Replays have been in place for years, and I think arguments between the coaches and umpires have probably gone way down in response to calls that aren't about the strike zone. Since they can't get rid of bad umps because of the umpire union, they'll have to do this to minimize the PR impact of certain bad umps. Unfortunately, it won't improve MLBs problems which are teams focusing on winning by taking more pitches, and their decision to put their product on expensive cable networks which bring more product but prevent younger fans from being exposed to their product, reducing the number of people interested in their product, ensuring that fewer people will care about baseball in the generations to come. Eventually, immigration from countries that care about soccer more will probably lead to MLS being the second-largest sport in the US.

I think the NFL, for now, has the right idea, because every Sunday, most of the country can watch 4 games on CBS, Fox and NBC, meaning most fans can watch 25% of NFL games without a significant financial investment. It also helps that Football has 269 games, meaning a full season of football has about 810 hours of action. If I watch 2 games a week, (many fans quite easily watch 5 (3 on Sunday - early afternoon, late afternoon and evening, plus Monday and Thursday), I'm watching 12% of the action in a season, and somebody watching 5 games is getting around 30%. To do the equivalents in baseball, for 12%, you'd have to watch 2 games a day, at 6 hours, and for 30% you'd have to watch 5 for about 15 hours per day. The ability to consume more of a football season with less of a time commitment probably leads to more interest because of familiarity with the game and players.

This is the next internet mania of the dotcom boom & bust and bitcoin mania of 2017, maybe with that virtual world video game thrown in. I've been watching cryptocurrency videos for the last year, and I think the rich are preparing something some think will be big as the industrial revolution, the digitization of money. Most transactions are already done without handing over money, so soon they could replace the transfer of cash between banks with cryptocurrency instantaneous transfers. There is a very expensive amount of settling that has to be done behind the scenes when you do business through the banking system. What if that went away, and retailers got to keep the money they currently give Visa etc.?

Bitcoin is hugely expensive and slow, controlled by Chinese miners (also a problem with Ethereum), and cannot be fractionated into small enough units to be a replacement for money, so I don't think it will be the winner. On the other hand, XRP is fast (less than 5 seconds to settle) and cheap (10,000ths of a penny for transactions) and has a 0% error rate while the Swift system takes days to settle international transactions, is also expensive, and prone to errors (6% is a number I hear alot).

There is a lot of talk on YouTube about CBDC (central bank digital currencies) taking over economies in place of the current monetary systems meaning you would have your bank exchange your money for the digital currency, and you would continue doing every thing like you have for decades. If you want to send money internationally, they will convert it to XRP, send that to the destination bank who would convert it to the local currency and hand it over less than a minute after it was sent.

The next big idea is ownership tracking/verifying real world statuses, and several tokens are heavily focused on this. VET, ADA, Ethereum, and Spark are some that I'm aware of. People are experimenting with various ideas. Maybe instead of paper tickets or a reservation kept in a private database, you'll get a digital token instead. These stunts are people experimenting with the various tokens. Some may get rich in the process, many will get scammed, people will have to learn which systems are trustworthy. In the end, progress will happen, and I think this will happen because those who have money want it to, and they'll drag us along for the ride. was not found on this server.

I think your math is wrong. -68 + 2150 would be 2082.

Alabama has 8 home games this year. You and 3 friends agree that 4 games probably won't be close in the fourth quarter, and you would each like to reclaim some, or even all (your friend could enter with his ticket, leave and enter with yours) of the game time for three of the four weeks. You sit together, and anytime you're ready to leave, you give your ticket to the friend who is staying to the end that week. You leave, and he turns in your ticket at the end of the game getting you the end of game timestamp. A later week, you're the one who takes the tickets for your three friends. System gamed. I suppose the machines could be monitored so each fan could only submit one ticket, but of course, they could circle back and drop the ticket in a different trip through the same or different line.

People think shareholders in corporations pay significantly less taxes than everybody else, but it ignores this: when you own shares in a dividend paying corporation, the corporation pays 21% and the shareholder pays 15%. If you multiply .79 x .85, the money remaining from corporate gross profit to shareholder after tax profit is a net 32.85% tax rate, just below the top tax rate in the American income tax system. (Take $1 of imaginary profit, take away 21 cents of corporate taxes, then take away 11.85 (15% of 79) in individual taxes to end up at 67.15 cents left. The 32.85 cents gone is all taxes, and an effective 32.85% tax rate.) Sure, if you ignore the second tax, it seems like corporations are ripping of the rest of us, but really, all that matters is the people who own them, and how much profit they (we!!!) earn, and when you consider the whole story, corporate taxation isn't really the big scam the tax loving left would have you believe.

Replace one or the other tax rate with the whole tax burden, and they would demonize the system for the lower rate (Make capital gains 33%, and corporations 0%, and they would demonize that, switch to 33% corporate and 0% capital gains, and you get guys like Buffett saying they pay less than their secretaries because they don't pay taxes. Lies! Lies! Lies!)

Tax receipts under the new tax law actually increased by 3% and spending increased by 6%. The deficit is not caused by a lack of taxation, it's caused by a lack of spending control. Add up the income taxes, payroll taxes, property and sales taxes, and realize that Americans are taxed at a level similar to many of the high taxation countries in Europe, and still we can't control our expenses to balance the budget, because both parties but especially the Democrats refuse to be fiscally responsible.

Because if you review the Socialist countries and Nordic model, and you are honest about what the Democrats are offering, you'll realize that they want to make us more like Venezuela than Europe, where even their versions of socialism will probably fail during the next financial crisis.

Search Canadian health system problems, then replace with searches for England, France, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Read the pages, and realize they all have the same problems which will only get worse going forward. Realize Medicare in the US is already bankrupt and only works by stealing from the rest of us by forcing providers to under charge their patients, who then have to raise prices on the rest of us to make ends meet.

And shortages are going only get worse, because these systems under price wages for skilled doctors (or other medical professions), discouraging students from becoming doctors, which is a serious problem because of the decade long wait to train new doctors.

Given a choice, I'd like to go to a more free market than toward government provided everything, and my salary is in the 60s, meaning I'm not trying to get out of paying my fair share, but by risking losing the government money that subsidizes my current expenses, I actually risk losing financially in the short run, but eventually, I hope we would improve both the product of health care in the US as well as seeing enough new doctors trained to get us to a lower price point.

I also recently read that in countries with free education still have robust private colleges because the elites understand that the free schools don't provide a quality education, and they are willing to pay for better. You do 'get what you pay for.

My wife teaches through VIPkid online, In fact, she is right now), and she said the Chinese were discussing requiring not just a degree, but a teaching degree earlier this year, which had her and a lot of her fellow teachers on edge wondering if they were going to be regulated out of their jobs. For now, China has decided not to implement this change. I think there may have been a possiblity that they may be considering blocking non-Chinese teachers as well.

Couldn't you setup a phone app with location detection, sych with the truck, and the truck just follow the mailman when he's out of the truck? In my neighborhood, that would save the mailman walking from the door to the curb at every house, or parking and returning to the truck after he's walk several houses up the block. When there's a package, the truck is close by without the carrier having to keep the try near by the extra effort. Over time you might end up being able to drop a percentage of the carriers in suburban areas (housing neighborhoods) due to increased efficiency.

Hilariously, all four leading democratic contenders are white men (Biden, Sanders, Beto & Buttigieg). Two of them are establishment guys who've been in the system for 45 and 29 years, and a third married into inherited money which is pretty much the definition of white privilege.

I'd be interested to see what the per capita for the value of the wealth of the Church v the number of active* Catholics in the world. If you came up with a value of that for an organization that includes hundreds of millions of active worshipers, and the value of a Church organization probably doesn't look to out of sorts v a mega church or ordinary non-denominational or denominational church of any other variety.

*I know the total number of living baptised members is over a billion, but that includes everbody who was baptised as an infant and hasn't been in a Church in at least 5 to 80 years or more.

It's probably because of the French Revolution, when Church property was confiscated by the government. Marx defined socialism after all of this happened.

Is prison warranted in property crimes? How about if we're talking about white collar criminals who take millions? Bank robbers who threaten people with weapons?

I definitely think there is a place for prison for property crimes. Either repay the full amount, or whatever you can, then somewhere between 1 day/$200 - 1 day/$1000 for whatever can't be repaid/repaired. Let's say we're generous, and give 1 day/$1000 owed. Perhaps they find he has $5000. From the $58,000 he owed, they take his $5000, then give him the option of paying the $53,000 over time (no bankruptcy get out of jail), or you go to jail for 53 days to pay your $53,000 debt. If you think that's too generous, give him 265 days.

Consider Bernie Madoff. $20 billion profit from his scheme would result in a 20,000 day stay in the slammer, which would be 54 years, which seems very reasonable for the crime committed, although I wouldn't bicker if somebody wanted the 270 year penalty instead.

He couldn't commission a crime that had already been committed. He was only asking that the emails, that had already been copied from the server, be released. Unless the Russian knew (no just guessed) in advance that Trump was going to ask them to release the emails (assuming they are the ones who had them), his after the fact request can't be commission of a crime.

All Trump was doing (like any good politican) is make the event (illicit server being hacked) more memorable so it would continue to hang over his opponent's head for the rest of the campaign. There is no crime in that. I wish that more people had long enough memories, then she wouldn't have even been a candidate.

Or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Specifically, 20 out of 21 Southern Democrats stayed Democrat after the Civil Rights Act. Republicans still weren't able to dominate the south until a whole generation after the beginning of the Southern strategy.

It's very interesting to me that the Klan and it's supporters were highly supportive of abortion to keep the numbers of blacks low, but modern 'racists' are pro-life, which if their policy goals were implemented would increase the number of blacks much faster than the number of whites.