For a moment there I expected you to use the word Maverick.

I'll be that pedantic grammar slashdotter, but it's actually "incorrectly." Wrongly denotes more along the lines of the subject being incorrect, rather than the action being taken. Hence, incorrectly.

So let's see, there are a few holes in your argument. I don't think your environmentalist point of view is necessarily wrong, but some of the evidence you provide is flawed.

It's important you realize that the majority of photosynthesis doesn't include trees, see for example algaes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
Additionally, our cars are not even a blip on the global scale for carbon output: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
Furthermore, while it isn't on a global scale, we've basically stopped having a negative impact on forest sizes here in the US for a while: http://www.wendmag.com/greenery/2011/02/the-u-s-has-more-trees-now-than-100-years-ago/
Next, many of the sources of greenhouse gases are unrelated to burning things, and just normal biological processes which are involved in food PRODUCTION: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm

Food for thought (pun intended), but I'm not challenging your goals, just want you to be more informed in your arguments or you make yourself and any others that hold your views look bad.

We bought out the last 15 from IBM's stockpile a few years ago and now everyone at the office is using one. It's spectacular.

Yes.

Reading earlier in the thread, someone suggested that if neutrinos are really tachyons, then they have negative mass. The only thing that would make them go SLOWER would be to add energy to them. In a supernova, I would suspect an immense amount of energy, necessitating them appearing very close to the speed of light, whereas ones with no relative energy added would have speeds measurably faster than the speed of light.

Go look up progressive fair taxes.... you know... tax the car that costs 500$ proportional to how insanely expensive it is... let's say the tax on it is $1m even. And then let s not tax food/shelter/clothing any. That way, the less you spend on non-essentials, the more you save... so if you WANTED to save up for the 500k$ car, you could, just by not paying taxes anywhere else. In the end, for the system, its the same even if you save for 5 years, because you'll pay more in taxes for the more expensive items later on.

"Just personally, I've never seen a truly convincing mechanic for explaining just how the last one would work."

Go read about the poincare disk and non-euclidean geometries... spherically-shaped universes which work similarly to general relativity (curvature of space-time, think about that statement) which means that the closer to the edge you get, the harder it is to get there, similar to the faster you go the harder it to accelerate. Basically, the edge of the universe is a limit in the mathematical sense, as well as the physical one, such that as you approach it, it becomes increasingly harder to hit it. This means that your distance relative to a certain point distant will approach a constant value, isn't that the definition of a wall? (even if you cant see it)

Last I checked, Hawaii was more southern than Florida, however, it's much farther away relative to the continental US. Unless, of course, the island has shifted northerly (a direction isn't supposedly NOT moving).

how about "Crapple store" or "Crapple app store" ?