Phil Plait - Astronomy, Astrophysics and General science
David Frum - Principled (ie, not a party mouthpiece) conservativism
The Marshall Project - Criminal Justice System watchdog
Picard Tips - Management and Life tips from the perspective of Jean-Luc Picard
Benjamin Dixon - Principled liberalism/progressivism
These are more specific to where I am, but there's probably a local equivalent or three where you are:
Fred Melo, Reporter - Local beat reporter who's on top of everything
Arif Hasan - Local football analyst with a lot of detailed knowledge
Humerous, but often as insightful as they are funny:
Riker Googling
Chaucer Doth Tweet
Bloom County
We're not eliminating the entire biomass that fills that niche - just a particularly nasty, invasive one that spreads disease. Other, native mosquito species will fill the same ecological niche, so the system as a whole will remain intact.
For their existence to have any effect on whether the subject of the conversation (which was potential states laws on forcing addtitional privacy rules on ISPs), the existence of those state agencies would have had to set a precedent.
No, they would not. You do not need a precedent to pass a law in the first place. Bringing precedent into the discussion is a distraction.
What was said, however, was that, without precedent..., their existence did not automatically diminish FCC's power to assert full right to be central deciding authority on privacy issues.
No, that was never said until you just said it. And it should be noted, no law has ever granted the FCC the "full right to be central deciding authority on privacy issues". So color me utterly unconvinced that states shouldn't be able to pass more stringent privacy laws that the FCC.
If anything, corporate tax cuts reduce incentives to "create" jobs or otherwise invest in the company. Salaries, benefits, and capital expeditures are all above the line, which means that they reduce total income and therefore total tax owed. Lowering taxes gives more incentive to keep above the line costs lower because there's less cost to allowing revenue through as profit.
Only insofar as their regulations only apply intrastate and do not affect any interactions across state lines.
I don't suppose you have a source for that. Because here are two examples of states having regulations that specifically apply to interactions across state lines:
I don't see muslims entering wine shops in France because I'm an American. I do see American muslims doing the same things as the rest of us every single day, though. I don't see any reason to think Islam is any less compatible with my culture than any other religion. I will say that I find fundamentalism of any stripe to be incompatible with my culture, but where I live, far and away the biggest offender is Christian fundamentalism, not Islamic fundamentalism. As I said, they have control of much of government here, including at the highest levels. Meanwhile, not a single Islamic fundamentalist holds office anywhere in this country.
Because I live in the US. I don't have some expectation that the US can have any control over what happens in the rest of the world. I DO expect that the US can have some control over what happens in the US. And in the US, muslims of any sort, and in particular radicals, have no political power at all. Right-wing nationalist groups, on the other hand, seem to feel very comfortable with the level of representation they currently have at the highest levels in this country.
[Trump] straight up said he supports trans people using any bathrooms while the rest of the GOP made a ruckus over it
And proceeded to put in place an attorney general who has gone out of his way to prevent just that.
dissed the Iraq War
And proceeded to expand our involvement in Syria while doing his damnedest to unwind the successful nuclear deal in Iran and to start a nuclear war in North Korea.
and supported planned parenthood at the GOP debates to resounding boos from the Republican crowd
And proceeded to try to defund PP as president.
wants to let states decide on weed legalization
And proceeded to put in place an attorney general who has said he will crack down on growers in states where cannabis is legal - medicinal as well as recreational - even when they're following state law.
and is completely against nation building wars.
And yet he has expanded US military activity in Africa and Asia.
He's not some far right war hawk bigot Hitler as he is characterized on Reddit
And yet he given the likes of Steven Miller and Steve Bannon significant power within his cabinet.
in fact he was constantly called a liberal by other Republican candidates.
And yet as President, his actions have consistently been at least as conservative as the congressional GOP.
The GOP has been terrible for a long time now, and went nuts during the Bush era with religious nonsense and neocon war mongering. Trump is a welcome change from that, a "New York values" conservative.
I'd recommend paying attention to his actions, not his campaign platitudes. The marketing did not accurately portray the product.
Regulation of interstate commerce does not require that states be barred from having their own regulations that are at least as stringent as federal regulations.
Typically, this means that states must provide at least as much regulation as the federal government, but they are not barred from providing more. One example would be the speed limit. There is currently no national speed limit. However, states can - and obviously do - set their own speed limits.
Why limit it only to muslims, though? Why not apply the same logic to all the murders committed by right-wing nationalist groups - which far outnumber those committed by muslims in America? Or those by lonely young white men with lots of guns?
"To calculate ROI, the benefit (or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment, and the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio."
You are are incorrect. Return on investment is intended to differentiate the quality of an investment, not a total number. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Beauty and the Beast" would have earned back 7,000,000. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Get Out" would have earned back 55,000,000. "Get Out" was a far greater return on investment, even if "Beauty and the Beast" earned gross profit. And you'd better believe executives - regardless of the industry - pay attention when one product outperforms other similar products in ROI by a fact of 8.
Now, there is an argument to be made that it's okay to get lesser returns on greater volume. I wouldn't dispute that. But it doesn't change the fact that "Get Out" was a huge hit, and that it had a massive Return on Investment.
You're underestimating "Get Out". "It" made 18 times its budget - which is fantastic. "Get Out" made 55 times its budget - that's phenomenal. For comparison: Beauty and the Beast returned a bit less than 7 times its budget, Logan returned 5.4x, Wonder Woman returned 4.5x, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 returned 3.3x. Yeah, "It" grossed more than "Get Out" (though Get Out's gross of 253M is hardly something to sneeze at), but executives look at return on investment at least as much as gross when making decisions about what to green light.
Slashdot Mirror
So, he's just like a typical slashdotter.
"Humanity has a unique way of freaking itself out over shit it makes."
Humanity also has a unique way of making shit that is worth freaking out over.
"Fear"
... Of something terrible happening again.
Phil Plait - Astronomy, Astrophysics and General science
David Frum - Principled (ie, not a party mouthpiece) conservativism
The Marshall Project - Criminal Justice System watchdog
Picard Tips - Management and Life tips from the perspective of Jean-Luc Picard
Benjamin Dixon - Principled liberalism/progressivism
These are more specific to where I am, but there's probably a local equivalent or three where you are:
Fred Melo, Reporter - Local beat reporter who's on top of everything
Arif Hasan - Local football analyst with a lot of detailed knowledge
Humerous, but often as insightful as they are funny:
Riker Googling
Chaucer Doth Tweet
Bloom County
We're not eliminating the entire biomass that fills that niche - just a particularly nasty, invasive one that spreads disease. Other, native mosquito species will fill the same ecological niche, so the system as a whole will remain intact.
For their existence to have any effect on whether the subject of the conversation (which was potential states laws on forcing addtitional privacy rules on ISPs), the existence of those state agencies would have had to set a precedent.
No, they would not. You do not need a precedent to pass a law in the first place. Bringing precedent into the discussion is a distraction.
What was said, however, was that, without precedent ..., their existence did not automatically diminish FCC's power to assert full right to be central deciding authority on privacy issues.
No, that was never said until you just said it. And it should be noted, no law has ever granted the FCC the "full right to be central deciding authority on privacy issues". So color me utterly unconvinced that states shouldn't be able to pass more stringent privacy laws that the FCC.
If anything, corporate tax cuts reduce incentives to "create" jobs or otherwise invest in the company. Salaries, benefits, and capital expeditures are all above the line, which means that they reduce total income and therefore total tax owed. Lowering taxes gives more incentive to keep above the line costs lower because there's less cost to allowing revenue through as profit.
I would think the fact that they don't have common carrier status probably is a bigger jeopardy to their common carrier status.
That's ... not how the law works at all. If the law hasn't been successfully challenged, it is the law, full stop.
If I had mod points, I'd give them all to you.
They have been in place for years, so either they have survived challenges, or no party with standing has thought they were unconstitutional.
Only insofar as their regulations only apply intrastate and do not affect any interactions across state lines.
I don't suppose you have a source for that. Because here are two examples of states having regulations that specifically apply to interactions across state lines:
Hawaiian Plant Industry Division Regulations
CDFA Plant and Animal Laws and Regulations
I don't see muslims entering wine shops in France because I'm an American. I do see American muslims doing the same things as the rest of us every single day, though. I don't see any reason to think Islam is any less compatible with my culture than any other religion. I will say that I find fundamentalism of any stripe to be incompatible with my culture, but where I live, far and away the biggest offender is Christian fundamentalism, not Islamic fundamentalism. As I said, they have control of much of government here, including at the highest levels. Meanwhile, not a single Islamic fundamentalist holds office anywhere in this country.
Because I live in the US. I don't have some expectation that the US can have any control over what happens in the rest of the world. I DO expect that the US can have some control over what happens in the US. And in the US, muslims of any sort, and in particular radicals, have no political power at all. Right-wing nationalist groups, on the other hand, seem to feel very comfortable with the level of representation they currently have at the highest levels in this country.
"... in general they want wages that are well above the global average for equivalent work."
Fancy that - people who live someplace where the cost of living is WAY more than global average want more than the global average for equivalent work.
A tiny percentage of owners perhaps, but an enormous percentage of capital.
Enumerated != Exclusive
[Trump] straight up said he supports trans people using any bathrooms while the rest of the GOP made a ruckus over it
And proceeded to put in place an attorney general who has gone out of his way to prevent just that.
dissed the Iraq War
And proceeded to expand our involvement in Syria while doing his damnedest to unwind the successful nuclear deal in Iran and to start a nuclear war in North Korea.
and supported planned parenthood at the GOP debates to resounding boos from the Republican crowd
And proceeded to try to defund PP as president.
wants to let states decide on weed legalization
And proceeded to put in place an attorney general who has said he will crack down on growers in states where cannabis is legal - medicinal as well as recreational - even when they're following state law.
and is completely against nation building wars.
And yet he has expanded US military activity in Africa and Asia.
He's not some far right war hawk bigot Hitler as he is characterized on Reddit
And yet he given the likes of Steven Miller and Steve Bannon significant power within his cabinet.
in fact he was constantly called a liberal by other Republican candidates.
And yet as President, his actions have consistently been at least as conservative as the congressional GOP.
The GOP has been terrible for a long time now, and went nuts during the Bush era with religious nonsense and neocon war mongering. Trump is a welcome change from that, a "New York values" conservative.
I'd recommend paying attention to his actions, not his campaign platitudes. The marketing did not accurately portray the product.
Taxation without representation applies to individuals, not organizations.
Regulation of interstate commerce does not require that states be barred from having their own regulations that are at least as stringent as federal regulations.
You gloss over the fact that the same law that mandated that everyone must buy insurance also mandated that insurance policies not be garbage.
Typically, this means that states must provide at least as much regulation as the federal government, but they are not barred from providing more. One example would be the speed limit. There is currently no national speed limit. However, states can - and obviously do - set their own speed limits.
Why limit it only to muslims, though? Why not apply the same logic to all the murders committed by right-wing nationalist groups - which far outnumber those committed by muslims in America? Or those by lonely young white men with lots of guns?
"To calculate ROI, the benefit (or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment, and the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio."
You are are incorrect. Return on investment is intended to differentiate the quality of an investment, not a total number. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Beauty and the Beast" would have earned back 7,000,000. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Get Out" would have earned back 55,000,000. "Get Out" was a far greater return on investment, even if "Beauty and the Beast" earned gross profit. And you'd better believe executives - regardless of the industry - pay attention when one product outperforms other similar products in ROI by a fact of 8.
Now, there is an argument to be made that it's okay to get lesser returns on greater volume. I wouldn't dispute that. But it doesn't change the fact that "Get Out" was a huge hit, and that it had a massive Return on Investment.
You're underestimating "Get Out". "It" made 18 times its budget - which is fantastic. "Get Out" made 55 times its budget - that's phenomenal. For comparison: Beauty and the Beast returned a bit less than 7 times its budget, Logan returned 5.4x, Wonder Woman returned 4.5x, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 returned 3.3x. Yeah, "It" grossed more than "Get Out" (though Get Out's gross of 253M is hardly something to sneeze at), but executives look at return on investment at least as much as gross when making decisions about what to green light.