Blue Train

He wasn't even made a Prince, or the rarely used King consort. That the Queen can do on her own. To be a King on par with the Queen....it would need parliament's approval, which is why Prince Albert was only made Prince consort with Queen Victoria....even though she wanted to make him equal to her. Elizabeth Duex didn't even make Phillip a Prince of the UK until 5-years after she became Queen. P.S. Like many royals in Europe....they're related. They're 3rd cousins. Actually that law just went into a effect a few months ago. It had to be approved by all the 16 Commonwealth realms. Edited in a correction. I meant to say he wasn't made a Prince of the UK until 5-years after she was Queen and not after they were married. Only her father could have done that before becoming Queen.

Scott Joplin Richard Zimmerman Bob Dylan aka Robert Allen Zimmerman

Jim Bowie Davy Crokett Antonio López de Santa Anna

Carroll O'Connor Jean Stapleton Norman Lear

Man Booker Prize's Longlist was announced. http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/longlist-2013-announced

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-aaron-rodgers-ryan-braun-bet-20130723,0,235644.story

You're welcome.

You're welcome, David. While I can see what he's saying about Jarrett....especially the trio (whom to me are just in cruise control for the benjamins.)....I have to agree with you about Shipp.

No way it's going to be Richard. Without Richard III being killed....Elizabeth II wouldn't have ended up on the throne. You would think they would avoid George. All the Georges (including her father) were from the German part of the family. They wouldn't be Windsors if her Great-Grandfather didn't change the name of the house from Sax-Coburg & Gotha during WWI. The first George couldn't even speak English until much latter in his reign. The first two were not even born in England. I understand why it's so important to many in the UK/Commonwealth....why people in the US care so much?....tried to watch the news yesterday and it's all they were talking about.

Yes where? I'd be interested to read that... As the person that posted it twice now....ask and you will receive....because the third time is the charm. haha The full interview once again. The part about Braxton is in part 2. Cecil Taylor also is involved. http://www.furious.com/perfect/matthewshipp.html

Over/under the amount of lawyers hoping Laurenzi, Jr. now calls him/her?

The link doesn't work. Here is another. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9499560

It didn't matter whom he was acting with in a scene....he steals everyone of them. Be well, Mr. Farina

Ryan Braun Suspended (for the rest of the year) for Doping and he's not contesting it this time. The only reason he wasn't suspended last time was as a result of procedural issues....not that he was innocent. He also straight out lied about this initially. At no time did he bring up making mistakes. He was saying he only went to Biogenesis to use them for consulting in the previous incident. It will make it hard for the other 15, or so associated with Biogenesis....especially Mr. April. I think he and the Yankees were hoping he comes back/breaks down and then cash out on the insurance as a result of the hip and just walk away before they could suspend him. If he get's the 100 games they're talking about that takes them through the first couple months of next year as well if he doesn't fight it. There is even talk about charging him for two separate violations for a total of 150 games. He turns 38 later this month. You the know the Yankees are going to do what they can to get out of his contract after the arbitrator's final decision on how long. Edited in. TJ Quinn on ESPN brought up a possible lifetime ban for Mr. April. He allegedly tried to impede the investigation and MLB has even more evidence against him than they did against Braun. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/sports/baseball/ryan-braun-suspended-for-doping.html

A L'ARME! FESTIVAL August 8-10 http://www.radialsystem.de/rebrush/rs-alarme.php

Come on....the Stros have 66 games to make up the 23.5 games they're behind. At this point they're trying to avoid their third 100+ losing season while still getting the #1 pick in next year's draft. I feel bad for the fans. As well as the players that are being thrown into the meat grinder in hopes of higher draft picks. It's going to be ugly for many years unless Crane starts bringing in free agents. Even when they start bringing up the players from their farm system....it's going to take them a few years to live up to the hype. As Aggie87 pointed out....this is going to be a complete stripping/rebuilding from the foundation up.

Lester Young Stan Getz Kenny Barron

Bono aka Paul Hewson William Hewson Bill Russell

@ GA Russell - it was $70 million with half paid by McLane and half by the MLB @ Aggie87 - have a good deal of family/friends from/in Texas. The few that are Stros fans hated it and I have yet to hear from any friend that does haha They're probably looking @ next year's #1 pick as well. The third year in a row if I am not mistaken. The top prospects are all pitchers. Now onto shit Joe Canseco tweets. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/jose-canseco-who-insane-dropped-some-science

Not sure why Crane was so desperate to buy a team that he agreed to have the team moved to the AL as part of the sale. Going from the NL to the AL and with that payroll. It's a miracle they won as many as they have. Unfortunately they're going to be bad for a good while. They better hope the farm system turns out to be as good as people are rating it. Mark Appel has the makings of a potential big name pitcher if he stays healthy. At least if they ever get a hitter that's any good....they can move him to DL as he get's older. P.S. At least on the "bright side" front this year.....Tampa Bay and Miami have a worse attendance....and Tampa Bay is in 2nd in the East.

Because they're holding out on the hope that Congress will change the law and make it an equal playing field. If that happens the value of the stock will skyrocket.

These stories seem to be based on/to accept without independent verification the claims of Spotify, Pandora as to how they do business, what their costs are, the amounts they pay in royalties, and how they apportion them. I'm not saying they're lying -- I don't know -- but why would one accept their version of the facts as sufficient? They're based on their publicly disclosed financial statements. And we know those can be trusted -- see recent behavior on Wall St. So, they're cooking the books to show they're losing money and hurt the value of the company....and the bottom line of those major investors, CEO, anyone else with shares? If a company is going to fix the books it's to make the stock value go up and make those doing it more money. No one fixes the books to get less money for themselves. P.S. I don't use either Pandora, or Spotify. I'm suggesting -- just suggesting, but again recent corporate behavior in general and the history of the music business in particular makes me suspicious -- that they have if not two actual sets of books a way of calculating/stating the bottom line that allows them to pay less in royalties that they otherwise might, and that savvy investors understand this and proceed accordingly. Given that royalty payments would seem to be the main cost of doing business for Spotify and the like (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting corners in this manner might be worth some risk. As for those in the firms who hold shares, I would assume that they are in it for long haul, and that once the royalties model that works for the firms is established/accepted, there will be time down the road for rewards to be reaped. The only way this has a chance of working is if the stock value goes up, which it's not. Just like with Amazon....investors are not happy of no profit. It took 8-years for Amazon to show it's first profit....and they actually had a reason. They had to buy/build warehouses and stock everything they were selling and have a large workforce to get it all shipped. Pandora/Spotify just needs a few places to store their servers, but it's close to impossible to make a profit paying 80% more than non-internet companies. Pandora is in it's 12th year of loses and Spotify in it's 7th. At some point they're going to have to show a profit, or everyone will just jump ship.

PROs don't pay mechanical. That would be Harry Fox....and by "electronic royalties" do you mean the internet? That would be Soundexchange. SESAC also only pays for a feature performance. That could be why you're not getting anything from SESAC.

These stories seem to be based on/to accept without independent verification the claims of Spotify, Pandora as to how they do business, what their costs are, the amounts they pay in royalties, and how they apportion them. I'm not saying they're lying -- I don't know -- but why would one accept their version of the facts as sufficient? They're based on their publicly disclosed financial statements. And we know those can be trusted -- see recent behavior on Wall St. So, they're cooking the books to show they're losing money and hurt the value of the company....and the bottom line of those major investors, CEO, anyone else with shares? If a company is going to fix the books it's to make the stock value go up and make those doing it more money. No one fixes the books to get less money for themselves. P.S. I don't use either Pandora, or Spotify.