Stephen Joseph

Agreed. I dislike Bush on many levels... But...I have to give the man respect. There's few today who actually believe what they say and do what they say. So yes Marney, I actually somewhat agree with you...again And no, I will not be the father of your hell-spawn children =) That's for KKK

they would have one confused kid

Buys CWM for .01 cents.

I dig George's soul voice, but he was off-kilter at the beginning. JPL actually has found his niche with the funky crazy rock songs. Yeah, he's a damn geek, but he'll stick around a few more weeks because well, he flaunts it and it worked this week John Stevens did good, but his one trick pony isn't as mainstream as JPL's. Layota Jackson? The girl who belted it out? Damn...fastly becoming the best. I'd put money your final four will be JPL, George, Latoya(if that is her) and Fantasia

pfl, my segment is in gcf

Umm fellas, the DOE spends a good bit of money as well does the NSF on funding alternative fuel research. Just because it isn't 10% of our budget doesn't mean its not there

I'd hardly call this Vietnam. Vietnam was every local newspaper reporting local dead every day, not all newspapers reporting the same 5 dead. Vietnam, in my mind, refers to when politicians tell the generals how to wage war, where to strike, and how to do it. I don't see that kind of micromanagement here

Uhh Tweener-heel-face-tweener-heel-face /aside Does Tony/SJ count as tweener? I did ... My best work was as a heel I'm so...happy!

It's not a zing zack if I admitted to such geez man, you're so behind the times for a trendy prep

Pair him with me Insta-heel heat

But you're still a nerd... Well yeah... Your point?

4.5/4.0 All A's 4 years Valedictorian But...my high school was full of idiots so eh, those numbers dont say much

I'd say GTech is one good rival...Connecticut is down one to em right now About the big Australian...or as we say "LUUUUUKKKEEE!" He SUCKED his freshman year, and we all though hewitt was on crack. Now Luke's got a legit shot at the NBA if he keeps improving. Most improved player in the NCAA. It's not just that he's tall, he's got insanely long arms, and takes up most of the paint himself. Get this. His vertical reach, no jumping, is 9"10' All he has to do is hop to slam the ball. GTech doesn't have an answer for Boone. GTech wins if 1) Jack controls the tempo 2) LUKKKEE shows up again

Well... Tech beat OSU. And they play UConn All is right in my bracket. And to Damaramu, who said OSU had the only shot to beat Duke or UConn Tech has already beaten both of them...this year. Just remember y'all Any. Given. Night.

New figures came out...something along the lines of 750K jobs created in the last 6 months, from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Bush has got to love that

Eski, I've been cracking up all week after reading that skit You my friend, have a fetish for very weird managers

« Was Nietzsche right? | Main | Tax and Spend » Does file-sharing hurt CD sales? A new study by two researchers at Harvard Business School and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, finds that sharing digital music files has no effect on CD sales. This is the first study that directly compares actual downloads of music files and store sales of CDs. The authors, Associate Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard Business School in Boston and Professor Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, conclude that "File sharing had no effect on the sale of popular CDs in the second half of 2002. While downloads occurred on a vast scale during this period - 3 million simultaneous users shared 500 million files on the popular network FastTrack/KaZaA alone - most people who shared files appear to be individuals who would not have bought the albums that they downloaded," say the authors... Even in the professors' most pessimistic statistical model, it takes 5,000 downloads to reduce the sales of an album by a single copy. If this worst-case scenario were true, file sharing would have reduced CD sales by 2 million copies in 2002. To provide a point of reference, CD sales actually declined by 139 million copies from 2000 to 2002. Here is another interesting tidbit: 31 percent of all individuals who download music live in the United States. Other important countries are Germany with a 13 percent share of worldwide users, Italy with 11 percent, Japan with 8 percent and France with 7 percent. File sharers in the United States are particularly active. While they represent 31 percent of worldwide users, they download 36 percent of all files. U.S. file sharers download files from all over the world. Only 45 percent of the files downloaded in the United States come from computers in the U.S. 16 percent of music files are downloaded from computers in Germany, 7 percent from Canada, 6 percent from Italy, 4 percent from the U.K. A legal strategy that focuses mostly on the United States is unlikely to change the supply of music files. In other words, going after domestic uploaders, as the RCAA is doing, won't cut off supply. My take: Yes I believe the result. Most downloaders are young or just sampling songs for kicks. But I doubt if this, legal developments aside, would be true five years from now. Over time I expect more people to forgo buying the CD, unless of course the law intervenes. Addendum: Newmark's Door offers some additional links. Larry Lessig argues for complementarity. Here is an article that copyright is too strict more generally, and yes The Grey Album is wonderful. credit http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...filesharin.html http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?...r=2004&public=1

Oh please its Ann Coulter...

Tyler, I've been trying to explain that we've had lower than natural unemployment, and that having an unemployment rate below the natural rate is unsustainable in the long run. That's one way (using NAIRU data) of saying that people losing their jobs...they have to...the market was out of equilibrium and now it contracted back. There's always a contraction after an expansion. Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that there should be ways to help people with transitions. We don't want hysterisis (which by the way would have been a good point for you to make...its what youre talking about). But, for minor bumps and corrections, a Keynesian, interventionistic, short-term solution approach would not do anything to help. So right now anything we do wont have the effect we want If you wanted to talk long-term, I think thats appropriate. So far though T, America has gone through at least 6 distinctive stages marked by this structural unemployment...and so far, we're still fine n dandy EDIT: Btw, I agree with Mike. I'll temper my heatedness in arguing, but we really shouldnt make this personal. So what if we both disagree? I don't like Clinton, but he'd make a hell of a fishing buddy

::coughs:: Cuse me...Mr. Illusion? This is my thread to be flamed in... I'd appreciate that all negative comments be directed at me Thanks for your cooperation /thanks dids

Thanks Marney. For other research, if you look at the fastest growing countries, they're always a subset of the poorest. It is a natural phenomenon for the poor to rise up, its called convergence. Mostly in the world we see conditional convergence. That's where poor countries with low savings rates over time catch up to rich countries with low savings rate, and those poor with high savings rates catch up to high savings rates. It's perfectly applicable to apply that to this here. Look. There's no reason to intervene. By the time the government got off their ass to do something, even if they decided a YEAR ago, the bureaucracy would mean it would be a slow process. Economists who argued against Keynes showed that if you try to battle unemployment, the unintended consequences to other economic variables over time increase in their magnitude of change, necesitating larger intervention and then a larger magnitude of change. Go Marney!

Wow, still going on with your mini-rant The dancing avatar was funny C-boose. The hotornot score - 7.0 And yeah, that's a pic of me...19? or 20? can't remember Cmon guys, you're REALLY running out of ideas here.

I see where you're coming from I'm just pointing out that the stat abstract and all historical trends tell me to not be worreid about if I have a long-run perspective Sure, substitution towards "lesser jobs" occurs, but this is a short-term effect. I'm speaking in long run terms, more than a few years, give things a chance to sort out It's like the dentist, or at least for me Hurts like a bitch for 30 minutes, but then your mouth feels fresh and clean for months

No I addressed your point. You're saying outsourcing is putting people out of jobs with no definable replacement and that this in essence is going to put people at a disadvantage and lower their economic status and future economic status of themselves and their kids. We need to train them and put programs in place to ensure these people are not left structurally unemployed. EDIT: What you said is that this current market we're in is not efficient. That was on pg5 I said that odds are, the unemployment rate in the 1990s was an abberation off the trend of the NAIRU, and that it had to rise at some point. I do not see this, over the long haul, helping to create a feedback cycle of a permanent underclass, which I believe IF i have your argument right is a necessary condition it would create. EDIT: I agree, the market wasn't efficient, if efficiency is defined as being at equilibrium. You see it as a change from equilibrium to disequilibirum, and I see it as moving back toward equilibirum We have differing views, as I mainly view these changes as positive and a good thing while you do not. That is a philosophical difference neither of us are likely to change. Did I get that right?

I'll take your frustration as a compliment I'll debate fairly, but I'm bringing up theory, then finding data, and checking the two. I've brought the stat ab up, the census data, and it all pretty much sums up what I'm saying I've brought facts Tyler. Cold hard facts.