In the news today

[Carnage]

Except profit margin has nothing to do with stock price, its Net Profit / Revenue Cost. It is purely a representation of the return of the business, with no factors of how the market values the operations. The raw amount of profit is irrelevant. The actual operation itself returns 3.5%. You're thinking of other ratios that include the stock price.

The product the employees provide is their service, and because their service isn't unique or clearly that valuable, the profits are what they are. If the employees provided a greater product (service) that produced greater economic output/profits, then they would be entitled to higher wages.

[Kraco]

Looking at EFSA's page on Bisphenol A, it indeed looks like no study so far suggests it has any effects in (adult) humans, within the currently acceptable doses, but more studies are being made all the time to verify the situation. Regardless, there seems to be some worry since EU has banned its use in manufacturing infant feeding bottles. I doubt they would do that if it was all nonsense.

Maybe we won't know for sure before Bill's autopsy in the future.

[Ryllharu]

Regardless, there seems to be some worry since EU has banned its use in manufacturing infant feeding bottles.

Many states in the US have as well. It's just one of those things politicians will do to look like they are actually doing their job while still having no clue what is going on.

Lawmaker A: People are upset about something.
Lawmaker B: What is it, something that we're doing that's illegal for the norms?
Lawmaker A: I don't know, but none of my lobbyists are concerned about whatever it is.
Lawmaker B: So who cares? Let's ignore it.
Lawmaker A: But my interns are getting a lot of calls on it, it's harder for my lobbyists to make appointments.
Lawmaker B: Let's ban, tax, or require licenses for it!

[Animeniax]

Many states in the US have as well. It's just one of those things politicians will do to look like they are actually doing their job while still having no clue what is going on.

Lawmaker A: People are upset about something.
Lawmaker B: What is it, something that we're doing that's illegal for the norms?
Lawmaker A: I don't know, but none of my lobbyists are concerned about whatever it is.
Lawmaker B: So who cares? Let's ignore it.
Lawmaker A: But my interns are getting a lot of calls on it, it's harder for my lobbyists to make appointments.
Lawmaker B: Let's ban, tax, or require licenses for it!

Spoken like a card carrying Republican... you think there's too much regulation and government intervention. "People should just be left to their own devices and deal with the consequences, nevermind that big businesses frequently try to cut corners at the expense of the consumer. We don't need any government regulation for a potentially hazardous substance, it just gets in the way of business and making money. Since no one can say for certain that this chemical is bad for you, it's just the liberal media trying to stifle business."

Back to the point, canned foods are heavily processed and still have to be preserved for extended shelf life. Whether its BPA or some other substances leaching into food, it's a bad idea to eat canned food when fresh stuff is available. I did support my point that studies can't always be relied on, as the studies you posted are no more "fact" than the one I cited, given that subsequent studies show something different.

[Buffalobiian]

I did support my point that studies can't always be relied on, as the studies you posted are no more "fact" than the one I cited, given that subsequent studies show something different.

Animeniax, let's get something straight (Ryll's already said this before, but I'll just go over).

The three studies you guys have cited don't conflict with each other. They show different things. Your study shows that by reducing BPA packaged foods, you can reduce your exposure to BPA. Ryll's studies show that BPA has tiny amounts in the body with most of it being excreted.

Neither of those studies answer the question of What does BPA do to the human body?, only that the more you eat the more you pee out, and that not a lot is left in the body regardless.

Innocence gets the benefit of doubt. If it's not known to kill/harm you, it should be allowed.

[Animeniax]

Animeniax, let's get something straight (Ryll's already said this before, but I'll just go over).

The three studies you guys have cited don't conflict with each other. They show different things. Your study shows that by reducing BPA packaged foods, you can reduce your exposure to BPA. Ryll's studies show that BPA has tiny amounts in the body with most of it being excreted.

Neither of those studies answer the question of What does BPA do to the human body?, only that the more you eat the more you pee out, and that not a lot is left in the body regardless.

Innocence gets the benefit of doubt. If it's not known to kill/harm you, it should be allowed.

I disagree, innocent until proven guilty is bullshit. You wouldn't be a suspect if there wasn't reason to suspect you. BPA may or may not be bad for you, but the fact that it is suspected of having negative effects on the human body should be enough to keep it out of our food stuffs, not to mention other possible chemicals used to preserve and store food. When have chemicals leaching from storage containers into our food ever been a positive benefit?

[lelouch]

If you go to BJs or Costco, you can get a fresh product bunduru inexpensively.


Winter is coming.

[Penner]

By now most of you have probably heard about it already, but Paul Walker has died in a car crash.

R.I.P

[Ryllharu]

Sad to hear. It's worth noting that the car crash was during or just after a charity event, which he did a lot of. Hollywood lost one of the better ones (in terms of just being a good person).

[lelouch]

Perhaps someone put a "black Friday sale" sticker on his car

[Animeniax]

Read that Steven Seagal is considering running for governor of Arizona. I was a huge fan of his early movies, not so much more recent ones. I think he'd be awesome news fodder as a governor.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5..._ibsrc=fanpage

[Kraco]

Read that Steven Seagal is considering running for governor of Arizona. I was a huge fan of his early movies, not so much more recent ones. I think he'd be awesome news fodder as a governor.

Is it true that Seagal is a giant douche and can't cooperate with anybody? He must always be the sole tough, big man in a movie. I read something like that a long time ago, and always thought, if true, it's the reason why he won't appear in Expendables.

[Animeniax]

Is it true that Seagal is a giant douche and can't cooperate with anybody? He must always be the sole tough, big man in a movie. I read something like that a long time ago, and always thought, if true, it's the reason why he won't appear in Expendables.

The douche part is probably true, not so sure about not working well with others. I wouldn't be surprised that he wasn't invited to be in the Expendables because he's not considered a great action hero. Most of his characters were more anti-hero. Plus he's so out-of-shape and a pretty terrible actor.

[Edort4]

So umm whats your take on what it is going on in Ukraine? Think shit is going to hit the fan? Anyone here is from that zone of the world?

[Kraco]

Certainly I didn't expect to see something like this any time soon, although in hindsight considering what happened in Georgia, it's not so surprising, after all, I guess. Russia has always been a hungry bear. Certainly it's not there to help Russian speaking citizens in Ukraine; Russian speaking citizens in Russia are already suffering so much while all the oil and gas money is being pumped into military and corruption that Russia has no need to seek long-suffering people outside of its own borders. Still, that being said, Ukraine itself is a far lousier place than I imagined, so I can see why the Russian speaking people in Ukraine would like their parts to join the neighbour instead. Probably they would get a little more money from Moscow than from Kiev. Plus they would actually have an army if they belonged to Russia. Looks like Ukraine really did sell all of its military assets to lords of war.

But no, I don't expect anything major to happen there. Russia has probably too much to lose in internatial politics. I guess they will just claim Crimea and be done with it, without a single shot. Ukraine is so weak they seem utterly helpless, which is what surprised me most in this whole mess. They simply let a neighbour walk in and did nothing.

[Animeniax]

Kinda shocking right after the peaceful cooperation and unity of the Olympics, though maybe their success in that endeavor fueled nationalist pride in Russia and emboldened them to go for the land grab in the Ukraine. I don't think there's much the world can do to stop Russia from taking some of the predominantly Russian-leaning districts in the east of Ukraine, like Crimea. President Obama might miss the G8 summit and some economic sanctions will be imposed. Plus J McCain said it could be justification for the US to resume its missile defense systems in eastern Europe. I imagine we're under treaty with Russia to halt that program, but with their renewed aggression we are free to rescind that term of the treaty.

[Ryllharu]

It's really not shocking at all when you take into account three things:

1) The Crimea was given to Ukraine by the USSR, during their independence, and the USSR's disillusion.

2) The Russian Navy leases land (until 2040 or something) to house the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine also was given a portion of the Black Sea Fleet to ease tensions over Crimea.

3) Ukraine's riots and protests have made the country extremely unstable, politically, economically, and socially.


I actually think Russia is in the right here. They've intervened and will cause a stabilizing (if moderately threatening) effect on Ukraine, provided they stay put in Crimea. There was a legitimate concern for Russia about their Black Sea Fleet lease, similar to the situation where the US was evicted from Uzbekistan during the Afghan War. Losing that base would put Russia in a substantial strategic conundrum (where to relocate to, loss of a really well positioned base, etc.)

I also don't think for a second that the US wouldn't perform a similar military intervention if there was substantial political unrest in Bahrain or if Okinawa actually attempted to secede from Japan.

I'm actually reasonably sure that the US is actively aiding the Bahraini government to suppress their uprising. They're certainly doing a very good job suppressing it in the media.

Hell...the US has done a lot worse than Russia is doing now. For a while.


edit:
It is pretty funny watching Obama make an ass of himself three times in a row toward Russia's actions (Georgia's crisis with South Ossetia, Syria's "Red Line" with chemical weapons and Russia's peaceful intervention there, and now Crimea). All talk. He should have delegated this to our UN representative. It's their job to make strongly worded statements about how angry we are.

[Kraco]

I actually think Russia is in the right here.

I can see you are from a superpower: It's alright to send your troops over the border to a neighbouring country (a democracy to boot) if you think there's something you could fix better than the country itself, despite the fact the country didn't even have time to try anything.

You should think about how it would feel if Mexico occupied some part of the southern USA because Mexican immigrants are sometimes treated poorly there. Or Canada occupied Alaska because the American oil companies are without morals and would spoil the nature.

[Animeniax]

It's really not shocking at all when you take into account three things:

I actually think Russia is in the right here. They've intervened and will cause a stabilizing (if moderately threatening) effect on Ukraine, provided they stay put in Crimea. There was a legitimate concern for Russia about their Black Sea Fleet lease, similar to the situation where the US was evicted from Uzbekistan during the Afghan War. Losing that base would put Russia in a substantial strategic conundrum (where to relocate to, loss of a really well positioned base, etc.)

I also don't think for a second that the US wouldn't perform a similar military intervention if there was substantial political unrest in Bahrain or if Okinawa actually attempted to secede from Japan.

edit:
It is pretty funny watching Obama make an ass of himself three times in a row toward Russia's actions (Georgia's crisis with South Ossetia, Syria's "Red Line" with chemical weapons and Russia's peaceful intervention there, and now Crimea). All talk. He should have delegated this to our UN representative. It's their job to make strongly worded statements about how angry we are.

I love how conservatives use any and all reactions/actions from the Obama administration to attack him. He can do no right in your eyes. If he had said nothing, he looks weak. If he said something, he said it too late. In this situation, there isn't much the US (under any administration) could do besides make harsh statements.

Like I said, what with the Olympics just finishing and being a success and all, it is shocking to see Russia go and invade another country.

[Ryllharu]

I love how conservatives use any and all reactions/actions from the Obama administration to attack him. He can do no right in your eyes. If he had said nothing, he looks weak. If he said something, he said it too late. In this situation, there isn't much the US (under any administration) could do besides make harsh statements.

It's funny how you just make assumptions of my political leanings.

Obama not saying anything would not have made him look weak. It would have been the right decision, and only idiot pundits would have criticized him.

What he said made him look weak. What he said should have been said by the UN representative, because everyone there can say a lot of things without being taken too seriously. That's what the UN is there for, negotiating between nations via proxy ambassadors/diplomats.

Obama said, "And, indeed, the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine," if Russia entered the Crimea.

Well, Russia did, and honestly who really believes the US will do anything? Economic sanctions? Russia can simply cut off the natural gas to Europe during the winter. They did it to the Ukraine in 2009. They did it to Belarus when they didn't pay. They'll can do it to Europe as a whole in revenge.

Why do you think Russia intervened in Georgia? Why do you think they have an investment in Syria's reigning government?

Gazprom.

This is big picture stuff. Russia's been playing the long game for a while. Outside of the North Sea, Russia owns the rest.

----------

Obama's a shitty president. It's not about liberal versus conservative. It's about credibility. He makes impassioned speeches...but does nothing, both foreign and domestic. The more a person says they'll act, but don't...the less people believe it the subsequent times. Every time Obama promises that the US will act, and the US doesn't, the US loses face. Over time, a country gets reduced to a saber-rattling little dog, yapping at the heels of other countries who know when to keep their mouths shut.

The "crossing a red line" in Syria about chemical weapons was the worst one. He said, swore, the US would intervene once UN inspectors confirmed chemical weapons were used. They were used, and confirmed. The US did nothing. They were used again months later. Confirmed again by the UN. The US did little, trying to ramp up military intervention. The UK rejected it, sentiment in the US was overwhelmingly negative, but Obama and Kerry couldn't back down after all the shit they both said. Then a reporter threw out the possibility of peaceful disarmament to Kerry, the Russians stepped in. The Obama Administration had their out.

Everyone is comparing this to the chemical weapons red line.