The presumption against extraterritoriality articulated in Morrison and RJR is arguably more flexible than previous versions in at least two respects: (1) it is not a clear statement rule; and (2) it recognizes that the focus of a statutory provision may be on something other than conduct (for example, on the transaction, in the case of 10(b), and on the injury to business or property, in the case of RICO's private right of action). Are these changes in the presumption positive or negative?