*That* is an argument that is very possibly worth making.

Aw, crap, that should have been "very much like how US citizens are already subject to US taxes on their overseas earnings".

(And I even used Preview, dammit.)

Nobody's talking about "taxing other countries".

US law says that, if you're a US citizen, you're liable for US taxes. Doesn't matter where you live or where your money comes from. However, it also recognises that it's not nice to subject citizens residing overseas to double taxation--so if you live in $country and pay $country's taxes on your income there, the US will often accept this as having fulfilled your obligation. But if you've income that you're not paying taxes on, anywhere, and the IRS finds out, they will come calling.

What Obama is apparently intending is to extend this philosophy to US corporations, which currently enjoy a much better deal than you or I. They pay US taxes on profits reported in the US. They don't pay US taxes on profits reported in other countries--and here comes the important part--even if they report those profits in $nation, which happens to have negligible or even zero corporate taxes. Whereas, if I move to $nation and they don't make me pay income tax there, then I get to pay it to the US.

So corporations currently get a huge overseas tax dodge that you and I don't. Quoth TFS,

So in other words, US corporations making money overseas would be subject to taxes on it in a manner very much like how US citizens are already subject to their overseas earnings, and with same proviso that they won't be doubly taxed.

Okay, go ahead and explain how this is "retarded" or unfair. Seems pretty smart and fair to me.

The difference in the length of the day between the seasons seems to affect me more than some folks. Or maybe it's just taken me 6 or 7 years to get used to it.

I suspected something was fishy about the .com, but did not know the story. Thanks.

Well, duh. I honestly did not know this. Thank you, AC!

Ok, I've had a slightly longer look, and (*cough* slightly customised version of *cough* the GPL notwithstanding) I see no way to obtain the GimpShop sources. There's a .deb but it's version 2.2.11, whereas the Windows version is at 2.8 (like GIMP). The source download link just points you to ftp.gimp.org

So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, GimpShop is dead. Ah well, too bad.

I use gcc and make. What sort of installer do you prefer?

You've got to be fucking kidding.

A Windows installation from scratch, plus updates, plus apps, plus updates for the apps, is going to run you 5-6 hours, and maybe more if you can't find that one Adobe CD or your 'Net connection is flaky. Whereas you can install an "everything including the kitchen sink" version of any major Linux distro, complete with all the latest updates, complete with all the latest versions of all applications, in less than an hour.

Thanks for reminding me that this existed. Wish my distro had a package for it. Not that hard to build from source, but a bit tricky to replace the default version. Maybe this time I'll try installing it in my ~/bin and leaving the version installed by my distro alone.

*nod*

When I want to make a fashion statement, I go buy a new sweater.

Most years I've found the Swedish winter to be absolutely soul-crushing. This year, I've made it 8 Hour Day* without much trouble, though.

*The first day of the year having 8 or more hours daylight here. We get a bit under 6 hours at the winter solstice.

You have some problems with this "sequence of events" thing, eh? Let me spell it out for you:

The people who actually did the work have long since been paid.

The only people "losing" anything are the ones trying to charge rent... forever and ever, amen .

You sound a bit like the "making available" folks.

Let me be the first (*this* time round, that is) to say, "You should have used Preview."