Part of what happened would be reduced corporate profits, not increased cost to consumers. The downside of that is that it makes it harder to get a successful business going.

I have no problem with closing corporate tax loopholes, reducing corporate subsidies, and increasing corporate taxes in general; however, it's naive to think that those measures would not increase the prices for consumer goods and services provided by corporations whose taxes suddenly take a massive hike. So not an explicit increase in taxes for the general public, but the same effect.

Do you hold yourself to the same standard? When you have reached some certain level of salary, do you give up a raise because you have earned enough and it's not reasonable for you to accept more for your efforts? Are you a greedy bastard when you advocate for a higher salary, instead of allowing a summer intern to be hired?

  I just don't buy this logic. If a corporation, operating under the rules set by the government and regulators, can increase its profit and continue providing its services, why would it not do so? I don't see in law any requirement that companies have social welfare or domestic employment goals in their incorporation requirements

  If we're unhappy with the results of this behavior, then we should set new rules. But blaming them for following the incentives we've set is silly.

Pretty much this.

I'm in favour of making H-1B have am minimum $120-$150k salary.

So it can only be used for skilled labour.

There's a larger point to be made here.

Let's review our basic civics classes from back in elementary school and ask ourselves the test question. "What are the three branches of American government?"

Then let's ask ourselves which branch of government makes laws and provides for funding of issues like monitoring Muslims, building Walls, deporting 11 million people, kicking the fuck out of ISIS, changing tax laws, or even making America great again?

IIRC, Bernie's plan was "significantly increase taxes on the middle class", which might actually work, assuming the economy doesn't tank as a result of the taxes. I like his honesty. When politicians say "tax the rich" what they always mean is "increase taxes on the middle class", but people keep falling for that lie.

Parallels is a pain in the ass. Every time Mac OS updates you have to update to a new version of Parallels. And those updates cost (typically). I believe they have sorted out most of their driver problems now, but it used to be that installing Parallels would cause nothing but problems for me.

Bring in VirtualBox. I also do embedded development (Linux host) and VirtualBox saves me when I need a Windows app. The GPU drivers suck but this is typically not a big deal when doing embedded development. Overall, I actually prefer it. If it cost the same as Parallels I would still use VirtualBox.

Or act like a grownup and stop playing games.

Good point with theaters. Though I still argue there is some "lower bound" for an acceptable sale price for physical products, some intrinsic cost for something tangible for us, the consumers. If paper alone is 5 cents per 100 sheets, you'll never see a new 200 page book for under 10 cents, ignoring all other costs associated with printing/binding/shipping/royalties/etc...

My point is that these perceptions of value are skewed by distributors clinging to an old sales model. Software/media pirates have a perception of value for a product lower than the asking price, many probably think $0 is perfectly fine. I've often thought that $60 is too much for some new games, while $50 or even $40 is more reasonable. Can I rationalize why I think a lower price is more reasonable? Not really, it comes down to my (likely flawed) memory of when games were cheaper, or maybe that I buy some older games used for $15. I doubt I'm the only one out there that feels this way.

You can make the same profits by selling 100,000 copies with a $1 margin as you can by selling 1000 copies with $100 margin. Lower that barrier for entry, and I'm pretty sure you'll see more purchases. After all, AAA titles are now competing with indie developers that are increasingly capable of making good games for 1/4 the price.

  DRM and resale is less of a concern if people are able to spend less money on new.

"and the headphone jack will be removed"

Is this what people want? I mean, I know a lot of people like their wireless ones... but I prefer wired. I hate charging the stupid things. I hate pairing the stupid things. I like just being able plug them in and go. I like that by being plugged in the headphones stay with the phone; and don't get left behind. I like that they are cheap and easy to replace.

Plus I still occasionally connect it to aux inputs and such in cars. My daughter uses headphones with her iphone all the time. Everyone i know has wired headsets and headphones... only a handful prefer wireless/bluetooth solutions.

Well the last idiot that got voted in (not once but twice) ended up starting an illegal and unjustified war in Iraq, the results of which the we and the rest of the developed world are still cleaning up after.

It's debatable whether or not action against Iraq was unjustified, but you can't seriously claim it was illegal. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed both the House (296 - 133) and Senate (77 - 23) with bi-partisan support.

Trump may come in on a wave of fear and flag waving but his power will be limited by his office. I predict that once he is in office he will accomplish little to nothing because the other branches will reign him in. I predict that trump will be a one time president who's term in office will be little more than a foot note on history.

Oddly enough, Trump is the only front-runner clearly and vehemently opposed to the current H1B abuse that's going on right now.

Daddy Trump bought $3M in poker chips to bail out The Donald when a bond payment was due.