Maybe Nate Silver?

He has a site fivethirtyeight.com/ that interprets poll results, and other numbers in the news

Your model is basically saying that since the artists already did the work, "they're not losing any money or time" if somebody else gives away their music for free.

Yes, you can say that. After all, why should you ever pay any artist? They already did the work, so they aren't losing any money, right? People are merely using their work for free without paying.

Here's the problem: "recognition" doesn't pay bills. It's nice, it's flattering, it's great for the ego, and the net result is you starve. Apple's business model is that artists should be happy that Apple had decided to give their music away for free in order to promote Apple's new business, and they seem surprised that artists actually would prefer to be paid.

Here's a tip for you, for future reference in case it ever happens to you: when you're being told "you work for free, and maybe sometime later I'll pay you", no matter how good it sounds, the deal is always going to be to the advantage of the corporation getting the free work, and not necessarily for you.

Well, Apple backed down, at least a little. Good for them. Horray for Taylor Swift.

Saying that big record labels give artists a lousy deal is not a justification for Apple to want artists to give their work away for free to advertise Apple's music service.

So, does Apple's free trial period have a "if you're not satisfied, return all the music you got for free without paying the artists" clause?

No.

in your metaphor, you're starting a housecleaning service, and you hire other people to clean houses. And your business model is that you don't pay these other people because you're giving your customers a three month free trial of your housecleaning service.

The people you hire should be happy! They're helping you set up your business!

Of course, once your business is set up the people who got your music for free won't buy your music (because they just got it for free) but, hey, recognition! That's just like money, almost.

Isn't it?

But you do get paid. They don't say "work for us for three month for free, then if we decide keep you on, we will start paying you."

Apple isn't saying "we'll pay you in three months". They're saying "in order to promote our brand, you won't get paid at all for the stuff of yours we sell.

It is anonymous coward assholes like you, who think that art, and writing, and music-- in short, creative endeavours in general-- is not work, and shouldn't need to be paid for, who are the problem, not the solution.

Yes, I am aware that it is now possible to copy stuff for almost no money.

Say, I want you to come clean my house. Oh, and cut the grass, too. Don't worry, it won't cost you a single dime-- I'll provide the cleaning supplies and even buy the gas for your lawnmower.

Of course, I'm asking you to give your work away for free, but, hey, it "won't cost you a single dime."

I'll give you recognition! In fact, I'll tell lots of other people you will work for them for free, too!

I don't know about her music, but as of now, I say, horray for Taylor Swift.
Apple's business plan is "to get customers for OUR new business, we will give away YOUR music for free!"
Yeah. So, basically, Apple is saying that they, the world's most profitable company, require individual artists to DONATE THEIR WORK FOR FREE... to get Apple's business started.
And they're calculating that individual artists don't have any leverage, there's nothing they can do about it.
So, it's nice to see a singer whose work is selling millions of copies per month standing up to them.
Horray for her.

My point is that the statement "carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants" misses the point.

And water is the most important liquid on the planet, without it there would be no plants or animals. But that doesn't mean too much won't drown you.

Quoting Paracelsus, "dosis facit venenum" ("The dose makes the poison.")

Well, if he had been an actual Nazi stormtrooper, that's kind of frightening. Except that he would have to be pretty old by now.

A guy in a costume from a 1977 movie, though....

To the contrary, it is likely that all orbits in systems with more than two bodies are chaotic. That includes our solar system.

Fortunately for us, the time scale for unpredictability for the solar system is many billions of years.

Well, that part was correct. What was found was that the rotations were chaotic. The orbits seem to be regular.

No. Chaotic systems cycle-- look up, say "strange attractor". Or even google "cycle AND chaos theory."

What makes it chaotic is that the phase of the cycling is predictable in the short term, unpredictable in the long term.

The use of the word "chaotic" is accurate here.

The inaccurate word used in the summary (not the article) was "orbit". It is the rotation that is chaotic, not the orbit.

Nevertheless, the science is pretty interesting. Sorry you don't want to hear about it.

(I will point out that this large number is only because China has such a large population. In terms of emission per person, USA beats them hands down)

That is why climate change is a wicked hard problem: you can't solve it on your own-- it has to be a collaborative solution involving multiple countries.

And that, in turn, is why some people would rather deny that the problem exists rather than find a way to solve it: they have an ideology that says the US should never work in collaboration with other nations, not ever, not for any purpose. They don't have any mechanism in their ideology to solve the problem, so the only choice is to deny it exists.