Does "saving the country" not count as something to accomplish? You've got me confused here.

Air is NOT an ideal gas at ALL. You can't use the ideal gas law and have it work.

However you are in luck though since engineers made tables long ago of air properties at a huge range of temperatures, pressures etc and you can just look up the properties of air. However the properties of the material of the football would have to be tested.

The only time you can use the ideal gas law is with a nearly pure gas at high temperature and no chemical reactions.

It does suck that so much of the stuff we teach people in chemistry is not actually useful.

Let's talk income tax, because the vast majority of people are employees, not small business owners (when you compare the amount of actual business owners to the amount of pandering that goes towards them, it's hilarious.)

We can, but then we are not talking about the rich or 1% now. Well, unless they become employees of their own investments in which case they still pass the buck down to the consumers.

When you make a certain amount, as I do, small changes to my tax rates don't really bother me. I make a shitload of money, so another couple of % of my earnings isn't really anything I'm prepared to uproot my life for, pick up and move for.

I doubt you make as much money as you want us to think you do. Your reading comprehension is too lacking for that to be believable. We are talking about "how a taxes that only targets the top 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% would be "regressive"."

Go ahead and hit the parent button a couple of times if you missed that. Of course this makes you seem like you are arguing apples while holding oranges. I guess the big problem for you is that we aren't even talking about fruit. Stupid sauce indeed, but if I was you, I would stop throwing crap around before you know what is going on. It may be that you are the only one catching it.

Taxes are paid by those against whom they are levied.

Those entities may try and recover that cost elsewhere. They may or may not be successful in doing so.

No, when you are above the level of a salaried employee, all taxes are paid by the product and services sold or returns on investments which most likely will be products and services sold by someone else.

So you don't think anyone will step in and provide equivalent products and services at a lower cost than established players because they're prepared to accept a smaller profit margin ?

Ie: markets don't work ?

Why would they? The barriers to entry are so high that anyone overcoming them would simply price their products and services at the same rates and pocket the extra cash. We do not have a free market in most places due to regulations and laws in place.

There are plenty of rich people who don't own and run businesses, or have substantial income and wealth outside of their business interests.

The majority of rich people don't even run their businesses if they have them. They set them up as corporations and become an employee of those corporations or pay someone else to run them. This however does not preclude them from influencing those businesses or demanding rates of returns. You hear it all the time, a company lets 1/3 of their staff go and forces the remaining 2/3rds to pick up the difference all to satisfy investor profits demands.

Firstly, the world is not America.

I'm not sure what you think you mean by this. I was talking about America only. Congress does not have any power to prevent any company, person, or otherwise legal entity from making money in the US. You cannot legislate away anyone's ability to do so.

Secondly, even in the US, between local, state and federal Governments, they can legislate nearly anything they want to. If, of course, they want to.

No they cannot. Laws are rules unconstitutional, overly broad, and outside the reach of government near daily in the US. If they could just do anything they wanted to do, this would not be happening. So until something severely changes, there are limits to the powers of government and these limits are why we consider ourselves a free nation.

But there's been little interest in trying to build a better society since the neoliberal right took over the western world in the '70s and started pursuing the greatest wealth transfer from the

I'm not sure where you are going here but I think I might somewhat agree outside of the aspect of taxing and making arbitrary laws to satisfy some ideology.

All it will do is cause US companies to become foreign companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. And then there will be less taxes collected. There are reasons why these things have not been addressed already and contrary to what some may think, they have little to do with politicians being paid off.

This is little more than posturing for the 2016 elections. No one expects anything to be done about it, just a lot of hype to define sides and make up short comings noticed in the last election.

Just because humans evolved with nature does not mean that is the best way for us to learn and grow.

Nature is just how we started. We have the capacity to learn and exceed it. There is no reason to believe that we can't do better than how we learned in the past.

I also don't see music as a critical skill to learn during development.

I actually independently came up with the 10% figure today as well, and mentioned to my project manager that unless he wants to invest real money chasing the long tail of data, he was going to have 10% of the records with bogus values in some fields. I will certainly adopt the rest of your quote!

Here you lost me. Why were you even in this business if you didn't love the challenge? Don't take other peoples' bad data personally. Take it as an opportunity.

It contains inaccuracies and is a clear troll. The poster knows enough terminology to sound smart, and deliberately twists it.

Oh, and the username begins with the word "Troll". Whoever went on to moderate that post as "Insightful" (as it now stands) does not understand cosmology, and additionally does not know how to identify an obvious troll.

Yeah, I've never been much of a sports fan (helps when your high school, local university, and locally-based national franchises all suck rocks when you're in your formative years) but I've been able appreciate a well-executed play when I see one. It's a championship game for a sport that I don't play. For those that like it, good for them.

I won't be ignoring it, I'll be doing things that I want to do. Same as just about everything else that I'm not observing or doing while doing what I want to do.

How can NSA not loving this feature?

I mean, the two way encrypted channels between userA and serverA, if NSA would like to crack it, they would need to invest some crunch time just to take a peek

With this new protocol all NSA needs to do is to perform a MITM act ... get the info needed and then tell the user (and the server) to update keys and such

Mission accomplished !

I nave not seen any kind of standardized test so far that I thought was a remotely accurate prediction of skill.

Overall humanity has a huge problem with education at this point. We have done the research and we know that memorization does not work for actual learning. However, no amount of research seems to turn into actual changes.

At this point I think we are going to have to just destroy the entire education system from grade school through grad school. They won't change and they live in their own world divorced from reality.

Even when you see a university publish major papers on how ineffective their own memorization based systems are they refuse to change. I have talked with some university professors about this and usually the reasons that are given for keeping the memorization based systems are politics, culture, history etc. None of which have anything to do with education.

The human race is being held back by the education system at this point and since they won't evolve they need to be replaced.

The fine article suggests that it does in fact affect orbit. Truth be told, it is the first time that I hear this, and _perhaps_ it is the case for gaseous worlds, for which slowing down the rotation is not as straightforward as for rocky worlds.

I've asked on space.SE, your input and comments are welcome on that discussion:
http://space.stackexchange.com...