Well, no. Homebrew started with PD; a model where anyone can do anything with the design, or code. GPL is far more restrictive.
I still use the PD model. I'd rather my code was used by anyone who found it convenient, and I have no love for lawyers whatsoever, my entire goal in life is to avoid them completely.
It's not the average times that get you. It's the outlier numbers that collapse into the averages. We've seen eight hours without power in -20 degreee F weather here in Montana. It's why I own a generator and can switch power to the (gas) furnace any time I want to. When you're talking about protection from power outages, what you want to know is does the power EVER go out for long enough intervals to do you damage: And everywhere I've lived - Pennsylvania, NYC, Florida, California, Montana - the answer is an unqualified yes. Right now, there's no sense going without UPSs for computer systems and backups for heating and critical power systems like fishtanks, refrigerators, etc.
The power grid is subject to people running into telephone poles, ice on the lines, old transformers bursting into flames, lightning and geomagnetic storms, human error, and a bunch more things. That's the nature of it - it's out there in the real world. You can protect a power system within your own walls such that it is much more reliable, and that's no slam on the power company - you simply don't have as much to contend with.
Now, if you have no pipes to freeze, no data to lose, no fish to watch float to the top, no freezers full of food to see turn into biohazard... sure, I can see depending on the average. After all... what could go wrong?
She said women don't dress for men, they dress for other women.
Maybe she wouldn't be your ex if she had been motivated to dress for you, rather than them? There's a lot to be said for someone who doesn't care so much about other people, but is looking to please their partner. People who just don't care... perhaps they really just don't care. If you get my drift.
Thirdly (3), the idea that 'They', as in the idiot masses, are, well, idiots is so... 1990's:)
Really? Here's what you do. Identify someone with a 100 IQ. Take that person to lunch. Have a nice, stimulating conversation with them. Be sure you cover politics, religion, technology, science (as a philosophy), science (as a pool of currently accepted theory), sports, marriage (gay and otherwise), the social contract, personal budgets, compound interest, the care and use of computer systems, and car maintainance. And anything else you can think of.
When you're done, simply reflect: Half, or more (because a lot of people reside under the peak), of the population (by definition) are only as smart, or less so, than that person.
Now, you were saying about how "1990's" it was to think of idiot masses?
Scientology, like all religion, exists to get the idiots to willingly identify who they are, so rational folks can develop a proper avoidance strategy.
Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but
on
Typing With Your Brain
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Women make up for in detail what men do in quantity in that regard.
Cite? Where's your data? As far as you go, I'd be perfectly willing to accept that's how you roll, but women in general... the indirect evidence doesn't seem to support this.
In my experience, men are far more visual than women are. I think one obvious chunk of evidence for this was the pre-Internet era proliferation of men's picture magazines while one or two comparable woman's magazines (e.g. Playgirl) addressed what they thought might be a similar market. Also that the two leading magazines, Playboy and Penthouse, both specialized in visually rich pictures, including the surroundings, environment, etc., while the less successful ones kept it simple, not to say gynecological.
Another tick in this column is the huge market for makeup, sexy clothes, etc., for women; not so much for men. It would seem that men are looking specifically for visual stimulation on a level that women are not. And that women know it, because they certainly buy this stuff in large enough quantities without demanding comparable "peacock" performance from the male population.
Aw, c'mon, that's just harsh. It's programming, it's just one type of programming. Speaking as a C and assembler fanatic, but fan of inter-compatible versions of Python and burner-at-the-stake of perl.
Scripting is nice just to whip things up and do proof of concept in, too.
On-thread, I agree that the difference here is quite high (for PHP against C), it'll vary for other languages. There's a nice table of relative speeds here (and the argument about what the language is doing, I don't buy... in my experience, things tend to remain somewhat relative):
These are obviously not the times you'd get for web ops, but I am of the opinion you'd find a similar curve, similar time relationships, for any general program. Which is to say that not only is PHP slow, it's slow for everything, which means it is an inefficient use of system resources in busy environments. Lots of cycles for not much done, which means programs that are loaded longer and resources that are tied up longer -- regardless of the underlying DB transactions, too - the DB is running on the same server, those cycles could have been DB cycles. And if not, more apps could have been running with the others out of the way sooner and/or not consuming CPU time. Waste is waste.
Atheists aren't those who are looking for an abolition of religion (they couldn't care less, provided it doesn't interfere with them). Anti-theists on the other hand, are.
Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods. No more, no less.
This state of mind incorporates no agenda. There is no dogma for atheism, no book or agenda or canon that says an atheist "must" be ok with religion, or not. Atheism doesn't define "couldn't care less" any more than it does "cares a lot" with regard to anything, including the lack of belief itself.
In the terms you're throwing around, an atheist might be anti-theist, or not. This is not a consequence of atheism, however. It is a consequence of how the individual sees theism -- which I suspect is in turn a consequence of how theists and the doings of theists have impacted the life of the individual, and those the individual cares about.
At issue here is their social agenda, not their efficient use of bailout monies.
This is highly reminiscent of when Obama asked for input from Americans for issues they wanted to see addressed; the very highest rated issue was legalization of marijuana and amnesty for those imprisoned or otherwise punished.
So what happened? When the time came to address the issues, Obama laughed it off, literally laughing about it in public, during the program for talking about these issues, and acting like it was "crazy talk."
The people running this country - and you'd better believe that includes the people running the banks and other major players in the financial system, such as the insurance companies - are completely out of touch.
When we're talking about nuclear reactions, the amount of energy obtained per expended amount of mass is quite a bit higher than with chemical reactions. So yes, it does help.
I'm not talking about money spent in elections. The vast majority of high office candidates are preselected by the parties, so it doesn't matter who is elected -- they'll still vote in the corporations favor on any issue where the corporations have an interest, or else the party won't support them. Ventura's a good example of what happens to exceptions: The environment is intolerable for them. The only successful exception one can point to is Ron Paul, and there, "success" is defined by not getting his way except once in a blue moon... he just manages to hang on in an environment where his outlook is steadfastly ignored.
This is what I mean when I imply that the dollar controls the system. For example, you'll never be able to put up your own FM station, because corporations control access to the airwaves through the congress and the FCC. You'll never be able to set up a private Internet, because the telecomms control your ability to do so though congress; they'll tie you up with legislation about being responsible for what others move through your network, licenses, and so forth until you're right out of the game. You want to make toys in your garage? Welcome to a brand new web of regulations that blows your profit margin off the face of the planet. It goes on and on. Corporations have the edge, and they'lol keep the edge, because why? Because they have the money.
If you think voters have any control, you're completely naive. "Loser's lament", my eye. If anything, it's a patriot's lament.
This is not a democracy. It's supposed to be a democratic republic, but it isn't that either. It's a dollar-ocracy. Dollars buy votes at the representative level, and the system accommodates the needs of those providing the dollars. You can pick new representatives, but only from those chosen by "the party" for you to pick from, and they *all* adhere to the dollar-ocracy mechanism, so you can't change how the system works. At all.
That would require TVs to have a copy of the sound track from prior programs to perform normalization.
No, it doesn't. Volume can be controlled instantaneously, with or without recovery that temporarily normalizes the audio coming afterwards. To do it in high fidelity requires analysis of the entire audio segment; I don't think anyone cares if the commercials are handled in high fidelity, they just want them to not knock you for a loop. So you can set a threshold to be detected, and when it is, the gain is dropped, right then, and it doesn't go back up until N seconds without a violating peak go by. AM radios work like this, it's called AGC (automatic gain control) and it works fine. In the case of an Am radio, the actual amplitude varies as the signal propagation; so the AGC has to work pretty well. Fast attack, slow decay. That's all we need here, something to step on the offending audio when it gets too loud. Couple of knobs would make it very flexible, but again, as any decent Am radio demonstrates, doesn't need them.
How do you think most commercial vendors would react if you started distributing their code in violation of their terms?
I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects. This, however, is the dominant litany for GPL code.
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
Seems like they were given enough chances to respond, it would've been the same with proprietary software.
But... it wouldn't have been the same with PD software (like this), which is actually free, as opposed to "we will ruin your life with lawyers if you use it any way but how we tell you", which is a summary of GPL-poisoned software.
The GPL is a travesty foisted off on the programming community - it is anti-progress and a wasteful time sink and anti-freedom and court fodder and lawyer bait. Other than that, of course, it's just great.:/
Government should do big services and big infrastructure when (a) that infrastructure will benefit the country significantly, (b) it can't be done fairly or generally or cost-wise by private entities.
This is why it legitimately builds roads; educates the citizens; guards the borders; (very poorly) regulates the airwaves; maintained the post roads; regulates the monetary standards.
This is why it *should* ensure that the individuals in the population are healthy; have electrical power; have heat; have water; have powerful and uniform networking available; have access to a portion of the RF spectrum for broadcasting. And other, similar things.
As usual, sometimes government does what it should, sometimes it doesn't. There's no question that were it to do all the things it should, the nation would be a creative and productive powerhouse. But getting around the vested interests in embedded private concerns is a political nightmare. Look at Leiberman blocking the health care bill right now -- the man is a complete tool of the insurance companies, and it is insurance companies that are the *problem* -- their very existence is a conflict of interest.
And as for money... you know, if we weren't spending trillions of dollars bombing and chasing Afghani goat herders and poppy growers from one valley to another, trying to impose a political system on Iraqis who have absolutely no interest in it, and otherwise pushing our way of life on other people, we'd have a lot more money to work with. The legitimate military interest of our government is to guard our borders. To the extent that requires an out of border presence - a deep water navy, the ability to respond at a distance to an attacker - we should have that capability. What we don't need is to be making war on others just to keep the MI/C in shekels.
If a spacecraft carries reaction mass, the total mass of the spacecraft is increased by the amount it is carrying at any one time. This mass must also be accelerated and decelerated. So the more you carry, the more you spend because you're carrying it. There are various side effects too, for instance, since the vehicle's mass changes over time, course change calculations have to keep track of that. Also, for every bit of mass you have to carry that is fuel, that's less cargo you can move from point A to point B.
If you have an energy source that is relatively mass constant - a nuclear reactor, or a set of solar panels - and you can piddle along without any tanks full of "stuff", you're going to be able to carry more payload; you're going to be able to go a lot longer without "refueling"; you're going to have more freedom and more range. Headed for asteroid X? Something interesting over there on Asteroid Y? No bothersome fuel constraints, you just go and take a look. That's the kind of benefit that has very positive ramifications.
The reason reaction mass is used in space is because in a vacuum, one has to push against something in order to move. That's the role of the reaction mass. You spend energy in X direction and get sent off in the -X direction with the same amount of energy.
Think of how a nuclear sub works underwater. Because it has something to push against (water), its ability to move is constrained only by the degree of push it can generate - it doesn't have to carry anything to push against, it's surrounded by water that will serve the purpose. The reactor provides a lot of energy to push with, using a propeller, which is designed so as to create a forward vectored force when spinning in the water. That's what the article suggests for space craft; that there is something there to push against, and therefore, one doesn't need to carry reaction mass. Spaceships using this method would be very much analogous to that nuclear submarine.
The vast majority of corporate monies come from the pockets of their customers (barring external investments made by the company.) This literally means that the taxes for any corporation are paid by its customers.
So if you charge the corporations more money, so the odds favor them adjusting prices to compensate and maintain their margins, which takes more money from their customers, which will either reduce their ability to buy if the item we're talking about is a non-essential, or reduce their ability to buy something else if it is an essential. On the other hand, if prices are not adjusted, then profits will suffer, which, for a public corporation, will devalue their stock, which in turn has secondary effects everywhere from interest rates they pay to how much capital they have available for improvement and investment. And of of course it also directly reduces their cash flow.
There is no free lunch. All monies come with a price.
In a free market, the producer with the best price / performance, ideally, gets the customer. Sales pitch trickery aside. This is generally a good thing, as it improves products, efficiency, and targets needs and wants more and more effectively.
In a market where artificial constraints are applied unevenly (as is inevitable when such things are applied top down, as taxes are), imbalances that have little or nothing to do with performance come into being. Products become less tied to performance and more tied to arbitrary costs. People suffer for reasons unrelated to their choices or performance.
I think it's also worth noting that in the US, at least, taxes already are high enough that they significantly impact the standard of living for many of the citizens, and the country's debt service (never mind the debt itself) is enormous, presently about 700 billion dollars yearly. The government's reaction to this? They're about to raise the debt ceiling by 1.7 trillion dollars. Of course. Because there's no way to hold them accountable, and unlike a business, they don't have to show a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. Homebrew started with PD; a model where anyone can do anything with the design, or code. GPL is far more restrictive.
I still use the PD model. I'd rather my code was used by anyone who found it convenient, and I have no love for lawyers whatsoever, my entire goal in life is to avoid them completely.
Preferentially, the one, in a fireplace, the other, in a stream. Next question?
It's not the average times that get you. It's the outlier numbers that collapse into the averages. We've seen eight hours without power in -20 degreee F weather here in Montana. It's why I own a generator and can switch power to the (gas) furnace any time I want to. When you're talking about protection from power outages, what you want to know is does the power EVER go out for long enough intervals to do you damage: And everywhere I've lived - Pennsylvania, NYC, Florida, California, Montana - the answer is an unqualified yes. Right now, there's no sense going without UPSs for computer systems and backups for heating and critical power systems like fishtanks, refrigerators, etc.
The power grid is subject to people running into telephone poles, ice on the lines, old transformers bursting into flames, lightning and geomagnetic storms, human error, and a bunch more things. That's the nature of it - it's out there in the real world. You can protect a power system within your own walls such that it is much more reliable, and that's no slam on the power company - you simply don't have as much to contend with.
Now, if you have no pipes to freeze, no data to lose, no fish to watch float to the top, no freezers full of food to see turn into biohazard... sure, I can see depending on the average. After all... what could go wrong?
Quick lesson for you:
Saying "men are far more visual than women are" != thinking "sex is only about what you can see"
When someone speaks about Z, they have not defined X. As long as you think that's what they're doing, you're in for a whole lot of fail.
Maybe she wouldn't be your ex if she had been motivated to dress for you, rather than them? There's a lot to be said for someone who doesn't care so much about other people, but is looking to please their partner. People who just don't care... perhaps they really just don't care. If you get my drift.
Really? Here's what you do. Identify someone with a 100 IQ. Take that person to lunch. Have a nice, stimulating conversation with them. Be sure you cover politics, religion, technology, science (as a philosophy), science (as a pool of currently accepted theory), sports, marriage (gay and otherwise), the social contract, personal budgets, compound interest, the care and use of computer systems, and car maintainance. And anything else you can think of.
When you're done, simply reflect: Half, or more (because a lot of people reside under the peak), of the population (by definition) are only as smart, or less so, than that person.
Now, you were saying about how "1990's" it was to think of idiot masses?
Scientology, like all religion, exists to get the idiots to willingly identify who they are, so rational folks can develop a proper avoidance strategy.
Cite? Where's your data? As far as you go, I'd be perfectly willing to accept that's how you roll, but women in general... the indirect evidence doesn't seem to support this.
In my experience, men are far more visual than women are. I think one obvious chunk of evidence for this was the pre-Internet era proliferation of men's picture magazines while one or two comparable woman's magazines (e.g. Playgirl) addressed what they thought might be a similar market. Also that the two leading magazines, Playboy and Penthouse, both specialized in visually rich pictures, including the surroundings, environment, etc., while the less successful ones kept it simple, not to say gynecological.
Another tick in this column is the huge market for makeup, sexy clothes, etc., for women; not so much for men. It would seem that men are looking specifically for visual stimulation on a level that women are not. And that women know it, because they certainly buy this stuff in large enough quantities without demanding comparable "peacock" performance from the male population.
Aw, c'mon, that's just harsh. It's programming, it's just one type of programming. Speaking as a C and assembler fanatic, but fan of inter-compatible versions of Python and burner-at-the-stake of perl.
Scripting is nice just to whip things up and do proof of concept in, too.
On-thread, I agree that the difference here is quite high (for PHP against C), it'll vary for other languages. There's a nice table of relative speeds here (and the argument about what the language is doing, I don't buy... in my experience, things tend to remain somewhat relative):
Multi language simple fractal benchmark
These are obviously not the times you'd get for web ops, but I am of the opinion you'd find a similar curve, similar time relationships, for any general program. Which is to say that not only is PHP slow, it's slow for everything, which means it is an inefficient use of system resources in busy environments. Lots of cycles for not much done, which means programs that are loaded longer and resources that are tied up longer -- regardless of the underlying DB transactions, too - the DB is running on the same server, those cycles could have been DB cycles. And if not, more apps could have been running with the others out of the way sooner and/or not consuming CPU time. Waste is waste.
Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods. No more, no less.
This state of mind incorporates no agenda. There is no dogma for atheism, no book or agenda or canon that says an atheist "must" be ok with religion, or not. Atheism doesn't define "couldn't care less" any more than it does "cares a lot" with regard to anything, including the lack of belief itself.
In the terms you're throwing around, an atheist might be anti-theist, or not. This is not a consequence of atheism, however. It is a consequence of how the individual sees theism -- which I suspect is in turn a consequence of how theists and the doings of theists have impacted the life of the individual, and those the individual cares about.
At issue here is their social agenda, not their efficient use of bailout monies.
This is highly reminiscent of when Obama asked for input from Americans for issues they wanted to see addressed; the very highest rated issue was legalization of marijuana and amnesty for those imprisoned or otherwise punished.
So what happened? When the time came to address the issues, Obama laughed it off, literally laughing about it in public, during the program for talking about these issues, and acting like it was "crazy talk."
The people running this country - and you'd better believe that includes the people running the banks and other major players in the financial system, such as the insurance companies - are completely out of touch.
When we're talking about nuclear reactions, the amount of energy obtained per expended amount of mass is quite a bit higher than with chemical reactions. So yes, it does help.
I'm not talking about money spent in elections. The vast majority of high office candidates are preselected by the parties, so it doesn't matter who is elected -- they'll still vote in the corporations favor on any issue where the corporations have an interest, or else the party won't support them. Ventura's a good example of what happens to exceptions: The environment is intolerable for them. The only successful exception one can point to is Ron Paul, and there, "success" is defined by not getting his way except once in a blue moon... he just manages to hang on in an environment where his outlook is steadfastly ignored.
This is what I mean when I imply that the dollar controls the system. For example, you'll never be able to put up your own FM station, because corporations control access to the airwaves through the congress and the FCC. You'll never be able to set up a private Internet, because the telecomms control your ability to do so though congress; they'll tie you up with legislation about being responsible for what others move through your network, licenses, and so forth until you're right out of the game. You want to make toys in your garage? Welcome to a brand new web of regulations that blows your profit margin off the face of the planet. It goes on and on. Corporations have the edge, and they'lol keep the edge, because why? Because they have the money.
If you think voters have any control, you're completely naive. "Loser's lament", my eye. If anything, it's a patriot's lament.
It's a system where every dollar gets a vote.
This is not a democracy. It's supposed to be a democratic republic, but it isn't that either. It's a dollar-ocracy. Dollars buy votes at the representative level, and the system accommodates the needs of those providing the dollars. You can pick new representatives, but only from those chosen by "the party" for you to pick from, and they *all* adhere to the dollar-ocracy mechanism, so you can't change how the system works. At all.
Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
No, it doesn't. Volume can be controlled instantaneously, with or without recovery that temporarily normalizes the audio coming afterwards. To do it in high fidelity requires analysis of the entire audio segment; I don't think anyone cares if the commercials are handled in high fidelity, they just want them to not knock you for a loop. So you can set a threshold to be detected, and when it is, the gain is dropped, right then, and it doesn't go back up until N seconds without a violating peak go by. AM radios work like this, it's called AGC (automatic gain control) and it works fine. In the case of an Am radio, the actual amplitude varies as the signal propagation; so the AGC has to work pretty well. Fast attack, slow decay. That's all we need here, something to step on the offending audio when it gets too loud. Couple of knobs would make it very flexible, but again, as any decent Am radio demonstrates, doesn't need them.
I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects. This, however, is the dominant litany for GPL code.
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
But... it wouldn't have been the same with PD software (like this), which is actually free, as opposed to "we will ruin your life with lawyers if you use it any way but how we tell you", which is a summary of GPL-poisoned software.
The GPL is a travesty foisted off on the programming community - it is anti-progress and a wasteful time sink and anti-freedom and court fodder and lawyer bait. Other than that, of course, it's just great. :/
Government should do big services and big infrastructure when (a) that infrastructure will benefit the country significantly, (b) it can't be done fairly or generally or cost-wise by private entities.
This is why it legitimately builds roads; educates the citizens; guards the borders; (very poorly) regulates the airwaves; maintained the post roads; regulates the monetary standards.
This is why it *should* ensure that the individuals in the population are healthy; have electrical power; have heat; have water; have powerful and uniform networking available; have access to a portion of the RF spectrum for broadcasting. And other, similar things.
As usual, sometimes government does what it should, sometimes it doesn't. There's no question that were it to do all the things it should, the nation would be a creative and productive powerhouse. But getting around the vested interests in embedded private concerns is a political nightmare. Look at Leiberman blocking the health care bill right now -- the man is a complete tool of the insurance companies, and it is insurance companies that are the *problem* -- their very existence is a conflict of interest.
And as for money... you know, if we weren't spending trillions of dollars bombing and chasing Afghani goat herders and poppy growers from one valley to another, trying to impose a political system on Iraqis who have absolutely no interest in it, and otherwise pushing our way of life on other people, we'd have a lot more money to work with. The legitimate military interest of our government is to guard our borders. To the extent that requires an out of border presence - a deep water navy, the ability to respond at a distance to an attacker - we should have that capability. What we don't need is to be making war on others just to keep the MI/C in shekels.
Did you *really* believe anyone thought wordpress was limiting their blogging s/w to 140 characters?
Yeah, and you forgot the part where the manufacturer tacks $2.20 onto the price to cover the $2 coupon.
If a spacecraft carries reaction mass, the total mass of the spacecraft is increased by the amount it is carrying at any one time. This mass must also be accelerated and decelerated. So the more you carry, the more you spend because you're carrying it. There are various side effects too, for instance, since the vehicle's mass changes over time, course change calculations have to keep track of that. Also, for every bit of mass you have to carry that is fuel, that's less cargo you can move from point A to point B.
If you have an energy source that is relatively mass constant - a nuclear reactor, or a set of solar panels - and you can piddle along without any tanks full of "stuff", you're going to be able to carry more payload; you're going to be able to go a lot longer without "refueling"; you're going to have more freedom and more range. Headed for asteroid X? Something interesting over there on Asteroid Y? No bothersome fuel constraints, you just go and take a look. That's the kind of benefit that has very positive ramifications.
The reason reaction mass is used in space is because in a vacuum, one has to push against something in order to move. That's the role of the reaction mass. You spend energy in X direction and get sent off in the -X direction with the same amount of energy.
Think of how a nuclear sub works underwater. Because it has something to push against (water), its ability to move is constrained only by the degree of push it can generate - it doesn't have to carry anything to push against, it's surrounded by water that will serve the purpose. The reactor provides a lot of energy to push with, using a propeller, which is designed so as to create a forward vectored force when spinning in the water. That's what the article suggests for space craft; that there is something there to push against, and therefore, one doesn't need to carry reaction mass. Spaceships using this method would be very much analogous to that nuclear submarine.
Really? When magnetic fields repel each other, are there photons being expended?
Just asking - I don't know. I thought that magnetic fields weren't made up of photons, but from your post, that's wrong?
The vast majority of corporate monies come from the pockets of their customers (barring external investments made by the company.) This literally means that the taxes for any corporation are paid by its customers.
So if you charge the corporations more money, so the odds favor them adjusting prices to compensate and maintain their margins, which takes more money from their customers, which will either reduce their ability to buy if the item we're talking about is a non-essential, or reduce their ability to buy something else if it is an essential. On the other hand, if prices are not adjusted, then profits will suffer, which, for a public corporation, will devalue their stock, which in turn has secondary effects everywhere from interest rates they pay to how much capital they have available for improvement and investment. And of of course it also directly reduces their cash flow.
There is no free lunch. All monies come with a price.
In a free market, the producer with the best price / performance, ideally, gets the customer. Sales pitch trickery aside. This is generally a good thing, as it improves products, efficiency, and targets needs and wants more and more effectively.
In a market where artificial constraints are applied unevenly (as is inevitable when such things are applied top down, as taxes are), imbalances that have little or nothing to do with performance come into being. Products become less tied to performance and more tied to arbitrary costs. People suffer for reasons unrelated to their choices or performance.
I think it's also worth noting that in the US, at least, taxes already are high enough that they significantly impact the standard of living for many of the citizens, and the country's debt service (never mind the debt itself) is enormous, presently about 700 billion dollars yearly. The government's reaction to this? They're about to raise the debt ceiling by 1.7 trillion dollars. Of course. Because there's no way to hold them accountable, and unlike a business, they don't have to show a profit.