Sounds like a plan to cut off your nose to spiderface. Never spiderface: no good can come of that.

From a decade ago until now, the Perl devs have spent those ten years improving upon what you either misunderstood or are exaggerating for comedic effect.

Java was rushed out quickly, and early versions of Java made that obvious. Perl6 is the opposite - they've taken all the time needed to perfectly implement their vision, to make it exactly what it's supposed to be. Not everything is nail, so a hammer isn't the right tool for every job, but Perl6 is a mighty fine hammer. If you have a task well suited to what Perl6 is made for, it's a fine tool for the job.

As you noted, the altitude of the locker room is effectively the same as the field, so altitude would not be a factor. You made me curious about barometric pressure, so I looked it up. The highest-ever recorded pressure was less than 1 PSI above standard pressure, so even a record-breaking barometer reading wouldn't explain it.

The problem with that is that it has to be live streaming video or else sports fans won't be interested. For some weird reason, they just can't stand to watch sports if it's not live.

Were you joking? Jails in many cities in California now require you to pay for your stay, unless you want to be shipped to a state prison instead. We're not quite the statist utopia yet, but Cali comes close.

Yes, yes, we've heard it all before, it's those 99% of police who are bad apples that give the other 1% a bad name. Totally unfair of me to overgeneralize from several such occurrences in my actual life when arguing about someone else's fantasy.

Were you proposing a system? Or confused about today's system? It's an interesting proposal, but of course dividends are double-taxed today.

Overall, though, I think people are confused about why a corporation would "hoard" money in bad times. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the reserves needed to see you through a couple standard deviations of possible futures. We all benefit from corporations not going under if bad times continue, after all. So, unless you're actually a fan of bailouts, perhaps cut a company some slack when they build some reserves when facing uncertain times?

The executives want all the most important jobs close to them. All the top-tier engineering jobs, all the HR, product managers, senior corporate managers and other "useless overhead" jobs, all the jobs that pay really well tend to be where the corporate HQ is.

Others have already pointed out two reasons. One, making it a billion times safer than carrots also makes it cost a million times as much as it already does, and two, if it's more costly than coal, people will just burn coal instead. I'd like to point out two more reasons.

Suppose you make $60,000. You can only spend that $60,000 once. If you pay $100 more on your electric bill to make your power even more safe, that's $100 you don't have to spend on having your car a bit safer - two more airbags, perhaps. Spending your safety budget on the wrong things gets people killed, because any money from your pay check that ends up paying for safer energy is money that can't be used for traffic safety, food safety, etc. So the way to have the safest LIFE is to spend your safety budget where it does the most good, which probably isn't energy related.

Secondly, have you ever worked at a place that makes you change your password monthly? Pretty much everyone there increments their password, so all passwords end with two digits. Ever seen a highway with a speed limit posted that's clearly much too low? Everyone ends up speeding, but by vastly varying amounts since there's no reasonable guidance on how fast you should be going. Excessive rules are counterproductive because they just get people in the habit of ignoring the rules. If you wnt people to follow the rules, you need a) rules that are reasonable and b) people who understand why the rules they are handed are reasonable.

So the proper set of safety rules, the most effective are:
Carefully selected for maximum effect per cost, keeping the safety budget in mind.
Reasonable to follow.
Well explained, so people understand WHY they are reasonable rules that should be followed.

The problem with watching these things on cable is that you then have to watch commercials.

A better solution is to just download them on BitTorrent.

We "must" tax the corporation? What kind of goal is that? Do you see the end-goal of a government as being to tax everything it can as much as it can? Many people do, it seems.

How about, instead, the government works to grow the US economy as much as possible. More jobs, more income, the tax revenue thing will work out OK in the end.

No, you fool, how about we have more jobs here instead of your befuddled plan? Only a statist cares more about taxes than the health of the nation.

It's too bad that neither mdsolar's summary nor the article he linked to mention what change was proposed. Some changes may be good, others bad. No way to know about this one without knowing just what is was that someone wanted to change.

You know, mdsolar, you'd probably sell more by engaging in discussions on forums more targeted to your market and just answering questions people have have solar power systems. That would include forums that have a lot of people who want to be "off the grid" or less reliant on the grid, prepper forums for example. Also certain home renovation forums would have people who might be interested in buying. Pitching the general concept here, especially through negative FUD about your competitors, is kind of a waste of your time.

Did you have an argument to go with that assertion?

No system of taxation has ever gotten federal revenues above 19% of GDP for long, and corporate taxes are a fairly small portion of federal revenue to begin with. We only tax corporations out of some sense of social justice, not because it's a useful way to fund the government. The key ingredient to "saving the country" is to spend less that we actually take in in federal revenue. We can hypothesize all day about what might happen with some new tax plan, but long term if we don't spend less than we make, it will end in tears.

The proper goal and aim of the government is not to feather its own nest with larger taxes in the first place, but to grow the economy! I give 0 fucks whether corporations pay taxes here or not, the important thing is whether the incentives are to have jobs here or not - especially well-paying high-skill jobs! And each and every law that makes it more expensive to do business in America detracts from that,

But perhaps you had an argument along those lines?

WTF? Someone actually believes this? *boggle*

I used to deliver pizza for a living. Sometimes you get mugged. Once as I returned to the store, battered and bleeding, there was a cop right there in the store, getting some free pizza.

He seemed annoyed that we interrupted his free-pizza-getting by asking him to at least write an incident report. He outright rejected the notion that the police should make the area safer, and instead chastised us for doing business in such a dangerous neighborhood. He also wrote me a ticket for something about my car. Presumably the only reason he didn't shake me down for the money I had on me was that someone else had already stole that.

0 interest in policing. 0 interest in making things safer. 0 interest in preventing crime in any way that required effort on his part. They don't do that. They take your money and extort businesses for free stuff. That's what the police do.

Of course not - nothing's free. And if the police officer executes you, your family will be billed for the bullet (as is the norm in statist utopias).

Corporate taxes are really just a way to tax individual shareholders, employees and customers, but without any of them noticing that the money is coming out of their pockets. Taxes are necessary, but hidden taxes are evil. Taxes should be visible, so the taxpayers know what they're paying and can weigh it against the value they receive, to decide if they're getting good value for their money, and vote accordingly.

This particular proposal is a great example. Obama wants to go after this particular pool of money because to American taxpayers it appears to be "free" money. It doesn't cost them anything... or at least that's how it looks. I suppose to the extent that this is taxing foreign income generated by foreign workers producing goods and services for sale to foreign customers, it is "free". The only Americans who will be hurt are the Americans who are shareholders in the targeted companies, and there are also plenty of foreign shareholders. So to the extent the money is all foreign, it's taken from foreign taxpayers, which is, if anything, even more insidious.

We do need to maintain our infrastructure, and we should pay for it. But up front and in the open.