You've never read the actual ruling, have you? The court went far beyond the actual legal issues at hand and ruled that not only were slaves slaves, but that everyone who was black was a slave, and that furthermore they had no rights at all in any state (including states that had outlawed slavery). These were new and horrible doctrines, and were completely unfounded by any words in the constitution.

1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked them at random). Do you object to a group of people, experts in the Presidio, from managing the place? Or is your objection that this group of people has a common name, "The Presidio Trust". Would you be happier if we called them group 184? Perhaps you think that we should simply sell off this land -- does this mean that you think there should be no parks at all?

Really, I don know why you got moderated as "insiteful". It sounds more like "thoughtless".

No, they're all thick as posts. So dumb, several types of rocks have more intelligence. They are so woefully short of understanding their instruments, they regularly burn down their labs. They have so little knowledge of the animals they study, they leave out saucers of milk for the lions. Heck, most of the vulcanologists think the red oozy stuff is badly made jello!

And they thank you for pointing out that you, a mere Slashdot reader, have managed to understand more about global climate change in five minutes of careful study (six, if you include the fox news commercials) then they've learned in ten years of careful data collection and vigorous debate. Wow! What a champ you are!

This may sound a little weird -- but that time you're spending tutoring other kids is going to pay off. There's nothing like teaching someone how to do something to really, really drill it in to you. Earlier in my career as a programmer, my absolute best programming class was the time I spent as a grader for a data structures course -- it showed me plenty of ways to do things wrong, and therefore the best way to get things right.

The highest rate is 1.5%. Retailers come in at .5%. Again, that's for normal businesses; the highest rates are actually paid by nuclear waste disposal companies.

And yes, one individual business might well swear at the tax -- they can see their overall profits at 3.5% (and as you say, mall retailers in that one survey at 0%), and the individual owner thinks that if only the tax were lower, they would make money. That wouldn't actually change the economics of the situation. If they charge less, the lack of profit means that the business isn't worth it. If they charge more, they lose customers to cheaper stores. If everyone had smaller expenses, everyone would charge a hair less, and the overall profits would be unchanged.

Stated more broadly: if a set of stores can't make money with the .5% tax, they won't make money with a .4% tax, either. Or a .3% tax.

(And BTW: my immediate assumption when I see the phrase 'so I decided to get the fact' is 'that person is a troll'. You're not helping your case by citing as your source an 'ask the expert' column that quote data from shoe stores from 1999. Luckily the facts that they do cite match my pre-existing knowledge, so I'm not kicking about it. But it's not a very definitive set of data.)

It's not three-d graphics. It's layered two-d graphics with interesting transforms. You can make something look like it's flipping in or out, and you can do sprites, but you can't make a fully three-d game (that is, you can't rotate something around with bits sticking out).

Why not? Because this approach gets you a bunch of cool effects without the pain of real 3D programming.

(Disclaimer: I worked on silverlight)

John Galt is the protagonist of an irritating book espousing a failed theology.

I'm sorry -- was that a rhetorical question? How about this, then:
Microsoft could be created in part because of American ideology -- an ideology that pays massive dividends to the rich. Are you Wal-Mart? Isn't it nice that there are good, cheap roads going everywhere. Along these roads are thousands of towns, each of which *could* stop you and make you pay a "customs fee". (they used to do this along the Rhine). But instead the Federal government makes the towns not stop you.

Are you ExxonMobile? We have an army ready to "keep the peace" where you trade, and a Navy to keep the seas free of pirates.

Are a stock trader? We have a host of accountants and lawyers keeping the market fairly honest -- so that everyone in the country trusts your wares.

We are America; our government keeps ua rich.