I know hashes are hard to reverse, but if someone with a lot of computer cycles available were able to reverse this one, could that be used to identify the actual person?

That's not really double-taxation. If I work to earn $1M and pay $300K in taxes (or whatever it is after deductions) then I have paid taxes on the $1M. If I then invest $200K of that after-tax money in something, and sell it a year later for $1M, then the $800K difference has not been taxed yet. My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.

If I go on to invest and sell, then I continue to pay 15% on all of that income, independent of my declared income from working, and regardless of how successful I am at it. How is that being taxed twice? I think this is how many people understand it, and it is the basis for most of the complaints that I hear. Is it incorrect?

If the sewage were not being processed for biodiesel, then it would have given off methane into the atmosphere during natural decomposition, wouldn't it? So this processing prevents some amount methane from being emitted (and possibly uses some more methane from another source; I didn't see that mentioned in the article, but there seems to be a lot of methanol involved, so I guess that might use methane during its production, although I don't know what happens to it after it's used here.) The upshot is that CO2 is produced (when the diesel is produced, and again when it's used), but a bunch of the more dangerous CH4 is avoided or destroyed, so might that not work out as a net good?

The better comparison might be between the emissions that would normally be produced by allowing the raw material to decompose naturally and the emissions from turning it into biodiesel and burning it. They would be different gasses, so the comparison would need to account for the different greenhouse effects. I understand that methane is one of the worse ones, so your emissions on this type of biodiesel might come out negative.

You mean they take things literally, so they'll be squeezing the birds instead of the fruits?

Didn't Watchdog do a bit last year about how easy it is to get a number plate printed? No need to steal one, just spot a car that's similar to yours, note the number, then find a number plate supplier who is suitably casual about paperwork. I thought that was the reason for fuzzing out the plates on television these days.

Why are number plates printed by private businesses anyhow? It seems like a weak point in the system.

It wasn't meant as a metaphor. It was an example of a similar situation.

I'm suggesting that there is not such a big difference between a panicked group of cattle and a panicked group of people. Neither is thinking; and the fact that people normally think about their actions with more care than cattle think about theirs doesn't make much difference once the panic has started. I am further claiming that the person who intentionally caused the panic, knowing what would probably result, is at least as much to blame as the creature or person that was tricked into a state of panic.

Isn't panic usually a valid defense? It means you were unable to consider your actions. As for there being no actual threat, are you saying that if someone yells fire, everyone in the room should individually go over to see the smoke before leaving? That doesn't sound like a good plan either. On the other hand, creating a situation that could be dangerous if one or two out of a few hundred random people doesn't keep his head in an emergency does sound dangerously negligent.

If somebody intentionally stampedes a herd of cattle through a town (except Pamplona) and people are trampled, do you just shoot the cow, or do you want to have words with the person who caused the stampede?

I think it refers to the link referenced in the comment being replied to (by Mr. Spoilsport, with Score 1 so your filter might have skipped it). That is an image that looks like the last frame of a video and just shows a yellow plume going east from Japan. I can find no scale on that diagram to indicate the meaning of yellow or red.

Sorry, but I missed your point. How do you prevent "censoring content" while still allowing stores to select content that they feel is suitable for their customers and image? If every company is not required to stock every item, how do they select what they want to sell without being accused of censoring what they didn't select?

Built by the same people who made the replica Taiwanese sites? Is this a subtle threat to intimidate the Austrians?

How is that different from apathy? Alternatively, what is the difference between "I don't care." and "I would care, but..."?

I agree it's not perfect, but they do pay higher taxes and higher rents for better access to customers. The city receives the taxes, and funds better transport infrastructure. Others decide they would rather pay lower rents and taxes, and tolerate lower frequency & volume of service. The businesses don't (usually) pay directly to the transport provider, but they don't choose the high-rent shops just because of the architecture. What's the difference between that and high-rent internet access?

How about if a company pays the railroad for a siding into its loading yard? Maybe that's more directly comparable (if the railroad is a private company). That's been going on for over a century, and doesn't seem to have generated much controversy.

I demand transport neutrality! Why should those rich businesses that can afford "central" locations get a convenient subway / metro / tube station within convenient walking distance, while smaller businesses in the suburbs are served only by bus? It serves only to reenforce the growth of the already successful! The population should demand that the transport service providers give equal access to all businesses that reach their customers via that infrastructure.

Internet Protocol (IP) starts at layer 3. Ethernet is layer 2. Internet Protocol is about connecting local networks together into a big network, and it is independent of how that local network manages the local point-to-point transport. I can have a site running only ATM, and connect it to the Internet with no problem at all. I don't feel this is being picky, since it's exactly the reason that IP has been so successful.

802.11 (the original subject) is just one of the ways that you might choose to run a local network, and its success doesn't come particularly from any close links to IP, so far as I'm aware. I think its successful because it's good at local wireless data transport, but it's not necessary to run the Internet.