In a way, it is already. If you trade 100 times for $10,000 each, you have to pay $300 tax. If you trade only once for $10,000, you have to pay $3. Thus trading once and then keeping it and intentionally missing the next 100 trade opportunities is rewarded.

Actually, the Quebequois is much closer to the French spoken in the late 18th and early 19th century than the French in France today. Probably due to the lower number of speakers, Quebequois has developed slower than french French.

Then you don't power the gas engine with wood, but with wood gas. And yes, you can turn wood into biofuel. But that doesn't make wood itself a biofuel.

The person is a programmer. Programming Linpack, you know, the program, that as a result of a run puts out a figure giving the number of floating points per seconds according to the number of floating point operations processed during its run and the time consumed. And he maintains this list: Top 500, which is the result of running Linpack on very large systems. And this list giving the computing power in TFlop/s. And not in TFLOPS.

And even if you stand on your head, this guy surely has seen a TFlop/s much earlier than you. And he probably gave the TFlop/s and the Petaflop/s its name - as his program is the tool to actually figure if a computer is able to put out a TFlop/s or a PFlop/s.

Not exactly, biofuel refers mostly to gas or gasoil replacements. Except some very large diesel engines, which you can fuel with sawdust, it's not very easy to power a gas or gasoil engine with wood.

There is a PetaFLOP. It's one trillon floating point operations. If you calculate the computative cost of an algorithm given some input data, you often arrive at some number like 20 MegaFLOP or 40 PetaFLOP. And if you want to know how much processing time this will take, you need to know how many floating point operations a given system can process per time, and you get FLOP per second or FLOP/s. There is nothing wrong with that, even if you like to abbreviate it as FLOPS.

If the author who compiles the list of the fastest computers in the world, and who co-developed Linpack, likes to write "petaflop/s" (see his blog entry in the second link), and if the author who writes the article in Nature World News, writes that as "petaflop per second", then who are you to argue?

You are not required to have a driver's permit, thus this example is not valid.

You are not required to build something, thus this example is not valid.

You are not required to create garbage, thus this example is not valid.

Sorry, but if you do something that influences other people (and all three, driving, building and creating garbage do so massively), you are required to follow rules negotiated by the people (maY it be by elections, petitions and writing your member of congress, or via written or unwritten contracts) you are influencing.

If you want to drive around, build something or litter as you want without any restrictions, go, find some place where you are disturbing no one else, and do it there.

Oh the irony!

You even have short and long silences, thus we are talking base 4.

Making the world a better place should be punished by dead?

I don't think, "quickly" is the right word. Constantine made Christianity the state religion in 324 AD, and the (West) Roman Empire ceased to exist in 476. That's 150 years apart. Or to put in in perspective, it's so far apart like the Civil War from us today.

I don't see any sanity in your reasoning. Everyone knew this case was at the SCOTUS, and everyone knew that patenting something that occurs naturally was not what patent law was supposed to do. Thus the stock had been tanking already at the time when the lawsuit became known. Stocks usually move at new information, not at confirmation of old information.

Yes, because it's not a warranty.

It runs like this: For two years, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has to warrant that the sold object keeps running except for normal tear and wear and the usual refills. The problem is that within the two years, the buyer can misuse the object in a way which causes the object to break preliminary. Thus there arises the necessity to determine who is responsible if the sold object breaks. The law states, that within the first six month, it's assumed that the fault causing the preliminary break was already present at the time of the sale, except proved otherwise (thus the vendor has to prove that the buyer mistreated the object). Within the remaining 18 month, it is assumed that the buyer mistreated the object, thus the buyer has to prove that the object was faulty at the time of the sale.

If the responsibility of the preliminary defect is put to the vendor (either by default within the first six month, or by proof of the buyer), the sale can be reversed, thus either the vendor hands back the money, or replaces the defective object with another one. The vendor still can ask for a repair attempt, but it's up to the buyer to agree.

Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".

No. The parliament is the Legislative branch, the government is the Executive branch.