Well it is obvious that you will HAPPILY drink your own pee, eat someone else's vomit to avoid dying. Good for you.

However some of us who are a bit more human, think no one deserves to be forced to do that, irrespective of their crimes, whatever you think they are. Not because they may or may not deserve it. But because what such attitude says about us.

So considering that it takes you nearly a day to travel to the other side of the world(you STILL have check-in and all that stuff), you are seriously suggesting that you would prefer traveling for 32 hours instead of just say, 4 hours(with check-in and all that stuff)? Well, masochism has its appeals I guess, for some folks.

How many "rich boys" died testing initial aircrafts? or when very early cars were being bought and tested?

I mean those cars used to be expensive too, for that time? Death of Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier apparently did not get us a single step closer to commercial flights. I mean those guys died too trying to test a toy for the rich folks obviously? Damn them for not banning planes at that time itself. Imagine the problems it would have solved. No 9-11. No hijackings. Right? Damn them!

Oh wait. People making toys for the rich people, eventually ended up the technology being developed sufficiently enough to become affordable for not-millionaires to own cars and fly once in a while too. We mock the people who called for ban of useless technologies like fast cars(the first fatal car-accident reported the car as traveling at "reckless speed of 8miles/hour") and yet remain blind enough to fall for the same nonsense today.

Orbital flights mean even faster travel. Two-three hundred years ago, it was unthinkable for you to "walk" 20-30 kilometers every day to work(Hint. It took all day on a good horse). Today with cars, you don't think twice about it. Think of being able to reach Europe from America eventually within an hour, after say 30-50 years.

Of course if you are the type yearning for "simple times when world was not a small place" (and I don't say there is anything wrong with that either) you may not see this as being useful. Like the early humans hated the wheel for complicating the world. But on other hand, lots of us find it very useful to travel long distances in a short time. All technologies were initially affordable usually only by the rich however. And people did die during the course of perfecting a lot of it. The Wired article was written by an idiot.

The more simplified answer : If I was an Indian working in America, and took X amount of the money I was making in America, and paid my income tax from that money back to India, all the while using AMERICAN public services, I don't think Americans will be very happy with that. If I am using tax-funded utilties like roads etc., I would be expected to pay income tax in that country, from my income in THAT country.

However I would not like to pay income tax to BOTH India and America on single salary. Hence the treaties to avoid double-taxation.

Problem arises when I pretend to be have the income "generated" in whichever country has the lowest income tax. That should NOT be allowed. You pay sales tax as an individual. But do you as a person get to pretend that your salary earned in USA was "generated" in Ireland, and therefore pay no tax in USA, and only a tiny amount in Ireland? Why should the corporations get to pretend that, then? This is not "tax optimization".

If I lived in India, the indian government will actually deduct income tax at source. This is a really good idea. It means that the rich don't get away with paying just .002% while rest of us paid through the nose. Income tax should always get deducted wherever the income is actually generated(i.e. where you get paid), right at the source, and paid to THAT government. It definitely will involve a total rethink of international trade workings, but it is not like the current system is working well, based on all the poverty and starvation we have, while a few people just get off on seeing zeroes add up on their bank account, without ever actually spending all that money for anything.

So using your own logic that was used elsewhere... "they could have disposed of it slowly, but they don't!" ...

The land where they stash it, becomes utterly useless and you can get cancer by just living on that land. To bury it deep enough to not have that happen, is VERY expensive. To borrow from your hysteria, "someone may build a children playground on top of the landfill someday, and OMG the kiddies will all get cancer! Think of the children!!!!!" ... and all that.

So if someone built an airport on prime farmland, you will call for a ban on planes? "they could have done it elsewhere but they didn't! Planes are evil!"

Logically impaired much?

There is this interesting thing called battery, which can store power. I understand that you are technology challenged but I would have assumed you would have encountered these at some point. The 500W rated panels store 1 HR of 500 watt power each hour, btw. Store power in the noon, use it at night or morning. Amazing concept, isn't it? At least to you it is. The suggestion was not to use 1000 panels. Suggestion was to use 2-3 panels to store 500Watt x 3 panels x 4 hours worth of power in batteries. And there is the idea of using national power grid as an unlimited battery. Store power during day, to use it at NIGHT or NEXT day. It might not supply all the power needed by the country, but even if you are managing to cover 50% of the demand(and other nations are doing this as you can see in the link, so it is possible), that is 50% less coal burned. Germany is producing a SURPLUS via solar. Only 46% of its power is generated via coal and they plan to reduce even that by replacing with Solar. Germany is not really a sunny place either, contrary to your fantasy figures. Care to explain how they manage to achieve this, despite your "logical objections"?

The advantage is that you do not need to worry about disposing nuclear waste, or nuclear plants going kaboom in an earthquake, nor do you pollute the air with smog. Typical solar modules last 30 years and you break even in just 12 years. MUCH cheaper! Does your coal plant not need fuel for operating? Is the fuel free? How about your nuclear plants?

How about the healthcare cost due to all the pollution? I guess you are a cheapskate who would rather have government and Johnny public pay or subsidize your healthcare cost via insurance, due to all the pollution, just so you can save on the personal initial installation cost of solar. A total unpatriotic parasitic leech.

So Apple fails to provide sufficient security of photos uploaded to its iCloud service, and Google is the one that gets sued. Lawyers at work!

Likewise for the invading nation, looking as the price paid in the past.

By that logic there should also be a fatwa against Islamic nations keeping an army, or any Muslims joining the same? After all, there is a very high probability that you might die in a war, so it is tantamount to suicide. Speaking of which, where is the fatwa against suicide-bombing and ramming planes into buildings? I hear doing that stuff too leaves you more or less dead?

Completely agree with you on this. However, that does not explains why higher education is so expensive in USA. What is the government doing to fix that? The few American folks that do manage to get higher education are indeed usually much superior in knowledge and skills than most of the H1B hires, but why are there not more of them? Why is state funding for education being reduced, while military funding is way more that America actually needs and keeps increasing actually, if not just staying stable. In effect, why should you need to get yourself neck-deep in debt for years what should actually be subsidized by a government that has its priorities wrong for decades?

Indeed. So how is your average google engineer harming and exploiting "the peasants"? Please do clarify. Because, the 1%, well they are using their super-expensive cars to commute and are not on those buses at all. 1% might indeed be lying about the lack of skills, but folks like you make me wonder if they are indeed lying about the average American's lack of intelligence.

Yes you are correct. Success stories like below do not exist. If you decide to cut out the middle-man either fully or even partially, you can NEVER be a commercial success or have fame. Beware the bogey man!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Michaelson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore

What I find very interesting is this very American idea of measuring success by the amount of money an artist makes. It is perfectly fine to have someone screeching to pure noise, as long as studios' marketing convinced us that this was "the voice" and had an expensive contract to prove it. Vincent van gogh would be considered a total failure for example, by today's standard. It is not enough that you were able to have career based on music and were able to cater to a vast audience. Since artists did not usually become extremely rich, ergo we never had good artists. Thus Vincent van Gogh never existed. Nor did Franz Schubert.