John Cuthber

So, you believe that, even if someone has not got enough money to live on, the government should take 10% of it. That's an interesting point of view. The only point in its favour is that it's better than a head tax. You pay the same tax- per household- regardless of income. That's obviously "fair"- everyone pays the same. Head tax looks great- until you think about it. Imagine a town- where there are some people and they have a tax system and they want to spend some money on some "thing". It doesn't matter if it's a school, or a statue or what. The town has a small number of rich people, a larger number of middle income people and rather a lot of people who don't have much disposable income. Obviously, the real distribution of incomes is complex, but lets pretend that - only household incomes are taxed (so if you have two people earning 1000$ they pay the same as one person earning 2000$), That's not vital to the argument- but it make s the maths easier. and, also to make it easy their incomes are just 3 groups There are ten people who get a million dollars, a hundred people who get ten thousand dollars and a thousand people who get one thousand. That's 1110 people altogether and their total income is 12 million How much can the town afford to spend on the "Thing"? Well, realistically, they can't take more than $100- because that would be a massive cut to those in the lowest income bracket. So, in total, they could get $111,000 Not a lot- just about 1% of their collective income. If the "thing" costs $200,000 the town can't buy it with a head tax. Now imagine that they try a simple 2% tax rate. 2% of $12 million is 240,000- so they can buy the Thing and have change. The poorest group are happy because they are paying just $20- compared to a head tax of $100. The middle group are paying more- $200 rather than $100 but, at least they get the Thing which simply wasn't possible before. The rich group are, of course getting hit for a lot more tax- $20,000 rather than 100. However, like the middle income group they get the benefit of the Thing. And their alternative was to either pay for the Thing by them self - which would cost then 10 times more or, perhaps, split the cost of the Thing with their rich friends- well there are only 10 of them so that's the same $20,000 each- but they don't get whatever the town spends the "change" on. That's why essentially no country would ever introduce a head tax as their only means to fund the state. The thing is that a flat tax suffers from the same problems as a head tax. Because you can't tax the poor out of existence, you limit the tax rate. And, because you can't set the tax rate, you can't decide how much money the state has to spend on things. A tax policy that stops you being able to decide what to spend money on is a very "strange" tax system. It's also rather rare in practice. Just have a look at this list of economic powerhouses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems

Does the Janet Periodic Table reveal subtle properties of elements? No.

Who remembers magnetic bubble memory?

I'm allowed to oversimplify physics- I'm a chemist. However, as you have pointed out, the "particles" are only a handy way to visualise what's happening without doing "jolly hard maths" (JHM). I can't imagine Eldad doing the JHM so he's stuck with an imperfect model . (Nothing to be ashamed of- the JHM is over my head too; I used to be able to do time dependent perturbation theory, but that was many years ago, and I wasn't good at it then). Sometimes there just isn't an easy answer.

The problem with glycerol is that, when it is cold enough to freeze, it is too viscous to do anything much- so it only crystallises slowly. Simple distillation is probably the easiest way to recover water. Something like CaCl2 or silica gel might be easier to reuse.

What happens when one of a pair of virtual particles falls into a black hole?

In the way that you presented, yes, you are the only one. Because only republicans are the ones making a fuss. As far as I'm aware, Bills activities involved consenting adults so, no, that does NOT count as misconduct. (And I don't think it was in a bathroom either- but I didn't pay it that much attention.) And the last one should be "come up with a half decent case here that's not biased that badly." It's an adverb you need there, not an adjective. so, you need to "come up with a half decent case here that's not biased that badly."

There isn't enough information to answer the question

OK, you don't understand it so we should rewrite all the text books. well, it's a point of view... Incidentally re "Even the photon isn't a particle"; well it sure acts like one.

Does this help? https://www.plantcellwall.jp/protocol/pdf/protocol_14.pdf

Then get a job as a professional "lie detector" and you will easily be able to hire a whole stack of body-guards to be sneezed on instead of you. Or were you talking nonsense?

I'm sure the Republican party is glad that its policy is having the desired effect of diverting attention from real issues like ... well anything really. The rules will not stop a man dressing up as a woman and going into the women's bathrooms to peep at the woman there or for whatever other purpose they might do so. So, in terms of protecting girls and women, the rules are pointless. But they will make life that bit more difficult for trans people. And, of course, they will lead to further unnecessary confrontation. http://addictinginfo.org/2016/05/14/kentucky-woman-brutally-beaten-by-man-for-looking-too-masculine-while-onlookers-do-nothing/

You are arguing "more than one doctor" - in one particular case- against a whole teaching hospital full (and the rest of the NHS guidance and international agreement http://www.livestrong.com/article/117542-ear-wax-removal-home-remedy/ )- talking about the best treatment for the general population. And you still need to get round the problem that the grease in your ears is almost identical, chemically to the olive oil with a couple of major exceptions. the oil doesn't contain much water or protein and is therefore a much less hospitable environment for bacteria than your ear was in the first place. Any bacterium that can flourish in olive oil can do even better in earwax. No it won't.

Anecdote is not the same as data.

Never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity.

A plastic bag round the whole sensor ?

From a lion's point of view, your earwax is food. More relevantly from the POV of lots of bacteria, it is food too. But oil's generally too dry to be degraded by bacteria- that's why it has along shelf life.

Not a subject of which I have a lot of experience but- the last time I checked- the women's loos were in separate cubicles. You couldn't tell if the person in the next one was male or female. And the reason I was in there is because (1) the building was unoccupied (2) I was inspecting it before opening as a Safety Representative and (3) we had been unable to find any taps in the building that provided drinking water- the Ladies' room was the last place we checked. It turned out that the builders had failed to supply drinking water anywhere in the building. There might be a bigger issue with changing rooms- but imagine the risk of getting caught when the next woman walks in.

Why was it "sad" that your thread on a science website was closed because it didn't have any science? You were given ample opportunity to provide some- but chose not to.

Both are chains of long polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.

If a glass bowl is too "thick" try screening the wheel with a plastic bag. Eventually you might realise that it is the air that's moving the wheel; not you mind.

Yes. Now can you answer the question? How did you find your riots?

I take it from your repeated refusal to explain your protocol that you know it is flawed and that you are trolling. You have, practically speaking announced that you are either incompetent or dishonest and there is nothing more to say. Unless, of course, you would like another go...

Can I just thank you for providing evidence that the "races" people talk about have no basis in reality?

See part 1 of my earlier comment.