Even if the study has flaws, it makes sense in economic theory.
It's always interesting to see religion show up with its "Yes, but... " answers.
Imposing a minimum wage that's greater than what results from an efficient market should result in higher pay but fewer workers.
Efficient market theory has a lot of detractors in economics, some of them you may even know like Piketty or Keynes. You should have taken more than a freshman course and you shouldn't trust your intuition, it isn't rigorous.
However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way.
Trump took at least two actions if Comey is to be believed, he made it abundantly clear in private correspondence that he wasn't happy that Flynn was being investigated and he fired Comey. The second action specifically was linked to the investigation by Trump himself in an interview. The first action was spoken in the phrasing of someone who needs plausible deniability, and yet in the context they were uttered it would have been difficult not to feel pressured.
This is NOT a question of being a reporter BUT even if it was, there is no 'constitutional protection' for ANY report being able to attend press meetings.
Nobody has a right to be able to post on any old government website right? If so they would all have to have some kind of 'comment field' & allow anyone & everyone to post whatever they wanted.
And WHY someone is banned from Twitter or a Press gather doesn't have anything to do with it.
The person has a right (granted by TWITTER & NOT the Constitution BTW) to post whatever she wants via her own Twitter account. The is no right granted by the Constitution or Twitter to post to someone else's feed.
I think YOU missed THAT they ALREADY had ACCESS to THE forum THAT was NOT taken AWAY by TWITTER. twitter's ROLE is JUST as IRRELEVANT as THE isp IN this ARGUMENT, as TWITTER is THE forum PROVIDER, but TRUMP's account IS the FORUM and SO he IS the MODERATOR.
... is there any evidence that it changed the outcome?
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
So, let's do nothing? Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy? Is this where we're at, that we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader? That's straight out of the colonial playbook. Divide and conquer.
Yes, because large corporations just LOVE losing $2.5 million dollars every time a plane crashes.
That's exactly right, corporations do not like losing money. So, it will be a cold calculation of how many dollars it saves not to have a crash and how many dollars it saves not to properly operate ATC. Maybe market forces mean we end up having better service with less loss of life, maybe it means something else. If the optimal profit result ends up being letting a few hundred more people die each year, guess thats what'll happen. Can't wait to find out...
AHCA, climate change, tax cuts for the wealthy: three reasons that are incontrovertibly true that are collectively angering Americans. A President doesn't have to be impeached to lose effective power, and it isn't necessarily the Russian issue that is hurting him the most. There's a growing list of policy decisions that are anti-consumer or undemocratic that is doing the job of undermining his support well enough.
Regarding the Russian issue, the potential for Russian collusion is one thing, yet we can set that aside and ask what DJT's public role has been in the affair. Here are three things that are true: He publicly condoned their hacks right after it came out. He has yet to acknowledge the breach of sovereignty and condemn Russia for the hacks. He has not called for an investigation of the Russian hacking or otherwise sought to uncover the extent of their meddling in our election.
How are these three things not sufficient to call for his scalp? On what planet is it patriotic to suggest that information warfare in the middle of an election is not a violation of our sovereignty?
If it's such a great thing that Russia made HRC's campaign more transparent, why don't we pass a law allowing any entity anywhere to hack into campaign computers to post whatever it is they want? Why not require all campaigns to turn over all emails, letters, memos, correspondence, as it happens to be published in massive data dumps every week? Maybe we can even turn it into a full panopticon and require every person drawing a salary from a political campaign to be wired and wear a body cam 24x7, with all data setup as a torrent?
The other argument, that it probably didn't affect the campaign enough to matter, suffers from several problems. Less than 100k votes could have changed the outcome of the election. The RNC wasn't lining up to dump their emails and if they had been challenged to do so they would have vigorously opposed it. DJT's public comments at the time makes it clear that he was gloating, which implies he knows how debilitating it was to the HRC campaign. The timing of the releases by wikileaks, with a steady release of small portions, also makes it clear that it was meant to do political harm.
DJT's public behavior regarding Russia should be sufficient to indict him in the court of public opinion. The persistent whining that no hard evidence has been discovered of collusion between DJT and Russia itself (since we have such evidence for Manafort and Flynn), is a massive distraction. We don't need to prove criminality of a President for us to collectively decide he's unfit for office and we have enough incontrovertible evidence to do just that.
Everyone reported that Iraq had WMDs, at first, because the administration lied to us and it was so bald-faced and self-assured that it was believed. It took some time for the media to figure out the truth.
Regarding PewDiePie, I think you're thinking of the WSJ, not WAPO.
Are you one of those low-information voters I keep hearing about?
Did they adjust for when the doctor went to medical school? Was it because the doctor was older or because it had been longer since they went to school?
Ahh, I really appreciate it when someone writes a well-written, level-headed argument that I disagree with. It feels less common in slashdot these days.
I'd first ask, do visa holders who were affected by the EO have constitutional rights, specifically the right to due process? If so, does an EO ostensibly about foreign policy render the EO unreviewable despite the clear fact that it tramples on the due process rights of visa holders?
I believe the answer to the first question is emphatically yes and the jurisprudence I'm aware of around this question suggests that USSC has established this as precedent. For example, Zadvydas_v._Davis. As to the 2nd question, I'm not aware of anything in the constitution to suggest the president is able to override due process rights and therefore the order is reviewable in the specific. Nor is there any part of the constitution that says the president is able to label executive orders as foreign policy orders in order to escape constitutional review.
More broadly, it seems like quite a blank check to issue to state the executive can merely ascertain on its own that its orders are about foreign policy and therefore unreviewable or that if there is a foreign policy element, as adjudicated by the courts, then other constitutional concerns are rendered irrelevant and the judiciary must consider the order unreviewable. Basically, while I agree the executive should have broad discretion with respect to foreign policy, they shouldn't be allowed to revoke visas, once given, without due process; which was the affect of the order.
I'm concerned you don't have a mental health policy in your plan.
Certainly, it's challenging to expose market forces because of situations like you described -- a point I admitted in the post you're responding to. Other than you basically explaining one of the reasons why it is difficult to bring market forces to bear on health care, the point I made, you don't seem to have responded to my post or understood that I am for universal health care despite stating it explicitly.
Also, I was posting from work. I'm sure it's common to post anonymously from work.
My roads are paved. I don't have to bribe policemen. It's shocking that there's a city with lead in the water. I can drive from one end of this massive country to the other on awesome highways and be free of highwaymen. I'm sending this message to you on a government invention.
Trust is not binary. Corporations are not perfect entities. Learn you some nuance, please.
Oh these early months are not worth bickering about. Like the quote about the stock market, "In the short term, it's a voting machine. In the long term, it's a weighing machine." We'll see what happens over the next 4-8 years. And, there will be two hundred thousand explanations for it, only a few of them driven by carefully crafted hypothesis. Those precious few will be ignored by the couch potatoes.
I can see why you think corporations are more trustworthy than any government entity ever, after all, you were relentlessly told not to trust government by a media corporation, yes?
None of the terrorists had come from those countries. Calling those judges SJW diminishes the power of the insult. It's like calling Trump a nazi. It's soon (already?) going to only mean "people we don't agree with politically." You're also not responding to the real argument for why they issued injunctions.
Such a limited imagination.
Does your employer know what porn you look at?
Do you want to live in a society where such things come up in background checks? Your employers, clients, or business partners may not care, but many will and with that power people will feel more repressed. Do you want to live in a society that feels more repressed?
Nice conjecture. I somehow doubt that gay people are bringing the average down. Wasn't the original complaint that we were having too much sex (like over 500 partners a year)?
You can call it truth if you want. It sounds more like a hypothesis that you want to believe is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the study has flaws, it makes sense in economic theory.
It's always interesting to see religion show up with its "Yes, but ... " answers.
Imposing a minimum wage that's greater than what results from an efficient market should result in higher pay but fewer workers.
Efficient market theory has a lot of detractors in economics, some of them you may even know like Piketty or Keynes. You should have taken more than a freshman course and you shouldn't trust your intuition, it isn't rigorous.
However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way.
Trump took at least two actions if Comey is to be believed, he made it abundantly clear in private correspondence that he wasn't happy that Flynn was being investigated and he fired Comey. The second action specifically was linked to the investigation by Trump himself in an interview. The first action was spoken in the phrasing of someone who needs plausible deniability, and yet in the context they were uttered it would have been difficult not to feel pressured.
There's a big difference between having a character who happens to be gay, than a token who is gay for the sake of being gay.
You watch sitcoms and complain there are stereotypes?
This is NOT a question of being a reporter BUT even if it was, there is no 'constitutional protection' for ANY report being able to attend press meetings.
Nobody has a right to be able to post on any old government website right? If so they would all have to have some kind of 'comment field' & allow anyone & everyone to post whatever they wanted.
And WHY someone is banned from Twitter or a Press gather doesn't have anything to do with it.
The person has a right (granted by TWITTER & NOT the Constitution BTW) to post whatever she wants via her own Twitter account. The is no right granted by the Constitution or Twitter to post to someone else's feed.
I think YOU missed THAT they ALREADY had ACCESS to THE forum THAT was NOT taken AWAY by TWITTER. twitter's ROLE is JUST as IRRELEVANT as THE isp IN this ARGUMENT, as TWITTER is THE forum PROVIDER, but TRUMP's account IS the FORUM and SO he IS the MODERATOR.
What is a search engine's purpose? To find you relevant information? Or to find you less relevant free information?
"Free" can be a factor in relevance.
God, I have to scroll to the bottom to get to the one comment actually analyzing the situation.
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
So, let's do nothing? Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy? Is this where we're at, that we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader? That's straight out of the colonial playbook. Divide and conquer.
DRINK THEIR TEARS!!! QUICK!!!
Yes, because large corporations just LOVE losing $2.5 million dollars every time a plane crashes.
That's exactly right, corporations do not like losing money. So, it will be a cold calculation of how many dollars it saves not to have a crash and how many dollars it saves not to properly operate ATC. Maybe market forces mean we end up having better service with less loss of life, maybe it means something else. If the optimal profit result ends up being letting a few hundred more people die each year, guess thats what'll happen. Can't wait to find out...
I hear 'ya, brother!
Now, can you tell me more about the 31 genders?
You have your nuts, we have ours.
We don't let ours run the country.
AHCA, climate change, tax cuts for the wealthy: three reasons that are incontrovertibly true that are collectively angering Americans. A President doesn't have to be impeached to lose effective power, and it isn't necessarily the Russian issue that is hurting him the most. There's a growing list of policy decisions that are anti-consumer or undemocratic that is doing the job of undermining his support well enough.
Regarding the Russian issue, the potential for Russian collusion is one thing, yet we can set that aside and ask what DJT's public role has been in the affair. Here are three things that are true: He publicly condoned their hacks right after it came out. He has yet to acknowledge the breach of sovereignty and condemn Russia for the hacks. He has not called for an investigation of the Russian hacking or otherwise sought to uncover the extent of their meddling in our election.
How are these three things not sufficient to call for his scalp? On what planet is it patriotic to suggest that information warfare in the middle of an election is not a violation of our sovereignty?
If it's such a great thing that Russia made HRC's campaign more transparent, why don't we pass a law allowing any entity anywhere to hack into campaign computers to post whatever it is they want? Why not require all campaigns to turn over all emails, letters, memos, correspondence, as it happens to be published in massive data dumps every week? Maybe we can even turn it into a full panopticon and require every person drawing a salary from a political campaign to be wired and wear a body cam 24x7, with all data setup as a torrent?
The other argument, that it probably didn't affect the campaign enough to matter, suffers from several problems. Less than 100k votes could have changed the outcome of the election. The RNC wasn't lining up to dump their emails and if they had been challenged to do so they would have vigorously opposed it. DJT's public comments at the time makes it clear that he was gloating, which implies he knows how debilitating it was to the HRC campaign. The timing of the releases by wikileaks, with a steady release of small portions, also makes it clear that it was meant to do political harm.
DJT's public behavior regarding Russia should be sufficient to indict him in the court of public opinion. The persistent whining that no hard evidence has been discovered of collusion between DJT and Russia itself (since we have such evidence for Manafort and Flynn), is a massive distraction. We don't need to prove criminality of a President for us to collectively decide he's unfit for office and we have enough incontrovertible evidence to do just that.
Everyone reported that Iraq had WMDs, at first, because the administration lied to us and it was so bald-faced and self-assured that it was believed. It took some time for the media to figure out the truth.
Regarding PewDiePie, I think you're thinking of the WSJ, not WAPO.
Are you one of those low-information voters I keep hearing about?
Did they adjust for when the doctor went to medical school? Was it because the doctor was older or because it had been longer since they went to school?
I think the point is that the set of people investigating him are a subset of those he has fired. If you want it pedantically spelled out.
Ahh, I really appreciate it when someone writes a well-written, level-headed argument that I disagree with. It feels less common in slashdot these days.
I'd first ask, do visa holders who were affected by the EO have constitutional rights, specifically the right to due process? If so, does an EO ostensibly about foreign policy render the EO unreviewable despite the clear fact that it tramples on the due process rights of visa holders?
I believe the answer to the first question is emphatically yes and the jurisprudence I'm aware of around this question suggests that USSC has established this as precedent. For example, Zadvydas_v._Davis. As to the 2nd question, I'm not aware of anything in the constitution to suggest the president is able to override due process rights and therefore the order is reviewable in the specific. Nor is there any part of the constitution that says the president is able to label executive orders as foreign policy orders in order to escape constitutional review.
More broadly, it seems like quite a blank check to issue to state the executive can merely ascertain on its own that its orders are about foreign policy and therefore unreviewable or that if there is a foreign policy element, as adjudicated by the courts, then other constitutional concerns are rendered irrelevant and the judiciary must consider the order unreviewable. Basically, while I agree the executive should have broad discretion with respect to foreign policy, they shouldn't be allowed to revoke visas, once given, without due process; which was the affect of the order.
I'm concerned you don't have a mental health policy in your plan.
Certainly, it's challenging to expose market forces because of situations like you described -- a point I admitted in the post you're responding to. Other than you basically explaining one of the reasons why it is difficult to bring market forces to bear on health care, the point I made, you don't seem to have responded to my post or understood that I am for universal health care despite stating it explicitly.
Also, I was posting from work. I'm sure it's common to post anonymously from work.
My roads are paved. I don't have to bribe policemen. It's shocking that there's a city with lead in the water. I can drive from one end of this massive country to the other on awesome highways and be free of highwaymen. I'm sending this message to you on a government invention.
Trust is not binary. Corporations are not perfect entities. Learn you some nuance, please.
Oh these early months are not worth bickering about. Like the quote about the stock market, "In the short term, it's a voting machine. In the long term, it's a weighing machine." We'll see what happens over the next 4-8 years. And, there will be two hundred thousand explanations for it, only a few of them driven by carefully crafted hypothesis. Those precious few will be ignored by the couch potatoes.
I can see why you think corporations are more trustworthy than any government entity ever, after all, you were relentlessly told not to trust government by a media corporation, yes?
None of the terrorists had come from those countries. Calling those judges SJW diminishes the power of the insult. It's like calling Trump a nazi. It's soon (already?) going to only mean "people we don't agree with politically." You're also not responding to the real argument for why they issued injunctions.
... could well be sufficient for things to get saggier than titties at a 5th wave bra burning convention.
There is empirical evidence that bras actually increase sagginess.
Such a limited imagination. Does your employer know what porn you look at? Do you want to live in a society where such things come up in background checks? Your employers, clients, or business partners may not care, but many will and with that power people will feel more repressed. Do you want to live in a society that feels more repressed?
Never change, FreeBSD fanboys.
stuff that matters
Nice conjecture. I somehow doubt that gay people are bringing the average down. Wasn't the original complaint that we were having too much sex (like over 500 partners a year)?
You can call it truth if you want. It sounds more like a hypothesis that you want to believe is true.