It's insanity because it's based on the misconception that taxing companies is somehow different from taxing people. What do you think those companies will do if you increase their taxes? Roll over and just fork it over even if it puts them in the red? No. They're going to raise their prices, and/or cut their costs to compensate.

Ultimately, all taxes are paid for by taxpayers. Whether it's directly through income and sales taxes, or indirectly through corporate taxes which get passed on to customers as price increases and employees as pay cuts (or smaller pay raises). The end result is the same - less money for taxpayers, more money for the government.

You can argue that we need more taxation. But never make the mistake of thinking that taxing corporations has zero impact on taxpayers. It has exactly the same economic effect as directly raising taxes on taxpayers. The only thing that gets changed is who gets blamed (people curse the companies for raising their prices, instead of the government for collecting so many taxes).

* Numerical example for people who still don't get it. Say you make $50k/yr and pay $10k/yr in taxes, thus leaving you with $40k/yr to spend on yourself. The country changes law eliminating income tax, and getting all funding from corporate taxes instead. Do you think you'll now get $50k/yr to spend? No. Companies now have to pay an extra $10k/yr per citizen in taxes. So either your pay gets cut to $40k/yr, or prices increase 20% which after adjusting for inflation leaves you with $40k/yr just like before. You see, average real income is purely a function of productivity. And changing how taxes are collected doesn't change average productivity per capita. So where from the economy you extract taxes can't change the amount of real take-home pay. It's all just shell game.

People can't heat themselves at night with negawatts. When power prices rise the the most vulnerable like the poor and the old are the first to die.

The teacher can teach without a closed fist, holding some knowledge back. That's what tests are: holding some knowledge back. Instead, let the teacher try to transfer his knowledge as transparently and openly and clearly as possible. Make it clear when the teacher runs up against something about the subject we don't know yet, instead of glossing over it as so often happens.

Teachers should not need the punishment of grades to teach effectively. Consider Socrates. Did he need grades?

I see what you mean. You seem to suffer from The Curse of Competence:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2008-...

I wonder how the Mystery Goo is going to behave in that orbit.

I actually independently came up with the 10% figure today as well, and mentioned to my project manager that unless he wants to invest real money chasing the long tail of data, he was going to have 10% of the records with bogus values in some fields. I will certainly adopt the rest of your quote!

Here you lost me. Why were you even in this business if you didn't love the challenge? Don't take other peoples' bad data personally. Take it as an opportunity.

It contains inaccuracies and is a clear troll. The poster knows enough terminology to sound smart, and deliberately twists it.

Oh, and the username begins with the word "Troll". Whoever went on to moderate that post as "Insightful" (as it now stands) does not understand cosmology, and additionally does not know how to identify an obvious troll.

they still teach home economics in 7th grade in NY

Home Ec is probably the one anomalous course at school. It's goal is not academic, it's practical.

Home Ec is to teach people how to run a household - how to cook a basic meal at home, how to do basic house repairs, how to maintain a budget, taxes, debt, how to do laundry, ironing etc. etc. etc.

It's a course on how to live in society. Instead of teaching coding, I'd say home ec should tech the basics of computer use (including how to use basic office applications), how to stay safe online, and dangers of putting your information online.

The fine article suggests that it does in fact affect orbit. Truth be told, it is the first time that I hear this, and _perhaps_ it is the case for gaseous worlds, for which slowing down the rotation is not as straightforward as for rocky worlds.

I've asked on space.SE, your input and comments are welcome on that discussion:
http://space.stackexchange.com...

Apple took something that existed and made it better. Consumers often adopt business technology as it becomes easier to use and more effective.

And in that one sentence, basically summarizes what Apple's skill is at.

Apple didn't invent the MP3 player. They made it usable. Apple didn't invent the computer, they made it usable. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, they made it usable.

Etc.

Apple's innovation is NOT in pushing the envelope hardware wise (usually), their innovation isn't in software, either. Or even the marriage of the two. Their innovation is taking some complex piece of technology and making it usable

I mean, MP3 players existed before the iPod, but they were huge if you wanted lots of storage, or could barely hold an album if you wanted portability. The iPod breached that by making a portable player with storage. But even better, it introduced iTunes, which helps manage a music collection. All you had to do was insert your CD, iTunes would rip and organize it and transfer it to your iPod. Firewire helped, too, since USB1.1 took forever to transfer music. Add in the iTunes Music Store and that was the final piece of the puzzle.

The iPhone itself wasn't remarkable - but the biggest thing it did do was put a desktop class browser in a handheld form factor. Before this you had lame ass browsers that could barely render a table, and now Apple produces one that practically gave you what you see on your computer, on a handheld. Add in the ubiquitous iPod and you had consumer appeal.

And power users complained that Apple stuff doesn't meet their needs - yes, that's true. But Apple doesn't cater to the power user niche - they cater to the common user whose needs are fairly simple.

Yet space does not have that much friction to fight against. So I would say it's a win.

The truth hurts doesn't it fanboys?

At the Europa day on the Hill last summer, I ran into a 90 yr old Harry Finger (the former head of NERVA) who remains absolutely convinced that this technology (which was ready for flight tests back in the Apollo period) is essential for human travel to the planets, and needs to be revived.

Looking at the delta-V requirements for a human Mars mission, I can't say I disagree with him.

If you can't add without a calculator 33 and 84 in your head and get an answer instantly, then you are fucked up.

If you have to think about it at all, then your education has been wrong.

There is value to pages and pages of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division work. And in not being able to access a calculator to do it.

Students can be motivated in other ways than by tests and grades. Using tests and grades really teaches kids that they should dislike school.

Alfie Kohn makes The Case Against Grades.

A favorite passage:

although teachers may be required to submit a final grade, there's no requirement for them to decide unilaterally what that grade will be. Thus, students can be invited to participate in that process either as a negotiation (such that the teacher has the final say) or by simply permitting students to grade themselves. If people find that idea alarming, it's probably because they realize it creates a more democratic classroom, one in which teachers must create a pedagogy and a curriculum that will truly engage students rather than allow teachers to coerce them into doing whatever they're told. In fact, negative reactions to this proposal ("It's unrealistic!") point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.