It doesn't seem like the definition of a scientific term is something that should be left to a democratic vote. Public opinion with regards to science is never a good thing to rely on (creation vs evolution, naturalistic healing, etc).
It's not really a scientific term. No theories depend on the definition of a galaxy.
Income tax is on income, not capital gains. He wouldn't have been paying income tax on his share sale anyway.
In the very summary, Brad Smith claims that this tax applies to capital gains as well as dividends and other income
You're probably talking about life expectancy at birth.
Life expectancy at age 70 is 85.11 in the UK and 85.51 in the USA according to WolframAlpha
Do you have a reference for this decrease in US traffic deaths and some indication that the decrease was caused by these safety features?
I ask because I've previously read (in a book called "Risks" that I can't find on amazon) that only seat belts clearly increased safety, all the others were marginal, statistically insignificant or made things worse. Their hypothesis was that people drove more recklessly to compensate.
It's the migration that's the problem. We already have the roads whereas building rail to every house runs into the chicken-egg problem.
Also, if you end up building rail to every house, the trains or pods will still have to deal with people crossing in front of them
When they brought it to market is irrelevant. It looks like they filed this patent in 2007, which predates foursquare.
However it was filed after dodgeball. From wikipedia, dodgeball required you to text your location rather than auto-detecting it from the gps. The claims in the facebook patent specify auto-detecting your location so it doesn't sound like dodgeball is prior art.
Was there something prior to 2007 that was already doing this? Maybe brightkite or loopt?
I would aim for the non-rotating parts
This _should_ be a cash cow for the shareholders. If these companies can't invest this money profitably then they are morally obligated to return it to the shareholders.
Here's my theory...
There's less incentive for the wealthy to start new businesses if their customers in the bottom 50% don't have any money to spend on the service.
People in the top strata always have money. They're currently "investing" it in low-interest low-risk investments like treasury bonds. We need them to invest in high-return/high-risk ventures like new businesses. Giving them more money doesn't help the situation because they already have money, we need to give them more customers.
I think we're on the other side of the Laffer curve.
"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"