Next time you go to a farmers Market, show up 30 minutes early and watch the "farmers" peeling the "Produce de Mexico" stickers off their fruit. Half the stuff they sell isn't even in season locally.

They borrow it from China.

Not new meaning, just new understanding. Saliva was already well known to have anti-bacterial properties. That is why animals lick their wounds. This just helps us better understand the mechanism. One theory that I have heard is that when a wound is licked, the wounded animal ingests the infecting bacteria, and develops antibodies which prevent the infection from spreading. This is similar to one reason that mother animals lick their babies: they ingest any bacteria on their young, and develop antibodies in their milk which are passed to their young when they nurse. This research shows one more reason that licking both your wounds and your young is a good idea.

Also, how did they dispose of the dead mice, and mouse poop? If the dead and decaying mice, and mouse poop, were floating around with the living mice, that would not be a healthy environment, and may explain some of the subsequent deaths.

Roads are paid for (mostly) by fuel taxes. Fireman and teachers are paid out of local property taxes. Those taxes are fair, reasonable, and almost impossible to avoid. Income taxes, on the other hand, are easy to avoid by anyone who puts some effort into it. I am self employed, have a six figure income and, through completely legal means, I pay no income tax. The problem is not that the system needs some tweaks to close "loopholes", but that trying to tax net productive activity (rather than consumption or ownership) has perverse side effects and is fundamentally unfair. No country has ever made income tax work well.

This makes no sense. In fact, it makes so little sense, that I don't believe it. I just did a Google search on European sales tax (VAT) policy, and several sites, including this one, contradict what you claim. If sales are below a threshold they are based on the shipping country, and if over the threshold they are based on the destination country. At no point are they based on where the company is incorporated, as you claimed.

It is easy to avoid income tax by using accounting tricks to shift profits around. It is far harder to avoid sales taxes, and even harder to avoid payroll taxes, property taxes, etc. Most corporations pay little income tax, but they still pay plenty of other taxes.

The summary makes the claim that only big companies avoid income tax, but at least in the US, that is false. Most small corporations in the US are S-Corps, which pay no income tax.

Wow! Did you publish these results? If so, can you post a photo of your Nobel Prize?

If you didn't publish your results, why should anyone believe you?

Well, you got me there. I faked my way through most of my college science labs. I figured out that just faking the data to give the expected result is less work and results in a higher grade. I hadn't figured that out by ninth grade, but maybe these kids are smarter than I was.

No, I would love to see their result confirmed. It would mean there was some new force in the Universe that we are unaware of. In addition to its use as a herbicide, maybe this new force could be used for ESP or superluminal communications. The possibilities are endless. It would be wonderful.

Or just as likely, they just faked the data. These kids aren't stupid, they understand that the only way to get a good grade on such a lame experiment is to get unexpected results. If the router had no effect, they would received a B minus, they would not have won the science fair, and we certainly wouldn't be discussing their experiment on Slashdot.

Except that both India and China use "." as a decimal point.

Citation: Decimal Mark Use

You don't subsidize them. They subsidize you. Do you know how high cigarette taxes are? They are more than high enough to cover the expected additional health care costs of smoking. Much of this is because many smoking related diseases, such as lung cancer, are not that expensive because they kill fairly quickly and there are no good treatments. Additionally, smokers pay into social security and medicare just like everyone else, but they are more likely to die before they collect their share of the benefits.

Alcohol is trickier than tobacco, because in moderation it is actually good for you. But alcohol taxes hit everyone, whether they drink to excess or not.

If you want drug users to pay their own way, then you should support legalization and taxation.

Bingo. There is no logical reason that people should get their health insurance from their employer. I makes no sense. We do it that way for quirky historical reasons (wage controls during WWII), and not for any rational reason.

In communist China, employers provided education to their workers' children. Each factory ran a school. So if you switched jobs, your kids had to switch to a different school. That seems (and is) stupid, but it is no stupider than what we do with health care.

Well, I will admit that if you look at all the different systems in use around the world, single payer seems to work the best.

The article does not say that. What it says is that 97% that take a stance, take a pro-human-cause stance. But nowhere does it say what percentage take a stance.

Of the things you listed, this one is more than all the others combined. So lets see if that makes sense ... corporate profits are distributed to shareholders either through growth (capital gains) or dividends. Who are these shareholders? Mostly institutional investors, which are dominated by retirement funds. So if the government takes $1 out of your 401k retirement fund, spends half of it on bureaucratic overhead (as the GGP is proposing) and gives you back $0.50 in your social security check, you really think that is a "good investment"?