alexeisadeski3

Child support needs to be abolished wholesale.

If a woman wants a mans support, then she either needs to be married to him or convince him to do so of his own free will.

This simple change would inject much needed sanity into this entire process.

>>hell, I don't do anything illegal

How exhaustive is your knowledge of the US tax code?

Exactly the same way that you enforce all property rights when they've been violated: You sue them.

1. Air rights needn't be tied to land. A proportional share could be automatically inherited by each citizen upon birth.

2. Existing water rights in the US have as much to do with free markets as they did in the USSR.

Pollution: Expand private property rights (air, ocean, etc).

>>meanwhile some poor adjunkt professor is eating cat food!

The median income in Mexico is around $10k (PPP adjusted). I wonder how much cat food they eat?

No; Yes; Not much.

This is a bit ridiculous.

I believe these are already in late testing stages.

The crux of the issue seems to be electronic warfare / jamming though, correct?

UAVs are great against opponents with limited electronic warfare capabilities, but wouldn't they lack credibility against China or Russia? They'd simply jam them and that'd be that, yes?

144hz or bust. No way I'm going back to 60hz.

Quad link DVI is the future.

Retina means one thing when using a display 12" from you face and another thing entirely when using a display 24" from your face.

I bet they prefer keeping it broad and ambiguous. It's a great US law enforcement tradition.

>>Ironically, Wall Street might oppose this as it might make it harder to attract suckers to the game (if I may mix metaphors).

No way. The brokerages would brag about their access to inside information, and lure the suckers in with promises of excess returns. It'd be a goldmine.

There are very few "everybody wins" simple policy changes to be found out there. This is one of them.

>>I don't think much will change until investors finally throw in the towel on the capital gains lottery and start demanding dividends at the point of pitchforks.

No public company should pay dividends in the current US tax regime. To do so is to leave money on the table.

Who would pick the directors?

To be tradable is only has to be right >50% of the time.

Which type of fight has greater implications for the evolution of human facial bone structure?

The fact that Europe doesn't have these regulations yet the sky hasn't fallen is in fact relevant to the discussion, is it not?

Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.

>>Wrestling is a more accurate sports approximation for how humans "naturally" fight (assuming 1-on-1).

Disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare

Yes, fisticuffs were common for impromptu human fights. But the stuff with evolutionary implications usually resulted from ambushes: People hiding in the bushes with sticks and stones, waiting for one and his buddies to walk by.

Or just hitting him over the head with a rock while he slept.

Forager societies more closely resemble middle school than modern life. In modern life, you can get in a fight at the bar and not see the person you lost to for weeks - if ever. In middle school, you lose a fight and you have to see that person every day for the rest of your life - unless you skip town (leave the tribe) - which appears to have been somewhat common.

Thus any fisticuffs victory will be hollow, as the loser can simply murder you one day when you least expect it.

I thought that the "Spanish Flu" evolved from horses, not birds.

As human ancestors became more adept at tool usage, one would expect any evolved skull defenses to crumble.

No amount of skull reinforcement will stand up to a solid strike from a club. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter - our huge brains concuss easily, meaning that even if the bone structure itself remained intact following a club blow, the brain it protects would be quite damaged.

Human weapon use has been discussed as one reason why humans are less sexually dominant than many other primate relatives. Beta chimps don't have the ability to easily murder the reigning alpha chimp in his sleep. Humans do.

Google and Facebook would also be protected by the Fourth, were it actually respected.

The Supreme Court has long ago abandoned any interest in protecting the rights defined by the Constitution.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Google is pre-empting the coming Silicon Valley shakedown by civil rights groups.

>>Crypto-racism from the left is a problem

"Crypto"??

>>I expect the inequality debate to play out in a similar fashion. Many economists may agree with Piketty.

Whilst "many" economists most surely do agree with Piketty's data, it is closer to 50-50 than the 98% found in climate science.

Additionally, the number of economists who agree with Piketty's data but disagree with him over it's implications (that's the important part) will be smaller still.

Every single first world country was either already a democracy before industrialization ("the west"+Turkey), was totalitarian until it was invaded by the US and forced to become democratic (Japan, Germany, Korea, Austria), or is comprised of people who fled a totalitarian nation to found their own democratic nation next door (Taiwan).

Did I leave anyone out?