipedia).  Now, according to the BBC News, Niko Alm, a driver in Austria, has been granted permission to have his driver’s license photo taken with the symbol of his religion, pastafarianism, on his head – a pasta strainer.  The evolution of opposites:  Calling all moms.  Got a meek child?  Evolution did it.  Got an aggressive child?  Evolution did it.  This contradictory idea about living infants was presented matter-of-factly in Live Science alongside a photo of a crying toddler, “Evolution May Explain Aggressive and Meek Toddlers.”  Patrick Davies from the University of Rochestor linked cortisol levels in 200 stressed infants to opposite strategies of calming down (“doves”) or becoming more aggressive (“hawks”), which he argues “may have provided our human ancestors with adaptive survival advantages.”  But how can a scientific hypothesis account for opposite results?  The article justified the contradiction by stating that it challenges “the idea that there is only one way to be mentally healthy and normal.”  The article put a label on the phenomenon – divergent evolution – unaware that the adaptations occur within one species (Homo sapiens), with no sign that the two groups of infants are diverging into separate species. Evolutionize your life.  Religion is well known for offering people peace and meaning.  What does Darwin have to offer?  A lot, thinks one militant theistic evolutionist whose mission is to help Darwinian evolution gain acceptance in churches.  Michael Dowd and his wife Connie Barlow have produced a self-help course on a website called “Evolutionize Your Life.”  Their “Essential Five-Week Course” promises, “Learn the scientific tools and practices to decode human behavior, eliminate self-judgment, and create a big-hearted life of purpose and joyful integrity” [emphasis theirs].  Dowd has taught his concepts to 100,000 people so far, saying, “Science has cracked the code not only for understanding but for working with our evolved human nature.”  One prominent heading in the presentation states, “Science Is Helping Spirituality Evolve.”last_img read more

Biologicals are here to stay in agriculture, but what are they?

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest It seems there are ever increasing amounts of products for agricultural use that are considered “biologicals” in this rapidly advancing field of research and product development. Biological products can serve as natural pesticides and biostimulants that lead to growth enhancement, disease control, soil health improvement, and plant nutrient uptake enhancement, among numerous other uses.According to R.J. Rant of Nutrilink Biosystems based in Michigan, biologicals are a diverse group of products derived from naturally occurring microorganisms, plant extracts, or other organic matter. They fall into two main categories: microbials (live organisms including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa and viruses) and biochemicals (naturally occurring compounds including plant and insect growth regulators, organic acids, plant extracts, minerals, and pheromones). Microbials are fairly well understood, but there is still much to learn about biochemicals, Rant said.Biologicals that have been in use for a while in agriculture include: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), Bacillus subtilis, seaweed extract, humic and fulvic acid, sugar (molasses), compost teas, and fermentation extracts. These have significant value, but also limitations.“With sugars, for example, we get biological stimulation but a little is great and too much is not necessarily a good thing. You have to be careful when you feed sugars to your plant on the soil because you feed everybody and you can get pest and disease issues,” Rant said. “Compost teas are really hard to duplicate and they can be very inconsistent and they are only good for six to 12 hours.”Future agricultural applications of biologicals will include plant growth promoting rhizobacteria that can help control plant pathogens, enhance fertilizer efficiency, and degrade synthetic substances. In addition, biologicals can be used to address different types of resistance of pathogens or insects, Rant said.As with all things, there are benefits and challenges with using biological products in agriculture. As pesticides, for example, biologicals can be very target specific with low impact on non-target organisms, a low risk of resistance and a low environmental impact.“As pesticides are under more scrutiny, these products can be a real fit when or where we lose the use of chemicals,” Rant said. “The great thing about a biologicals is that there is no known resistance because they are such chemically and microbially diverse products.”But, they are typically less effective than their chemical counterparts.“When you are considering any of these biologicals, we feel they have 50% or 60% of the strength as the synthetic chemicals and a lot of growers have mixed results with them. They work in an integrated system. You need to have a good overall nutrition plan with good soil health. Then they can work as well as a lot of the top chemicals, but they can only work if there is good nutrition,” Rant said. “Biological products work best as a systems approach to an overall fertility soil management program. They need good fertility to work their best. And like with any chemical, they are often misused to address the wrong disease on the wrong crop or they are misplaced because people don’t know how to use them.”Even with these shortcomings, Rant sees a very bright and beneficial future with biologicals.“They really fit in down the road with nutrient efficiency utilization, which is a big one considering our phosphorus issues with Lake Erie. They are also really good as resistance management tools to rotate with chemistry to keep resistance management in check,” he said. “They can really stimulate soil biology as we advance into the soil health era of farming, especially where manure application is tricky from a regulatory standpoint. They can help feed the biology of your soil.”A key to effective use of biologicals moving forward will be an understanding of what they can and cannot do.“One problem with biologicals is that some people think that if they use a biological then they don’t need to buy nitrogen or plant protection,” Rant said. “They really aren’t meant to replace your fertility system or reduce your pesticide or fungicide use. They are more to make what you are already doing more efficient. It is usually around a 10% increase in efficiency.”And in this age of increasing regulatory difficulties and costs, biologicals can have ample advantages.“The big thing for companies from a regulatory process is that these are natural products and the burden of regulation is a little easier so these products can get to market and be very cost effective,” Rant said. “That will benefit the company, but also the grower.”As biologicals become better understood, there will be more combinations in the future to address a wide array of challenges in very targeted ways“Combinations can be powerful and you will start to see a lot of companies putting these things together because you get a well rounded product,” Rant said. “We are seeing what they can do for fertility and general disease suppression and biologicals are definitely here to stay.”last_img read more

Justin Timberlake Proves Streaming Isn’t A Death Sentence For Music Sales

first_imgTags:#digital music#spotify#streaming music 4 Keys to a Kid-Safe App john paul titlow Related Posts Do music subscription services threaten music sales? Not if you ask Justin Timberlake.The rise of all-you-can-stream services like Spotify have made some artists nervous about the model’s potential impact on music sales. It’s why bands like Coldplay have delayed the arrival of new albums on Spotify and others, like the Beatles and AC/DC, are holding out all together. Logically, it makes sense: If you make your music available to stream for free, people are less likely to buy it.Right? Not always.Ahead of its release on March 19, Justin Timberlake’s new album The 20/20 Experiencewas streaming in its entirety not just on Spotify and Rdio, but at the iTunes store itself. Anybody who wanted to could quickly and legally access the album for a week. Then it was released. And it became the most pre-ordered album in iTunes history, surging past his record label’s sales expectations by 63%.  It’s good news not just for Timberlake himself, but for the music subscription model that he plans to embrace when MySpace — of which he is part owner — launches its own service later this year.  MySpace will join Google, Amazon, Beats and God knows who else in entering the digital music subscription market in 2013. Timberlake’s experience would seem to debunk the thesis that streaming can’t support artists and thus isn’t in their best interests. Indeed, his success will likely make him a poster child for the music subscription revolution as the industry marches toward a future in which music is rented more than it’s owned. Music Subscription Services: Not a Silver BulletBut hold on a second. For one thing, we’re not all Justin Timberlake. The pop megastar released his first solo album over a decade ago, after years of global success as a member of a massively popular boy band. In the same way that Radiohead’s 2007 experiment in “pay-what-you-want” record sales didn’t create a new model that worked for everybody, artists can’t necessarily look to Timberlake for cues about where their careers might be headed. It’s also worth noting that streaming alone wasn’t enough to constitute “success” in this case: Selling individual copies is still the ticket to revenue and publicity for artists. Timberlake’s new album quickly became one of the most streamed records on Spotify, but that’s not what everybody’s talking about. It’s the sales numbers. That’s where the lion’s share of the revenue for this record is going to come from. What The 20/20 Experience launch does show is that subscription services, while not ready to replace paid downloads as a revenue stream for the industry, can be a critical tool for marketing and ultimately driving sales. In time, the revenue available to streaming services may reach more sustainable levels. In the meantime, it’s nice to know the artists who embrace them aren’t shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. Streaming may have promise, but it’s no silver bullet. The music market’s digital future is going to be a hybrid of approaches, some of which will work better than others in particular circumstances. Timberlake’s success is interesting — meaningful, even — but the way forward still isn’t a simple one.Photo via Flickr user Edward Kustoff, CC 2.0center_img 9 Books That Make Perfect Gifts for Industry Ex… 5 Outdoor Activities for Beating Office Burnout 12 Unique Gifts for the Hard-to-Shop-for People…last_img read more

Sorry, Internet: Tumblr Founder David Karp Is Not A Billionaire

first_imgOn Monday, Yahoo announced it was buying Tumblr, the blog network, for $1.1 billion. And then the tweets started, with people declaring that Tumblr founder David Karp was now a billionaire.The conflation of Tumblr’s purchase price with Karp’s net worth assumed that Karp got nearly all of the Yahoo payday. And that’s simply not how it works for venture-backed startups. Investors like Union Square Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz will share in the take, with Karp getting an estimated $275 million.(See also: Tumblr’s Perverse Lesson: To Get Rich, Don’t Make Money)That’s a lot of money, but it won’t get him on Forbes’ list of the world’s billionaires.You try explaining this to people on Twitter, though. A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit owen thomas The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Tags:#David Karp#math#startups#Tumblr#Venture capital Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification Related Posts Sadly, even some respectable publications like Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald made the error:Other people asserted that Karp was a “high-school dropout.” That’s actually a debatable point. He left high school to continue his education through home schooling, and never received a formal diploma.Vespa lover, yes. Billionaire, no.And Business Insider’s Henry Blodget tried to resolve the issue with punctuation:Related stories:Who Hates The Yahoo-Tumblr Deal? Tumblrers, That’s WhoBuying Tumblr Will Leave Yahoo With The Same Old Identity CrisisPhoto by Web09last_img read more

HTC One Officially Gets A Google Nexus Version

first_imgTags:#Android#Google#HTC#now The HTC One will be getting the Nexus treatment, according to Google’s Android head Sundar Pichai. Speaking at AllThingsD’s executive conference today, Pichai said that the HTC will get a stripped down version of Android that replaces HTC’s Sense skin with the classic unadulterated Android Nexus skin from Google.Samsung had already announced a Nexus version of its Galaxy S4 at the Google I/O developer conference earlier this month. The Nexus HTC One will be available on June 26 for $599 through the Google Play store. Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Related Posts What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech …center_img The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology dan rowinski Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagementlast_img