What this guy is missing, is that the Internet is removing the middleman. removing the record industry.

Within a short time, musicians will be able to put their music straight into a Spotify, or some other service and get all of the profits.

The profits from the music service will be more than the pittance they get from each record or song sold.

Even still, Since so little money actually goes to the musician for each record sold, how is sharing music hurting the musician. It would most likely increase concert sales. In addition, most of the music shared, would never have been purchased. So again, how would sharing a song with someone who would never have actually purchased the album hurt the musician?

The old way, with Record companies controlling the industry is dying. Musicians, eventually, will be on the winning side of this, if they quickly take control of how their music is distributed. If they let the music industry control the new era, they will still be poorly paid while the music execs get rich.

"Club 33 is the only place at Disneyland where you can ditch the kids for a cocktail."

Or, you can go across the way to California adventure and drink to your hearts content.

There is a bar above Ariels grotto, and beer in the food garden.

My first impression was that the butterflys were eating the guitar.

You can live your entire life without eating carbohydrates. Your body needs fats and proteins to survive, not carbs. Carbs are only for energy, while fats and proteins are used for repairing and rebuilding muscle and much more. 1000 calories of carbs = 1000 calories of work to get rid of them. 1000 calories of fat and protein = maybe 900 (or less) work to get rid of them.

The next problem is that according to a number of studies, fat people (and smokers amazingly) actually cost less in medical care than their thin counterparts.

Seems they dying early part actually puts less of a strain on medical costs than living a long time.

Sam
But, I do not have any M&M's now, and at the end of the transaction, I will have a package of M&M's. No matter how many I have to choose from 1 out of 2, or 1 out of 2,000. at the end of the transaction I have $.75 more of M&M's than I had before.

Lets say all of my net worth, including all my M&M's is $1.00. At the end of the transaction, I will have a $1.75 more than I had before.
But, according to your example, there is zero benefit, so If I began with $1 then after the zero benefit, I would still only have $1 of benefit.

According to your explanation, Choice is bad and the economy would work best without choice. For example, There should only be one place to get gas, and there should only be one pump at the gas station, there should only be one restaurant to eat at and there should only be one item on the menu.

In addition, if one man with 3 arms comes up and says choose between 3 packages of M&M's, and that is a net $.75 loss to me, wouldn't that mean it is a net $.75 gain to the man? He had no choice in the transaction that cost me $.75.

Not only that . . But, according to this theory,
as "smart consumers" we should only want one gas supplier, and one gas pump,
and we should want one restaurant to eat at, and we should want only one item on the menu we should want it to be the same everyday.
We should want only one supplier of music, we should want only one band to supply the music, and we should want the band to only play one song, and that song should be only one note long and they should only play the song once. ( we wouldn't want to choose which time we want to hear it.

I could see that if I had $.75 to spend, and I had the choice of a M&M, and a Snickers, how I would want to weigh the relative value I was placing on each candy bar to determine which I should purchase, if today, I place a higher value on the snicker, then I should spend the money on the snicker. I should not spend the money on the item that I place a lower value on. (the value could be different than MSRP)

The rest of the 10, no, 7 principles I understand, and make total sense, but this one does not appear to be logical. Maybe I am mixing two theories together?

"Since choosing one package (which you value at $.75) means giving up the other package (which you also value at $.75), your economic profit is exactly zero!"

Please explain. According to this theory, My economic profit would be the same if I chose a package of M&M's, or if I declined the M&M's. But, since I do not have M&M's before the offer, and I get M&M's after the offer, wouldn't I actually be better off after choosing the M&M's than before?

Dont they look uncomfortable because the have to sit completely still for like a minute or more?

I thought that was why most portraits from the time were of dead people

Or what about Photoshop. How are you to know if the pictures were altered to show less or more genital area.

We know the amount of photoshop that goes into female swimsuit model pictures, I can only imagine what they make bigger or smaller in a mans swimsuit picture.

Absinthe is, I think, pretty much legal everywhere now. the went back and tested bottles from the 1800's and found nearly no actual worm wood.

The real deaths were from people trying to make Absinthe without uhhh Absinthe. They would use chemicals to try to make it green and cloudy

Absinthe has been frequently and incorrectly described in modern times as being hallucinogenic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe

Most of the bad stuff we had associated with Absinthe was either due to unscrupulous makers of the stuff, or lies by the temperance movement.

Why didn't he just stomp out the fire when it first started?

Its not like it went from no fire to a huge roaring fire in a second. -- Spark. Oh look bush is on fire. Stomp Stomp with the shoes and bingo no Fire.

I assume he was using a 9 iron for his hit out of the rough and not a Flame thrower.

This is the Opposite of Atheism. To an actual atheist, baptism is just some guy in weird clothes splashing someone with water, or dunking someone in water. To an actual atheist, it would have no more meaning than getting dunked in a family pool.

To actually go through a ritual to unbaptize someone. That would be someone who believed in the ritual in the first place. Someone who actually believes there is a God, but most likely dislikes his idea of God.

The problem is, that 9 out of 10 times, there is a catch.

You cant fault people for being cautious about something that seems too good to be true.

We have seen it third hand, and most likely had it beat into us first hand, that if something is too good to be true it probably isnt true.

So, a guy who's mission in life is to bring awareness of global warming has made a BILLION dollars from global warming. . . Hmmm. follow the money and you will nearly always find the reason behind the hype.

I live in Southern California. I dont understand why nearly every car even has car seat heaters.

Truthfully, it seems to me it would be better if the cars has seat coolers.

Do I read novels, not very often. Do I read. Yes every day. Pages and pages of news articles, blogs, and other intersting items. Why Do I have to read a steven king novel to be considered a reader?