The poster talked about proofs that include God as part of the proof. For you to turn that into "disregarding the possibility" is disingenuous. There is an ocean of difference between disregarding a possibility and not seeing sufficient evidence to persuade.
The original parent wrote: "Pascal's Wager was first used as an argument for the existence of God.
There was then a reply that read: "Any philosophy which mentions the word `God` as part of its `proof` is probably not worth reading. I mean, why would you?"
Given the context of the original post (Pascal's Wager being an argument for the existence of God), the reply would suggest that Pascal's Wager is not worth reading because it mentions God. Granted, Pascal's Wager isn't a philosophy but the fact that that msg was in reply to the parent implies that the reply was rejecting Pascal's Wager because it included "God" in the "proof."
Actually, Pascal didn't even seem to say that God definitely exists. He just calculated that a rational person playing the odds would be better off believing in God.
But for you to offer that as evidence for a God is illogical.
Actually I don't believe that the failure of science in a given area is proof of God. But the more we learn the more we realize we have left to understand. Either we'll someday understand everything or the current trend will continue whereby knowing more just raises more questions about what we already know, sometimes throwing into doubt that which was already "certain" or proven.
You're probably a very logical person in everyday issues. You also, for whatever reason, want to believe in God. That desire clouds your ability to approach it logically.
I do believe in God, not because I WANT to but because I do. At the same time, I'm not a die-hard evangalist that believes everyone who believes differently than I do will burn in flames.
I admit a bias going into my conclusion (reached years ago) that God does exist, but I do believe I made a rational decision. If my conclusion had left any doubts in my mind, I would be able to confess that I had doubts. But I don't.
I happen to be, for whatever reason, predisposed to not expecting a God at the end of the tunnel. However, don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for you! I of course hope you're right. I just don't think you are.
I understand. I was (and am) predisposed to expect God at the end of the tunnel. I kept that predisposition in mind when I spent time reviewing whether my faith was blind or reasonable.
I think that the more science learns, the more it will seem quite improbable that it all happened by pure chance. Sure, we could be that one in nearly infinity chance, it could be the laws of physics have to work the way they do because there is no other way. But, personally, I think the more we discover about the world, galaxy, and universe around us the more it becomes quite improbable that it "just happened."
I know that most astronauts return with increased faith, or FIND faith. I've heard that that is often the case of many scientists, too--presumably as they discover how it all works they come to the conclusion that it was made by "someone," just as someone rebuilding a car engine can gain appreciation of those that designed it and quickly discards the possibility the engine just happened to come together by itself.
In regards to the possibility of making fake cards to get more minutes, they'll probably have a central database that will keep track of which cards have been purchased, and used.
They have a system like that here in Mexico, where I currently live. Effectively, it's a database of valid cards. The cards themselves have expiration dates, and then once you add the time to your account THAT has an expiration to. So when you buy more time from 7-11, you have to make sure the "Expire Date" hasn't passed or they will have already purged that card from their DB. Once you add your minutes, you have to use them within a month or two or they get wiped.
The good side to the system is that often their central accounting DB apparently goes down. When that happens, pre-paid users can call anywhere in the world for as long as they want and it won't be charged to them. That's always cool, although I've never taken advantage of it since I never had anyone to call at the exact time when their system crashed.:)
What I don't understand is if you can buy "additional talk time of 60, 90, and 120" minutes, are they really "disposable?" Is "disposable" the right word? Or just very low-quality, low-end cell phones that cost $29 instead of more?
Excuse me, but when was the last time either of those nations attacked the US?
So you advocate a pre-Pearl Harbor/pre-9/11 approach where we should do absolutely nothing to protect ourselves until thousands of our citizens are killed? Would it not be better to have a defense system in place that would make it clear that a missile attack on the U.S. would be futile, so why even consider it? It will save lives on both sides--U.S. lives from the missile attack and lives on the other side from the inevitable counter-strike.
Are they ever likely to, unless provoked?
I don't know, do you presume to? How many millions of lives are you willing to stake on your belief?
And would it be by a missile?
It's certainly possible, especially given North Korea's recent interest in ballistic missile tests. Iraq also showed their fondness for missiles when they lobbed a few into Israel during the Gulf War.
Or do people in Congress have "friends/family" and "election fund contributors" in the defence industry, backing this worthless system?
That's certainly possible, too, but it does not eliminate the potential real usefulness of the system.
You decide.
Thanks, I'll take the missile defense system.
Save billions on anti-missile systems by not annoying/invading/subverting other countries. It works surprisingly well.
Yeah, ask Western Europe how well it worked with Germany. Ask Kuwait how well it worked with Iraq. Remember how well it worked with Japan (remembering that we only denied them oil because they wanted to take over SE Asia/Pacific).
Sorry, not annoying, invading, or suberting other countries is no guarantee against an attack. History shows that conclusively.
Believe me, these people don't dislike the US because they hate "freedom and democracy" or the dominant religion, despite what your rulers & media want you to believe.
I really don't care why they like or dislike us. I might not like the Taliban or Afghanistan, but I didn't favor invading them until 9/11. They don't want us to annoy them? They shouldn't annoy us. It works both ways.
This illogical kind of thinking annoys me however.
Illogical thinking? Illogical to strive to develop a missle defense system that would protect our country from small missile strikes which are quite probably the most probable type of missile attack?
Is it more illogical to protect ourselves with a missle defense that does no-one damage and protects us? Or should we invade every potential country that may be attempting to create ballistic missiles just to be sure? I'd prefer the missile defense system.
At least it acknowledges that there are things that we simply cannot explain.
I believe in God out of faith and conviction. But even so it is amusing to see people disregard the possibility of God and then offer no "proven" alternative and offer only theories that, lacking proof, are no more likely to be true than the existince of God.
Tell me again why I should believe them instead of God? Or better yet, tell me again why I need to believe them at the EXCLUSION of God?
I believe if you did that you would remain essentially stationary over the point of launch. You can't just wait for the earth to rotate below you since you have inertia and will rotate with the earth. Anti-gravity wouldn't change that.
What will be interesting is if anti-gravity works, would it require more or less energy than modern aviation technology? It seems that it probably requires less energy to create lift under a wing than to counteract the earth's gravity.
I think his point was that just because the Moon doesn't block "gravitons" doesn't mean nothing else can. Perhaps the Moon just isn't made of the right material to do it. I certainly don't see the moon being made out of superconductive material and spun over a strong electromagnet.
That said, and not having researched this at all, I have to wonder if the 2% reduction in weight when spinning a superconductive object over strong electromagnets isn't just some kind of magnetic effect rather than an anti-gravity effect.
... Unless you are defending against countries like North Korea or Iraq that WON'T be launching a hundred dummy bombs. And that's specifically what missile defense is designed for--rogue nations, not an all out assault by the Russians or perhaps China. It also seems more probable that a nuclear missile attack would most probably be launched by a rogue nation rather than countries such as Russia or China with "more to lose."
So, yes, missile defense DOES make sense even if it can only zap an incoming attack of two or three missiles. That's the most probable nuclear threat that the U.S. faces.
Re:Have I got a product for you..
on
Voices in Your Head
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Think Minority Report - personalized advertisements etc. only you can hear.
Off-topic, but...
I just saw Minority Report last night. While it would make sense that you'd only hear the advertising directed at you, I got the impression that wasn't the case. You could hear the "voice advertising" at the Gap store talking to the next customer that came in and Tom Cruise gave the customer a weird look for his choice of previous purchases.
The kind of "advertising" shown in Minority Report would be both annoying and an invasion of privacy since it appeared everyone could hear your name and/or whatever "customized message" the advertiser wanted you to hear.
I often wonder which will happen first: A "Minority Report" style advertising world where we're (even more) saturated with messages, or a world where the advertising world realizes that they've already reached saturation, the laws of diminishing returns have set in, and prodicing more intrusive advertisements in larger quantities only diminishes the consumers' response to such messages as they automatically "tune them out."
I'll concede half a point on this one. I looked into it and the founding members of EPI are all Democrats. I'll withold half a point though as they are a long way from fringe liberal quacks. Every one has a list of accomplishments as long as your arm and each has served at one time or another as advisors to presidents or legislators in Congress. And unless you're saying that all Democrats are by definition quacks, you'll have to give me the 1/2 point.
Actually, I didn't even use the word "quack."
That said--and I admittedly haven't checked their list of individual accomplishments--it depends on what their accomplishments were. Anyone can serve as an advisor to a president or a legislator. That means you have favor in your party or with a certain president or legislator that generally agrees with your viewpoint. It doesn't automatically mean you are right. It does make good resume fodder though.
The average minimum wage increment over the last 40 years has been 26 cents..26 * 40 hours/week = $10.40 If a company goes bankrupt by paying workers an additional $10.40/worker/week, their profit margin is so razor-thin thay they aren't really viable anyway.
Again, I'm not saying that by having a minimum wage of $3.35 and raising it to $3.70 that a list of companies will automatically go bankrupt. You do, however, push them in that direction. The question is how much and how quickly.
You mention, in the above example, $10.40 a week. What if the company has 1000 employees? That's suddenly $10,400 per week, or half a million dollars a year. Sure, if that's enough to bankrupt the company perhaps they're cutting it close. But that's how many companies are, especially those that have very slim profit margins or are just starting out. A company with a quarter million dollars in profits is certainly viable and the minimum wage increase you mentioned would make it a loser instead of profitable.
Now you can argue that raising the minimum wage is useful in that many companies won't go bankrupt, they'll pay their employees more. But you cannot reject the fact that some companies will go bankrupt and others will have to reduce their workforce to cut costs. The only thing you can argue is that the cost (increased unemployment, some bankruptcies, potential inflation) is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being poorly paid laborers.
I would wager that the increments they are advocating are primarilary to preserve the buying power of the minimum wage and to offset devaluation caused by inflation. This devaluation requires that the wage hike be keyed to current buying power rather than some nice arbitrary amount like 5 cents.
You originally painted Bernstein and Schmitt as saying that you could merrily raise the minimum wage without any reprecussions. That may not be what Bernstein and Schmitt said, but that's what I understood from you.
That said, you didn't address my question about whether we could legislate a $100k minimum wage. Can we do that? Would it work? Or would companies go bankrupt and/or reduce their workforce? Would unemployement increase or decrease? Or would there be inflation such that everyone made $100k/year, but a Pepsi would then cost $25? These are important questions that I'd very much like to see you address.
Produce a study written by conservatives. Liberals don't have a monopoly on PR
True, although just because liberals want to prove an absurdity doesn't mean that conservatives necessarily are going to waste time refuting it. Not trying to offend you (if you are a liberal), but in all honesty liberals tend to generate so many reports and studies that make absolutely no sense that if conservatives refuted each and every one there'd be no time to do REAL work. Liberals often like to live in academia and talk about and discuss reality while conservatives are more frequently knee-deep in it.
Thanks for a most enjoyable argument:)
You too. I hope we can continue it... I think there's still plenty more that can be said, surely on both sides.:)
Show me the numbers. Your arguments are basically just logical constructs and as any scientist could tell you, very frequently hard data contradicts what was assumed to be logical.
I don't have to show you the numbers. It's absolutely logical. And your references to a questionable report written by liberal economists for the liberal EPI think-tank is hardly "proof" of your position. This is one of those papers where some insane claim is made ("raising minimum wage helps and doesn't hurt anyone") and then countless others refer to it ad-nauseum without questioning the original report.
If there is no harm in raising the minimum wage, then why not assign a minimum wage of $100k per year for everyone? Then we can all buy houses, have two SUVs in the garage, and take a couple trips to Cancun each year.
That's absurd, I hear you cry? I agree. It won't work. You can't just set the minimum wage at $100k per year and believe that society will legislate its way into prosperity.
So why won't it work? $100k per year is a rediculous mininum wage? What about $50k? What about $30k? At what point does it stop being rediculous? At what point will companies either go bankrupt because they can't pay the minimum wage, or will have to let people go so that they CAN pay the minimum wage to those who are left?
It turns out, it's NOT a magic number. It's not all or nothing. A $30k minimum wage isn't going to work and then a a $31k minimum wage cause all companies to fail or layoff employees. It's incremental. Every increase pushes, little by little, companies into either raising their prices (pressuring inflation), letting a few employees go, or going out of business.
If miniumum wage was 5 cents an hour we'd most likely have full employment, although poorly paid. For every amount you increase minimum wage, those earning minimum wage will earn more--but SOME NON-ZERO NUMBER of people will be without work. That's why with a 5 cent minimum wage everyone would be employed while with a $100k minimum wage you would call it absurd and very few would be employed.
Despite liberals' attempts to try to reject simple economic principles, if we can admit that with a 5 cent minimum wage virtually everyone would be employed while with a $100k minimum wage the system would collapse, then you have just agreed with me--and rejected the conclusions of "Bernstein and Schmitt (1998)."
Re-quoting from the page you cited, and including part of the following paragraph:
The most recent increase in the minimum wage -- the $0.90 increase phased in over the 1996-97 period -- is a case in point. The study noted above examined the short-term effects of the increase and found that the policy had its intended effect: it raised the wages of low-wage workers from low-income families without leading to job losses.
However, many critics of the last increase argued that the negative effects take a few years to materialize. [5] If so, the current low-wage labor market should certainly be providing this evidence. Yet, month after month, low-wage and minority workers post historic employment gains.
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the study was concerning an increase in the 1996-1997 years and they were waiting for the "few years" for it to materialize. Only that those few years led right into the peak of the insane "growing" (to the point of bursting) economy we had in the second half of the last decade. They did their study during a very atypical period in our economy, and one that eventually burst. The apparent growth and strength of the economy eclipsed the effects of the 90 cent increase. That doesn't mean there weren't any negative affects, just that they were a blip compared to the overall growth of the economy.
As is the case with Clinton, the economy grew IN SPITE of a minimum wage hike (and in spite of Clinton), not because of either.
It's hard to argue with some liberals that produce "studies" written by liberal "professors" in the liberal bastions of "higher learning" for liberal organizations such as the Keystone Research
Center to disprove what must be true in the hopes that their conclusions would achieve a POLITICAL end: getting a state minimum wage law passed in Pennsylvania. Check the original material produced by Bernstein and Schmitt--the conclusion at the end of their report was:
"In light of the evidence, Pennsylvania should join the six other states that have increased their state-level minimum wage above the federal level... Even so, to accommodate those with concerns about competition for investment Pennsylvania legislators could condition a state minimum wage increase on increases in three or more of the six surrounding
states."
In other words, the report had political ends. If it were truly an economic report the results could have stood by themselves to be referred to by those that needed it. But no, Bernstein and Schmitt went into this with the goal of trying to justify and support a state minimum wage in Pennsylvania. Of course, they put a clause in their conclusion that essentially says, "But that for those of you who know this is BS and defies common sense and are worried about our state losing investment to neighboring states that have more common sense, we only suggest Pennsylvania do this if more than half of the neighboring states jump off the bridge, too."
I'm sorry, but unless you believe we can set the minimum wage to $100k and solve the income problems of our population, then you are admitting that Bernstein and Schmitt are spewing animal feces.
Minimum wage protects unskilled labour from the pressures of a free market that does not value work done for the common good.
It protects unskilled labor from the pressures of a free market that does not value work that doesn't require any skill (hence the term "unskilled labor). It has nothing to do with the common good.
The common good is served by policemen and firemen. They both earn more than the minimum wage. The common good is served by air traffic controllers that keep airplanes from falling on our heads (generally). They earn more than minimum wage. The common good is served by construction workers that build houses, buildings, streets, and highways. They earn more than minimum wage.
On the other hand, society will not fall apart if McDoanld's stops selling hamburgers. They pay minimum wage. Life will not end if the local Gap store stops selling clothes to teenagers. They pay minimum wage.
It has nothing to do with "the common good" and everything to do with how much a person knows.
Minimum wage jobs OUGHT to be for high-school and some college students as they increase their education so, by around 23-25, they can get a "real" job that pays a respectable amount of money--leaving their minimum wage job for the next student to work at for a few years.
The problem is so many people get a minimum wage job (or two, or three) and just stay there. That's their choice. They'll earn more than the average college student of the same age during the years that the college student is earning next to nothing and going into debt. But in a decade the college student is much better off. They each made their choice.
And don't tell me about "the poor have no opportunity to get an education." That line is so tired. Public education is free in the U.S. up to grade 12. Even in "bad schools," a student that wants to excel WILL--and a student that excels in a "bad school" will be scholarship material based on merit or on need. OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR THOSE THAT WANT IT. I find it hard to pity those that don't take advantage of the opportunities available to them.
In fighting against a fair minimum wage you are seeking to perpetuate the oppression of the poorly educated, unskilled workforce, just like the land owning Lords and Knights of hundreds of years ago in Britain.
By fighting an artificially high minimum wage, I am fighting for a society where those earning the minimum wage are students on their way to better jobs.
Whether we increase the minimum wage to $10 or $15, I would never wish that on anybody. I would much rather that they work hard and get a job where they earn $50k or $100k per year rather than stagnating at $15/hour because that's what the government says is the absolute least they can be paid. The former is better for the economy as well as for the individual.
Here in the uk - this mantra was repeated every day by the CBI and other employers groups. We then put in a minimum wage and... unemployment and inflation continue to fall. Even the CBI now agrees that they were mistaken.
See other previous post.
If you increase minimum wage, you WILL hurt employement. However, if you do it during a healthy economy it is possible the effect will not be as noticeable because the healthy economy is creating more jobs than the minimum wage is killing.
If unemployment and inflation fall while minimum wage is increased, it's because your economy is doing so well that other factors are contributing positively to the economy more than the minimum wage is taking from it. However, you would have had even LESS unemployment and inflation had the minimum wage not been increased.
The fact remains that an increase in minimum wage MUST have a negative effect on employment. This is accepted economic fact. I don't even know any liberals that argue that fact--they just argue whether or not it's "worth it." And it will be worth it to the majority that get a higher wage; but tell that to the people put out of work as a direct result of the increased mininum wage. And those that are thrown out of work are inevitably those that WERE earning the minimum wage before it increased.
currently alot of people in the usa have to work two jobs at minimum wage just to pay the rent. your point?
I'm out of work and have been since 2001. That's when the consulting budgets got cut for my kind of firmware development.
Yes, there are many people that have it hard. Many have to work two jobs to make ends meet. Increasing their pay sounds like a great way to solve that right? Wrong.
If you increase the wages of those earning minimum wage you will find that the companies that employ them will tend to look for ways to get the job done with fewer employees. They're not just going to accept the increase in minimum wage and take a cut in their profit.
One of two things will happen:
They will reduce their workforce. So those that remain will earn more, but you'll have more people unemployed. This will happen if they are in a market that doesn't allow them much room to increase their price due to competition.
If they can, they will increase what they charge to their customers in order to cover the increase in minimum wage. In that case, the buck is passed to all of the economy, creating pressures on inflation. I need not explain the problems caused by inflation.
There is no free lunch. You can't just raise minimum wage and smile that you've solved the problem. Someone has to pay for it. It will either be minimum wage employees that are thrown out of work or it will be the entire economy in increased pressure on inflation.
the easiest jobs pay the most and the hardest sometimes pay the least,
That depends on what you define as "easy." If you mean that those that are educated and have a vast amount of technical experience but all they do is sit in the office and write programs and go to meetings while coal miners are stuck 250 feet under the ground, sure.
In this culture and economy, however, it's not the physical effort or risk you take that increases your salary--it is your knowledge. That's why we have the expression "It ain't rocket science" instead of "It ain't coal mining."
pay the ceo less money and suddenly you can raise the wages of your workers.
I agree many (not all) CEOs are paid too much. That said, you'd be surprised how LITTLE you could increase all the employee's salaries by taking it from the high-paid executives. That's the same logic whereby many liberals say, "Hey, let's just take the wealth of the richest 1000 people in the country." It turns out that ends up being enough to run the government for like a month or two. Or if you distributed Bill Gates' WORTH (not all of it is cash, not by a longshot) to every American, each American would only get about $175.
In the end, the best way to earn more money is to better yourself. If you're working at McDonald's at minimum wage and you're not studying, be it in high school or college, then you've chosen the easy, low-income route. Don't cry to the government to give you raises when you didn't choose to finish your education.
There doesn't seem to be any correlation between an increase in minimum wage and subsequent increase in unemployment. In fact, during the internet boom when everyone was making gobs of money, unemployment was lower than it's been in years and this can't be wholly attributed to shifty accounting, most companies were on the up and up, so your high pay=high unemployment theory is complete bunk.
Increases in the mininum wage WILL increase unemployment. However, if you increase minimum wage during a growing economy it may be that the growing economy will more than compensate for the decrease. I.e., MORE jobs would have been created if the mininum wage hadn't been increased.
High pay != High unemployment always, and that is not my theory.
High pay for uneducated workers that are making minimum wage and only get raises because of increases in the minimum wage DOES increase unemployment in that same group of people. Or, at best, causes no increase in unemployment but WILL cause inflation as the wage increase is passed on to the rest of the econony.
Your unemployment statistics aren't searchable based on salary. If you increase minimum wage, no-one earning $100k is going to get thrown out of work. It is very probable, though, that McDonald's and other minimum wage employers will attempt to get by on fewer employees. That's increased unemployment for those earning minimum wage.
Well, things are changing, the economy is not all that great anymore and now its hard to get a job. Whats the solution? Well the first thing we can do RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE
Been awhile since you studied economics, huh?
Raising minimum wage COSTS jobs, it does not create them. Sure, those "lucky" few at the bottom of the economic ladder that keep their jobs will earn a little more... but thousands or even millions will find themselves without work.
Raising minimum wage also tends to cause inflation. You are paying people more despite a lack of any increase in productivity. This tends to cause inflation in the economy.
So you have more people out of work in an economy pushing towards inflation. Yeah, good idea.
All workers should be of equal value, value should be based on the job done not the country you are from, you should get paid the same if you are in pakistan as you would if you were in the USA.
This will happen eventually. But it won't be because of any minimum wage laws. It will be because of FREE TRADE WORLDWIDE. When all trade barriers in the world are removed and no taxes are charged to import anything from anywhere, you will find the standard of living throughout the world becoming much more equal.
And this requires fewer laws (i.e. no tarrif laws), not more laws (i.e., not more minimum wage laws).
Re:This is really good news and here is why...
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 1
The ironic thing is there would probably still be environmental wackos complaining and worried about global warming despite the fact that a rock was going to evaporate an ocean or a continent anyway...
On the other hand, I think the rest of the world would be very interested once they found out which continent was going to get it--that way they'd know who to large outrageous "immigrant visas" to.:) "Oh, you want to move away from North America? $20,000. Too much? Well, just stay there then.":)
I think it has something to do with the "in" belief that extinct civilizations somehow knew something we don't despite not having any reason to believe that other than that they were able to observe the sun, moon, and stars and draw some conclusions and build cool pyramids of heavy rock.
Hence, if their calendar ends in 2012 that must mean something...:)
Re:This is really good news and here is why...
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 1
To be fair to terrorism, I think it united the U.S. for more than 5 minutes. I estimated it to be about 1-3 months, depending on where you live.
-1 Redundant. The Mayan civilization ended centuries ago. They just picked a date that was long enough after the end of their civilization that it wouldn't matter to them.:)
Most of who will have no idea that $10,000 paid to company X wasn't really for capital equipment but for maintenance, or even if there was a transaction at all!
$10k, no, but 3.8 billion in miscategorized funds should get someone's attention.
No, not everyone that sees the data will necessarily understand or care. But just the fact that the information is being published daily in full view of the stockholders, market analysts, and government officials will do wonders to make that data correct.
You presume compliance by the persons using the software, which is essentially where all the problems show up anyhow... Oversight is necessary, Oversight must also be impartial. And that is the problem.
And my suggestion is the solution.
Yes, they can still enter bogus categories, etc. for their expenses. But if their bogus data appears on public websites and at the SEC within 24-hours, with thousands of even millions of eyes looking at their data, believe me, years will not go by before 3.8 billion of bogusly classified expenses is detected.
Firstly, the market has not spoken; the mob has spoken.
They are one and the same.
Do you consider "the market" to be so broad as to encompass theft?
Inasmuch as stealing physical product, no.
Inasmuch as high prices provoking cheap knock-offs and, in the case of intellectual property, giving rise to "piracy", yes.
I may just go out and buy me a Porche (which I have conveniently valued at $0).
If you can look at a Porsche at a dealership and make an exact copy without the dealership being less one Porsche, I fully support your right to do that.
Secondly, for all the people bitching about how the artists aren't being fairly compensated, the reason is that there is a huge glut of wannabe musicians out there.
Which brings us back to the point that even if no-one pays for music, there will be music.
We all have to eat, but most of us don't eat in restaurants every day.
Nor do they. There are supermarkets distributed conveniently around the country. They can buy a loaf of bread, some jam, and jelly just as easily as I can.
People who are good at what they do deserve a chance to make good money.
Everyone has a right to TRY to make money at doing what they're good at. No-one is entitled (i.e. deserves) to anything at all.
I might be very, very good at jumping off mountains but that doesn't mean anyone is willing to pay me for it--or that I deserve to be paid for what I am good at.
You have organized it such that even a successful band will barely break even.
A successful band can charge $20 per ticket and fill a venue with 1000 people. If the band keeps half, that's $10,000 for one night's work. That's completely feasible. Yes, for a succesful band. There are many very talented programmers that don't earn a million per year, either.
And for the privilege of making peanuts, they have to literally live on the road. That's just crazy.
Perhaps. And if they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't feel forced to. Like you said, there are a hundred other bands that will gladly make the sacrifice in their place.
If free music advocates simply made equally good music and allowed people to copy it that would be defensible, but consumers are greedy and they want all the best music for free.
They want and expect it to be free because it CAN be free and has been free. The RIAA fell asleep at the wheel. They should have saw Napster coming from a mile away and lowered prices from $20 per CD to, say, $3 or $4. Sell the product so cheap that there is no motiviation to make free copies. But no, they kept raising prices and technology passed them by. The cat is out of the bag. It's too late to go back. Perhaps if they had lowered prices "free music" wouldn't have been so tempting and they'd still have a business model, albeit selling at $4 instead of $20--but it beats the $0 they'll be charging soon.
I'm sorry, I have no sympathy. There will always be music and, as such, there is no reason I should pay for it. Perhaps you'll stop making music. I'm sorry to hear that, I'm sure someone will miss you and promptly listen to the other 100 musicians that pop up in your place.
If I can deny the message before the session even reaches the DATA phase (i.e. by using RBL's and checking the header), then I don't have to deal with the spam at all.
I've modified my sendmail to detect when an incoming mail is spam. It is detected during the DATA phase and as soon as it is identified as spam, I hang up on the connection.
My spam has gone from 40-50 per day down to about 4 or 5--and that will get better as I review that remaining spam and improve my spam-detection logic.
Slashdot Mirror
The original parent wrote: "Pascal's Wager was first used as an argument for the existence of God.
There was then a reply that read: "Any philosophy which mentions the word `God` as part of its `proof` is probably not worth reading. I mean, why would you?"
Given the context of the original post (Pascal's Wager being an argument for the existence of God), the reply would suggest that Pascal's Wager is not worth reading because it mentions God. Granted, Pascal's Wager isn't a philosophy but the fact that that msg was in reply to the parent implies that the reply was rejecting Pascal's Wager because it included "God" in the "proof."
Actually, Pascal didn't even seem to say that God definitely exists. He just calculated that a rational person playing the odds would be better off believing in God.
But for you to offer that as evidence for a God is illogical.
Actually I don't believe that the failure of science in a given area is proof of God. But the more we learn the more we realize we have left to understand. Either we'll someday understand everything or the current trend will continue whereby knowing more just raises more questions about what we already know, sometimes throwing into doubt that which was already "certain" or proven.
You're probably a very logical person in everyday issues. You also, for whatever reason, want to believe in God. That desire clouds your ability to approach it logically.
I do believe in God, not because I WANT to but because I do. At the same time, I'm not a die-hard evangalist that believes everyone who believes differently than I do will burn in flames.
I admit a bias going into my conclusion (reached years ago) that God does exist, but I do believe I made a rational decision. If my conclusion had left any doubts in my mind, I would be able to confess that I had doubts. But I don't.
I happen to be, for whatever reason, predisposed to not expecting a God at the end of the tunnel. However, don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for you! I of course hope you're right. I just don't think you are.
I understand. I was (and am) predisposed to expect God at the end of the tunnel. I kept that predisposition in mind when I spent time reviewing whether my faith was blind or reasonable.
I think that the more science learns, the more it will seem quite improbable that it all happened by pure chance. Sure, we could be that one in nearly infinity chance, it could be the laws of physics have to work the way they do because there is no other way. But, personally, I think the more we discover about the world, galaxy, and universe around us the more it becomes quite improbable that it "just happened."
I know that most astronauts return with increased faith, or FIND faith. I've heard that that is often the case of many scientists, too--presumably as they discover how it all works they come to the conclusion that it was made by "someone," just as someone rebuilding a car engine can gain appreciation of those that designed it and quickly discards the possibility the engine just happened to come together by itself.
They have a system like that here in Mexico, where I currently live. Effectively, it's a database of valid cards. The cards themselves have expiration dates, and then once you add the time to your account THAT has an expiration to. So when you buy more time from 7-11, you have to make sure the "Expire Date" hasn't passed or they will have already purged that card from their DB. Once you add your minutes, you have to use them within a month or two or they get wiped.
The good side to the system is that often their central accounting DB apparently goes down. When that happens, pre-paid users can call anywhere in the world for as long as they want and it won't be charged to them. That's always cool, although I've never taken advantage of it since I never had anyone to call at the exact time when their system crashed. :)
So you advocate a pre-Pearl Harbor/pre-9/11 approach where we should do absolutely nothing to protect ourselves until thousands of our citizens are killed? Would it not be better to have a defense system in place that would make it clear that a missile attack on the U.S. would be futile, so why even consider it? It will save lives on both sides--U.S. lives from the missile attack and lives on the other side from the inevitable counter-strike.
Are they ever likely to, unless provoked?
I don't know, do you presume to? How many millions of lives are you willing to stake on your belief?
And would it be by a missile?
It's certainly possible, especially given North Korea's recent interest in ballistic missile tests. Iraq also showed their fondness for missiles when they lobbed a few into Israel during the Gulf War.
Or do people in Congress have "friends/family" and "election fund contributors" in the defence industry, backing this worthless system?
That's certainly possible, too, but it does not eliminate the potential real usefulness of the system.
You decide.
Thanks, I'll take the missile defense system.
Save billions on anti-missile systems by not annoying/invading/subverting other countries. It works surprisingly well.
Yeah, ask Western Europe how well it worked with Germany. Ask Kuwait how well it worked with Iraq. Remember how well it worked with Japan (remembering that we only denied them oil because they wanted to take over SE Asia/Pacific).
Sorry, not annoying, invading, or suberting other countries is no guarantee against an attack. History shows that conclusively.
Believe me, these people don't dislike the US because they hate "freedom and democracy" or the dominant religion, despite what your rulers & media want you to believe.
I really don't care why they like or dislike us. I might not like the Taliban or Afghanistan, but I didn't favor invading them until 9/11. They don't want us to annoy them? They shouldn't annoy us. It works both ways.
This illogical kind of thinking annoys me however.
Illogical thinking? Illogical to strive to develop a missle defense system that would protect our country from small missile strikes which are quite probably the most probable type of missile attack?
Is it more illogical to protect ourselves with a missle defense that does no-one damage and protects us? Or should we invade every potential country that may be attempting to create ballistic missiles just to be sure? I'd prefer the missile defense system.
I believe in God out of faith and conviction. But even so it is amusing to see people disregard the possibility of God and then offer no "proven" alternative and offer only theories that, lacking proof, are no more likely to be true than the existince of God.
Tell me again why I should believe them instead of God? Or better yet, tell me again why I need to believe them at the EXCLUSION of God?
What will be interesting is if anti-gravity works, would it require more or less energy than modern aviation technology? It seems that it probably requires less energy to create lift under a wing than to counteract the earth's gravity.
Your mileage (and lift) may vary, of course...
That said, and not having researched this at all, I have to wonder if the 2% reduction in weight when spinning a superconductive object over strong electromagnets isn't just some kind of magnetic effect rather than an anti-gravity effect.
So, yes, missile defense DOES make sense even if it can only zap an incoming attack of two or three missiles. That's the most probable nuclear threat that the U.S. faces.
Off-topic, but...
I just saw Minority Report last night. While it would make sense that you'd only hear the advertising directed at you, I got the impression that wasn't the case. You could hear the "voice advertising" at the Gap store talking to the next customer that came in and Tom Cruise gave the customer a weird look for his choice of previous purchases.
The kind of "advertising" shown in Minority Report would be both annoying and an invasion of privacy since it appeared everyone could hear your name and/or whatever "customized message" the advertiser wanted you to hear.
I often wonder which will happen first: A "Minority Report" style advertising world where we're (even more) saturated with messages, or a world where the advertising world realizes that they've already reached saturation, the laws of diminishing returns have set in, and prodicing more intrusive advertisements in larger quantities only diminishes the consumers' response to such messages as they automatically "tune them out."
Two other better ways of knocking down walls:
At close range, bulldozers.
At long range, cruise missiles.
Both are tested and proven. :)
Actually, I didn't even use the word "quack."
That said--and I admittedly haven't checked their list of individual accomplishments--it depends on what their accomplishments were. Anyone can serve as an advisor to a president or a legislator. That means you have favor in your party or with a certain president or legislator that generally agrees with your viewpoint. It doesn't automatically mean you are right. It does make good resume fodder though.
The average minimum wage increment over the last 40 years has been 26 cents. .26 * 40 hours/week = $10.40 If a company goes bankrupt by paying workers an additional $10.40/worker/week, their profit margin is so razor-thin thay they aren't really viable anyway.
Again, I'm not saying that by having a minimum wage of $3.35 and raising it to $3.70 that a list of companies will automatically go bankrupt. You do, however, push them in that direction. The question is how much and how quickly.
You mention, in the above example, $10.40 a week. What if the company has 1000 employees? That's suddenly $10,400 per week, or half a million dollars a year. Sure, if that's enough to bankrupt the company perhaps they're cutting it close. But that's how many companies are, especially those that have very slim profit margins or are just starting out. A company with a quarter million dollars in profits is certainly viable and the minimum wage increase you mentioned would make it a loser instead of profitable.
Now you can argue that raising the minimum wage is useful in that many companies won't go bankrupt, they'll pay their employees more. But you cannot reject the fact that some companies will go bankrupt and others will have to reduce their workforce to cut costs. The only thing you can argue is that the cost (increased unemployment, some bankruptcies, potential inflation) is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being poorly paid laborers.
I would wager that the increments they are advocating are primarilary to preserve the buying power of the minimum wage and to offset devaluation caused by inflation. This devaluation requires that the wage hike be keyed to current buying power rather than some nice arbitrary amount like 5 cents.
You originally painted Bernstein and Schmitt as saying that you could merrily raise the minimum wage without any reprecussions. That may not be what Bernstein and Schmitt said, but that's what I understood from you.
That said, you didn't address my question about whether we could legislate a $100k minimum wage. Can we do that? Would it work? Or would companies go bankrupt and/or reduce their workforce? Would unemployement increase or decrease? Or would there be inflation such that everyone made $100k/year, but a Pepsi would then cost $25? These are important questions that I'd very much like to see you address.
Produce a study written by conservatives. Liberals don't have a monopoly on PR
True, although just because liberals want to prove an absurdity doesn't mean that conservatives necessarily are going to waste time refuting it. Not trying to offend you (if you are a liberal), but in all honesty liberals tend to generate so many reports and studies that make absolutely no sense that if conservatives refuted each and every one there'd be no time to do REAL work. Liberals often like to live in academia and talk about and discuss reality while conservatives are more frequently knee-deep in it.
Thanks for a most enjoyable argument:)
You too. I hope we can continue it... I think there's still plenty more that can be said, surely on both sides. :)
I don't have to show you the numbers. It's absolutely logical. And your references to a questionable report written by liberal economists for the liberal EPI think-tank is hardly "proof" of your position. This is one of those papers where some insane claim is made ("raising minimum wage helps and doesn't hurt anyone") and then countless others refer to it ad-nauseum without questioning the original report.
If there is no harm in raising the minimum wage, then why not assign a minimum wage of $100k per year for everyone? Then we can all buy houses, have two SUVs in the garage, and take a couple trips to Cancun each year.
That's absurd, I hear you cry? I agree. It won't work. You can't just set the minimum wage at $100k per year and believe that society will legislate its way into prosperity.
So why won't it work? $100k per year is a rediculous mininum wage? What about $50k? What about $30k? At what point does it stop being rediculous? At what point will companies either go bankrupt because they can't pay the minimum wage, or will have to let people go so that they CAN pay the minimum wage to those who are left?
It turns out, it's NOT a magic number. It's not all or nothing. A $30k minimum wage isn't going to work and then a a $31k minimum wage cause all companies to fail or layoff employees. It's incremental. Every increase pushes, little by little, companies into either raising their prices (pressuring inflation), letting a few employees go, or going out of business.
If miniumum wage was 5 cents an hour we'd most likely have full employment, although poorly paid. For every amount you increase minimum wage, those earning minimum wage will earn more--but SOME NON-ZERO NUMBER of people will be without work. That's why with a 5 cent minimum wage everyone would be employed while with a $100k minimum wage you would call it absurd and very few would be employed.
Despite liberals' attempts to try to reject simple economic principles, if we can admit that with a 5 cent minimum wage virtually everyone would be employed while with a $100k minimum wage the system would collapse, then you have just agreed with me--and rejected the conclusions of "Bernstein and Schmitt (1998)."
Re-quoting from the page you cited, and including part of the following paragraph:
- The most recent increase in the minimum wage -- the $0.90 increase phased in over the 1996-97 period -- is a case in point. The study noted above examined the short-term effects of the increase and found that the policy had its intended effect: it raised the wages of low-wage workers from low-income families without leading to job losses.
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the study was concerning an increase in the 1996-1997 years and they were waiting for the "few years" for it to materialize. Only that those few years led right into the peak of the insane "growing" (to the point of bursting) economy we had in the second half of the last decade. They did their study during a very atypical period in our economy, and one that eventually burst. The apparent growth and strength of the economy eclipsed the effects of the 90 cent increase. That doesn't mean there weren't any negative affects, just that they were a blip compared to the overall growth of the economy.However, many critics of the last increase argued that the negative effects take a few years to materialize. [5] If so, the current low-wage labor market should certainly be providing this evidence. Yet, month after month, low-wage and minority workers post historic employment gains.
As is the case with Clinton, the economy grew IN SPITE of a minimum wage hike (and in spite of Clinton), not because of either.
It's hard to argue with some liberals that produce "studies" written by liberal "professors" in the liberal bastions of "higher learning" for liberal organizations such as the Keystone Research Center to disprove what must be true in the hopes that their conclusions would achieve a POLITICAL end: getting a state minimum wage law passed in Pennsylvania. Check the original material produced by Bernstein and Schmitt--the conclusion at the end of their report was:
- "In light of the evidence, Pennsylvania should join the six other states that have increased their state-level minimum wage above the federal level... Even so, to accommodate those with concerns about competition for investment Pennsylvania legislators could condition a state minimum wage increase on increases in three or more of the six surrounding
states."
In other words, the report had political ends. If it were truly an economic report the results could have stood by themselves to be referred to by those that needed it. But no, Bernstein and Schmitt went into this with the goal of trying to justify and support a state minimum wage in Pennsylvania. Of course, they put a clause in their conclusion that essentially says, "But that for those of you who know this is BS and defies common sense and are worried about our state losing investment to neighboring states that have more common sense, we only suggest Pennsylvania do this if more than half of the neighboring states jump off the bridge, too."I'm sorry, but unless you believe we can set the minimum wage to $100k and solve the income problems of our population, then you are admitting that Bernstein and Schmitt are spewing animal feces.
It protects unskilled labor from the pressures of a free market that does not value work that doesn't require any skill (hence the term "unskilled labor). It has nothing to do with the common good.
The common good is served by policemen and firemen. They both earn more than the minimum wage. The common good is served by air traffic controllers that keep airplanes from falling on our heads (generally). They earn more than minimum wage. The common good is served by construction workers that build houses, buildings, streets, and highways. They earn more than minimum wage.
On the other hand, society will not fall apart if McDoanld's stops selling hamburgers. They pay minimum wage. Life will not end if the local Gap store stops selling clothes to teenagers. They pay minimum wage.
It has nothing to do with "the common good" and everything to do with how much a person knows.
Minimum wage jobs OUGHT to be for high-school and some college students as they increase their education so, by around 23-25, they can get a "real" job that pays a respectable amount of money--leaving their minimum wage job for the next student to work at for a few years.
The problem is so many people get a minimum wage job (or two, or three) and just stay there. That's their choice. They'll earn more than the average college student of the same age during the years that the college student is earning next to nothing and going into debt. But in a decade the college student is much better off. They each made their choice.
And don't tell me about "the poor have no opportunity to get an education." That line is so tired. Public education is free in the U.S. up to grade 12. Even in "bad schools," a student that wants to excel WILL--and a student that excels in a "bad school" will be scholarship material based on merit or on need. OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR THOSE THAT WANT IT. I find it hard to pity those that don't take advantage of the opportunities available to them.
In fighting against a fair minimum wage you are seeking to perpetuate the oppression of the poorly educated, unskilled workforce, just like the land owning Lords and Knights of hundreds of years ago in Britain.
By fighting an artificially high minimum wage, I am fighting for a society where those earning the minimum wage are students on their way to better jobs.
Whether we increase the minimum wage to $10 or $15, I would never wish that on anybody. I would much rather that they work hard and get a job where they earn $50k or $100k per year rather than stagnating at $15/hour because that's what the government says is the absolute least they can be paid. The former is better for the economy as well as for the individual.
See other previous post.
If you increase minimum wage, you WILL hurt employement. However, if you do it during a healthy economy it is possible the effect will not be as noticeable because the healthy economy is creating more jobs than the minimum wage is killing.
If unemployment and inflation fall while minimum wage is increased, it's because your economy is doing so well that other factors are contributing positively to the economy more than the minimum wage is taking from it. However, you would have had even LESS unemployment and inflation had the minimum wage not been increased.
The fact remains that an increase in minimum wage MUST have a negative effect on employment. This is accepted economic fact. I don't even know any liberals that argue that fact--they just argue whether or not it's "worth it." And it will be worth it to the majority that get a higher wage; but tell that to the people put out of work as a direct result of the increased mininum wage. And those that are thrown out of work are inevitably those that WERE earning the minimum wage before it increased.
One more left behind...
I'm out of work and have been since 2001. That's when the consulting budgets got cut for my kind of firmware development.
Yes, there are many people that have it hard. Many have to work two jobs to make ends meet. Increasing their pay sounds like a great way to solve that right? Wrong.
If you increase the wages of those earning minimum wage you will find that the companies that employ them will tend to look for ways to get the job done with fewer employees. They're not just going to accept the increase in minimum wage and take a cut in their profit.
One of two things will happen:
They will reduce their workforce. So those that remain will earn more, but you'll have more people unemployed. This will happen if they are in a market that doesn't allow them much room to increase their price due to competition.
If they can, they will increase what they charge to their customers in order to cover the increase in minimum wage. In that case, the buck is passed to all of the economy, creating pressures on inflation. I need not explain the problems caused by inflation.
There is no free lunch. You can't just raise minimum wage and smile that you've solved the problem. Someone has to pay for it. It will either be minimum wage employees that are thrown out of work or it will be the entire economy in increased pressure on inflation.
the easiest jobs pay the most and the hardest sometimes pay the least,
That depends on what you define as "easy." If you mean that those that are educated and have a vast amount of technical experience but all they do is sit in the office and write programs and go to meetings while coal miners are stuck 250 feet under the ground, sure.
In this culture and economy, however, it's not the physical effort or risk you take that increases your salary--it is your knowledge. That's why we have the expression "It ain't rocket science" instead of "It ain't coal mining."
pay the ceo less money and suddenly you can raise the wages of your workers.
I agree many (not all) CEOs are paid too much. That said, you'd be surprised how LITTLE you could increase all the employee's salaries by taking it from the high-paid executives. That's the same logic whereby many liberals say, "Hey, let's just take the wealth of the richest 1000 people in the country." It turns out that ends up being enough to run the government for like a month or two. Or if you distributed Bill Gates' WORTH (not all of it is cash, not by a longshot) to every American, each American would only get about $175.
In the end, the best way to earn more money is to better yourself. If you're working at McDonald's at minimum wage and you're not studying, be it in high school or college, then you've chosen the easy, low-income route. Don't cry to the government to give you raises when you didn't choose to finish your education.
Increases in the mininum wage WILL increase unemployment. However, if you increase minimum wage during a growing economy it may be that the growing economy will more than compensate for the decrease. I.e., MORE jobs would have been created if the mininum wage hadn't been increased.
High pay != High unemployment always, and that is not my theory.
High pay for uneducated workers that are making minimum wage and only get raises because of increases in the minimum wage DOES increase unemployment in that same group of people. Or, at best, causes no increase in unemployment but WILL cause inflation as the wage increase is passed on to the rest of the econony.
Your unemployment statistics aren't searchable based on salary. If you increase minimum wage, no-one earning $100k is going to get thrown out of work. It is very probable, though, that McDonald's and other minimum wage employers will attempt to get by on fewer employees. That's increased unemployment for those earning minimum wage.
Been awhile since you studied economics, huh?
Raising minimum wage COSTS jobs, it does not create them. Sure, those "lucky" few at the bottom of the economic ladder that keep their jobs will earn a little more... but thousands or even millions will find themselves without work.
Raising minimum wage also tends to cause inflation. You are paying people more despite a lack of any increase in productivity. This tends to cause inflation in the economy.
So you have more people out of work in an economy pushing towards inflation. Yeah, good idea.
All workers should be of equal value, value should be based on the job done not the country you are from, you should get paid the same if you are in pakistan as you would if you were in the USA.
This will happen eventually. But it won't be because of any minimum wage laws. It will be because of FREE TRADE WORLDWIDE. When all trade barriers in the world are removed and no taxes are charged to import anything from anywhere, you will find the standard of living throughout the world becoming much more equal.
And this requires fewer laws (i.e. no tarrif laws), not more laws (i.e., not more minimum wage laws).
On the other hand, I think the rest of the world would be very interested once they found out which continent was going to get it--that way they'd know who to large outrageous "immigrant visas" to. :) "Oh, you want to move away from North America? $20,000. Too much? Well, just stay there then." :)
Hence, if their calendar ends in 2012 that must mean something... :)
-1 Redundant. The Mayan civilization ended centuries ago. They just picked a date that was long enough after the end of their civilization that it wouldn't matter to them. :)
$10k, no, but 3.8 billion in miscategorized funds should get someone's attention.
No, not everyone that sees the data will necessarily understand or care. But just the fact that the information is being published daily in full view of the stockholders, market analysts, and government officials will do wonders to make that data correct.
And my suggestion is the solution.
Yes, they can still enter bogus categories, etc. for their expenses. But if their bogus data appears on public websites and at the SEC within 24-hours, with thousands of even millions of eyes looking at their data, believe me, years will not go by before 3.8 billion of bogusly classified expenses is detected.
They are one and the same.
Do you consider "the market" to be so broad as to encompass theft?
Inasmuch as stealing physical product, no.
Inasmuch as high prices provoking cheap knock-offs and, in the case of intellectual property, giving rise to "piracy", yes.
I may just go out and buy me a Porche (which I have conveniently valued at $0).
If you can look at a Porsche at a dealership and make an exact copy without the dealership being less one Porsche, I fully support your right to do that.
Secondly, for all the people bitching about how the artists aren't being fairly compensated, the reason is that there is a huge glut of wannabe musicians out there.
Which brings us back to the point that even if no-one pays for music, there will be music.
We all have to eat, but most of us don't eat in restaurants every day.
Nor do they. There are supermarkets distributed conveniently around the country. They can buy a loaf of bread, some jam, and jelly just as easily as I can.
People who are good at what they do deserve a chance to make good money.
Everyone has a right to TRY to make money at doing what they're good at. No-one is entitled (i.e. deserves) to anything at all.
I might be very, very good at jumping off mountains but that doesn't mean anyone is willing to pay me for it--or that I deserve to be paid for what I am good at.
You have organized it such that even a successful band will barely break even.
A successful band can charge $20 per ticket and fill a venue with 1000 people. If the band keeps half, that's $10,000 for one night's work. That's completely feasible. Yes, for a succesful band. There are many very talented programmers that don't earn a million per year, either.
And for the privilege of making peanuts, they have to literally live on the road. That's just crazy.
Perhaps. And if they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't feel forced to. Like you said, there are a hundred other bands that will gladly make the sacrifice in their place.
If free music advocates simply made equally good music and allowed people to copy it that would be defensible, but consumers are greedy and they want all the best music for free.
They want and expect it to be free because it CAN be free and has been free. The RIAA fell asleep at the wheel. They should have saw Napster coming from a mile away and lowered prices from $20 per CD to, say, $3 or $4. Sell the product so cheap that there is no motiviation to make free copies. But no, they kept raising prices and technology passed them by. The cat is out of the bag. It's too late to go back. Perhaps if they had lowered prices "free music" wouldn't have been so tempting and they'd still have a business model, albeit selling at $4 instead of $20--but it beats the $0 they'll be charging soon.
I'm sorry, I have no sympathy. There will always be music and, as such, there is no reason I should pay for it. Perhaps you'll stop making music. I'm sorry to hear that, I'm sure someone will miss you and promptly listen to the other 100 musicians that pop up in your place.
I've modified my sendmail to detect when an incoming mail is spam. It is detected during the DATA phase and as soon as it is identified as spam, I hang up on the connection.
My spam has gone from 40-50 per day down to about 4 or 5--and that will get better as I review that remaining spam and improve my spam-detection logic.