Corporations should pay taxes otherwise people would just hide their personal profits in Corporations - many already do - they get "paid nothing", but get to use the resources of the corporation as theirs.

I'm fine with Corporations not paying taxes on profits that aren't theirs.

But it sure seems unfair when a Corporation starts treating certain profits as if it owns them but still doesn't have to pay any taxes on them.

For example,
a) if a corporation can include the profit in its financial reports as part of its total profit then the profit is the corporation's and so it should pay any taxes due them. If it doesn't want to pay taxes on them it should not include them as part of its profits.
b) If a corporation can borrow money using profits of another corporation as collateral, or otherwise control or use the profits of another corporation, then those profits belong to the first company and so it should pay any taxes due on them. If it's not your money why can the bank lend you money using it as collateral? If it's not yours why can you treat it like you own it? If it's yours then pay the taxes on it.

As for double or triple taxation you could simply say the Corporation has to pay your country what's left over after the other countries have taxed the corporation. If the corporation has paid out zero, your country gets the full amount of tax, if it has paid out a lot then your country might get none of it.

Hundreds of years ago copyright was just 14 years.

With productivity and efficiency supposedly increasing, the rate of innovation supposedly increasing, the costs of distribution going down, and reach of distribution increasing, when copyright and patent terms are changed shouldn't it be for the shorter instead of longer?

Copyright terms that last more than a century prove something is wrong.

It is bullshit at least for "diet" purposes since:
1) Not all the calories are the same - try pumping diesel into a petrol car or vice versa, same calories very different effects. Compare long term effects of different ethanol-petrol ratios on your car. Human metabolism is even more complicated than a car's engine. Compare consuming 2000 calories of sugar water with consuming 2000 calories of protein mix.
2) most conveniently forget to measure the _excreted_ calories - for example, how much you shit out. Even a 5% difference in individuals can become significant over time.
3) There's also satiety factors. For "dieting" purposes different foods with the same amount of calories have different satiety.

A partial truth can be just as damaging as flat out lies. And there have been plenty saying harmful bullshit like "a calorie is a calorie" when it's not so simple as that.

They spray, you pray. And everyone pays.

Everyone suffers from input latency anyway. The difference is with local side rendering the game clients can just draw what they think would happen ASAP without waiting for the server. This hides the latency a fair bit. The server just says some time later "Nope, sorry you're dead" or "No, you are actually in this position" or "It happened about the way you thought it would".

With the rendering done server side, to hide some latency issues the servers could render and stream spherical/360 video - e.g. you turn and the "client" can show that view of the video immediately, rather than ping time later. But positional movement and other stuff will still lag by ping time. This is a showstopper for "twitch" games but not others.

My guess is it takes significantly longer for a Tesla battery to go from too hot to burning to kaboom, than for a fuel tank to do the same, and if you have thermal sensors you might be able to get enough warning time. Doesn't help if it burns down your garage and house though, but perhaps you could get the car to sound the horn in a distinctive way.

Do the statistics indicate that Teslas are catching on fire destructively more often than cars in its class?

Why's the current location a big problem? The current location helps lower the Tesla's CG which is good in many other ways. For a "sports car" I'd say the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

These class of cars crash and burn all the time (some even split in two). Google if you don't believe me. Heck even other conventional cars crash and burn too- A friend's friends were burnt to death in a BMW after a crash - they were stuck and couldn't get out.

This Tesla model seems really safe in comparison. Maybe add some thermal sensors, have a "car about to burn" warning and we're good to go.

I don't play GW2 (sure seems more like WoW[1] than GW1, so not going to bother at least for now), but from what I see the GW2 players can't even agree whether there's inflation or deflation.

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/topic/76265-inflation-out-of-hand-or-alright-for-now/
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/archive/jubilee/Do-you-notice-inflation

As for massive grind, if you want to max level and get the best gear etc ASAP, I can see how you'd have to grind in GW2 (and I don't like games like that). But given your complaint about grinding in GW1, maybe your playing style also tends too much towards grinding? If you really do enjoy blowing your way through to the end game and getting all the "best stuff" then do so by all means (some really do- even compete to be the first to hit max etc), but you don't seem to find that fun. So in GW2 is it possible to relax and play through the content without grinding? In GW1 it was possible. OK GW Prophecies was more grindy, but Factions was almost "sneeze and gain a level" ;)...

[1] For example: gear makes a significant difference and so grinding for gear makes a significant difference in how well you do. Not merely how stylish you look while you are kicking ass or getting your ass kicked ;).

I haven't played GW2, but regarding GW1, other than the silly unlock skills and gear for PvP bullshit, very little grinding is _required_ even in PvE.

You want the fancy armor - yes you grind. But the fancy armor has the SAME STATS as the armor you don't really need to grind for. It just looks nicer (or not depending on your tastes).

You can play and experience all the story content including the elite areas just as well without the fancy armor. Having the fancy armor doesn't help you do better at all.

If you want to play the grinding game and grind for consumables, fancier armor, weapons, titles, yes GW1 allows you to grind, but it's silly to then complain about the grind right? I haven't needed to grind for consumables so far.

The only exception I can see is if you want stuff like a 7 requirement 16 armor shield... Then yes you may need to grind to get that. That said I got one and kept it through sheer luck - I was a noob when I got it - and kept it without knowing the value of it :). You don't actually need it though. Player skill, teamwork and tactics matter far more in PvP than having rare gear like this.

For GW1 they don't need the grinding because they've already got the money upfront from the players! They don't need gameplay that "compels" them to come back every day. They do need enough people around so that players have other players to play with, but that's about it.

GW1 can be boring if you do the same thing over and over again. But the game doesn't actually force you to do that. You can use some rather weird builds for fun. I currently use a hero ele rit as a healer and a necro as a illusion mesmer :).

I personally agree that reproduction should be regulated.

The reason is as a trade off between fairness and mercy.
Basically as technology improves, jobs are going to vanish. If we are going to have a decent social safety net we can't have unregulated population growth. If you can't support yourself, we shouldn't let you starve to death but instead provide for you reasonably. However we shouldn't allow you to do stuff like have eight kids unless sponsors can be found for them. As for the right to vote, perhaps tie that in to a minimum amount of community service if you are "state-supported".

Of course such stuff sounds evil, and in many ways it is evil. But what lesser evil alternatives are there? Having families or even entire populations starve is evil too. Plenty of evil in wars too.

We already have robotic warehouses, burger making robots, even foxconn plans to replace more and more workers with robots. So jobs will vanish because the whole idea is to reduce jobs, cut costs and make the owners rich. Unless of course you can convince the rich people to keep spending most of their wealth. But the rich seem to prefer "_trickle_ down economics". Not _gush_ down. ;)

The platform was declared a failure by many years ago. The reason it survived so long was HP had VMS and Tandem customers. And HP made it such that the Itanic was their only ship sailing on their routes. Those who could leave got off along the way, the rest keep on paying.

If you look at the old SPEC figures you can see that it was a few times faster in a few tasks (and slower in others). However I believe many of those tasks were "embarrassingly parallel". So instead of buying one Itanic box you could buy two or more x86 boxes for the same price and get about the same performance for that workload and have more flexibility (better performance for other tasks). And possibly not use that much more power either - the Itanic was quite power hungry too!

VMS uptime has much to do with its clustering. They are measuring cluster uptime not node uptime. The difference between VMS clustering and normal webserver/appserver clusters is VMS supported single system image clustering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_system_image#Some_example_SSI_clustering_systems

Tandem on the other hand had fancier hardware stuff like pairs of CPUs that ran in lock-step with each other...

Both of these were bought by HP but they never really did much with them. The problem also was most people don't care so much about the high availability of the entire OS, they only care about high availability of certain applications/services. And they could achieve "good enough" HA of those apps/services without buying HPs stuff.

The Titanic was considered a failure not because it didn't "top" stuff (and it did in many things). It was because it sank.

The Itanic on the other hand was a failure out of the gate because its inevitable sinking was obvious to anyone who knew how things worked. It was destined for failure not greatness. Just because inertia from "vendor lock-in" and HP's desperate pushing kept it moving upwards for a while doesn't mean it wasn't a failure.

Of course most didn't throw away their VMS, Tandem and HP/UX stuff when the Itanic was announced as their upgrade path. But the sane ones started plans to get off that platform. These sort of plans don't happen overnight - they take years. Getting off HP/UX might not be so hard but there were and are no cheap and easy substitutes for the other stuff. So you keep paying them till you finally get free.

I'll still prefer the chicken though.

What sort of games do you play? Flight sim?

The larger monitors tend to have higher latencies, so they're not so good for games where higher lag would make a difference. Should be fine for flight sims I guess.

http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
There aren't as many big monitors with 16ms lag (16ms = 1 frame at 60Hz), except maybe some Sonys? For some reason the lag tends to get crappier the bigger the screen gets Despite what the database says I don't consider 30ms lag to be great when it comes to playing games.