Mr Skeptic

It's been though of before: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=neutrino+dark+matter I guess the problem is that they are rather hard to slow down.

Hey, whatever turns you on...

If relativity treats time more or less as a dimension, must it then also treat the world as deterministic?

What do you mean by "tree source"? Type of tree? Geographical location? Age?

jackson33, I'm not just talking about illegal activity, I'm talking about activity that produces no wealth. Tax preparers don't create wealth,; they get paid to redistribute money, which, while a valuable service for the people they are saving money for, does not actually generate wealth. It's a legal job, even a valuable job, but it leeches from the economy. As for our celebrities, perhaps you should consider the value of the material they generate, before saying they're overpaid. Personally I don't much care about them, but it seems other people do, and are willing to purchase their products. Genecks, unspent money really isn't much of a problem. All it does is cause deflation, increasing the value of the money other people have. If unspent money is a problem for you, the solution is simple: just print more. I guarantee that will be more popular than slaughtering rich people and taking their paper. Regardless, rich people tend to have a large portion of their wealth in non-money form (a higher percentage than poor people according to Wikipedia), and store most of their money in the bank where it is available to be loaned. Some of the non-money wealth is resources that would be useful to others, but some of it is excessive spending on new technology or high quality goods. However, even some of this spending is actually good, as new technology is expensive and needs a few buyers before it can be refined and cheapened and mass-produced. And remember, some people are rich because they know how to make money (and/or are really good cheaters). Perhaps a 100% inheritance tax would be a more appropriate solution.

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which [consequently] increases earthquakes," Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Well it seems just dressing suggestively may not be enough. They need to also lead young men astray and corrupt their chastity. I volunteer to be led astray.

Except that plants don't do much pumping of water. You'd have to completely redesign the entire water system of plants to do that. It would be easier to simply modify the plant to give electricity directly.

Well thinking to oneself is fairly important. Talking to oneself is very similar, albeit now additional, indirect neural pathways are involved (thought --> muscle movements --> sound --> thought).

Missing poll option: have no idea what it is.

I believe that was the basis of General Relativity, that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. This would probably violate the law of conservation of energy. --- I wonder, if we had a large population living in artificial gravity created by rotation, would it be possible for some of the spacemen to leach energy from the rotation? Eg if it were two counter-rotating disks, maybe leech energy and store the rotational angular momentum in a flywheel, then carry the flywheel to the other side and repeat?

What aspect would you consider to be the fairest way to distribute the tax burden? (This is an opinion, since what you regard as fair may not be the same as what others regard as fair). Would it be flat, proportional, progressive, or regressive? Would it depend on how the government spent said tax? Would it be based on number of people (head tax, dependent deductions)? Would it be based on ownership (property tax)? Would it be based on purchase value (sales tax, value added tax)? Would it be based on total revenue (income tax), or perhaps on net revenue (business/corporation income tax)? Would it be based on ownership of cash (inflation tax), or perhaps ownership of wealth (wealth tax)? Would it be different for a non-human entity (corporation taxes)? Would it depend on negative aspects of an item/service that are not accounted for in the price (Pigovian or "sin" tax)? Would it be based on the transfer of money to others (inheritance tax, gift taxes)? More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Kinds_of_taxes --- In my opinion, fairness of the tax would depend on the ease with which people make money, and their ability to pay. That is, it should be increasingly difficult for the rich to become richer, because since a person's ability to generate wealth or value is limited, at some point any additional income they receive is at the expense of others. Also, people do have a cost of living and I don't think that should be taxed since it is not "profit" (imagine if Wall-Mart were taxed on their revenue rather than their profits). So first of all, I'd say the cost of living of a particular area needs to be deducted from income taxes. Then, I'd have a progressive income tax, and also a progressive wealth tax (since wealth can be used to generate income). (The wealth tax alone would suffice, except it would encourage wasteful spending.) Finally, a tax on things with negative externalities equal to the negative externality. --- What would you base your concept of fairness for taxation on, and how would you suggest said concept could be implemented?

Should we add UK: to the title? Or do you want to know who people from random countries would vote for if they had the chance?

It's called a cochlear implant

It's actually the hydronium that is so reactive, as an oxidizing agent. A few (Lewis) acids don't generate H+, but the acids themselves are still powerful oxidizing agents.

I think that the effect would depend more on how they acquired the money, rather than how rich they are. Some people create no wealth; they just accumulate money by leaching in some way from others. Some people do create wealth, but by far not proportional to the money they make. These parasites are unnecessary and even harmful (think day-traders, evil monopolists, maybe also lawyers and tax preparers). However, some people get rich because they are very good at creating wealth. These, you really don't want to kill. I think the government of Zimbabwe tried something similar, albeit confiscation rather than murder. Now, our rich folks do have a lot of money, but they also pay the lion's share of the taxes. Why would the government want to bite the hand that feeds it? Better to build up a few rich people and tax the $#!% out of them, keep everyone else poor and then give them stuff, and everyone is happy.

Unless they are really really clever people, like you, who understand that they are simply hedging their bets and so are actually less risky.

Buoyancy makes things that are less dense float over things that are more dense. A cloud of warm air has lower density at the same pressure. It will rise and expand, it will be even less dense than the surrounding air, so it can rise and expand more, higher than air that had previously been less dense -- so long as it remains warm.

Tell them if they can't fix it you'll switch to a company that actually provides you decent service...

They want some reflections, but not in such a way that it would interfere at the locations where the crowd sits. Without any reflections, the area sounds "dead".

Because if it's a truck full of hard drives, then it has a tremendous bandwidth. Unfortunately, the latency might be a problem...

Only against people who are a different ethnicity than me These both seem like good ideas. To ParanoiA's I'd add that the illegal immigrant should be paid the difference between what the illegal employer payed, and the average wage for that position. This gives illegal immigrants big leverage over the illegal employers, and would encourage them to keep some nice documentation for when they have to or decide to leave that company. Hopefully, the illegal employers won't like this idea and will be more careful about hiring illegally.

Solar...

If you have the self-discipline, a good physics textbook would do nicely.

As I see it, illegal immigration is a problem because of all these reasons: 1) Certain people want to come to the US 2) Certain people want said people to work for them. 3) The law forbids more than a certain number of immigrants, regardless of their skill or value. 4) Inability to enforce #3, partly due to #2. The immigrants contribute to our economy... the peoples don't want them gone, and the cops can't do it themselves. My solution would be to make it easier to come to the US (if only to work rather than get citizenship), but keep the riffraff out. Then people wouldn't want anything to do with illegal immigrants because they would all be the riffraff.

Fairly small differences... but it does fit the stereotypes.