you cant explore the big yellowish orange planet thats in all the systems either X(

happy birthday

yes

10 dollars

if you want to realistically tax the "rich" then you have to rewrite tax laws.  the only people who get hurt by increased taxes are the intellectual classes like doctors, lawyers etc who spend most of their lives in school and work very long hours.  before anyone goes off on a random troll, new doctors and lawyers dont make anything in this economy and even the very successful make 100 times less less than your liberal pariahs like john stewart who is hilarious but doesnt pay any taxes.

agree with chris but give them limited food supply and weapons placed around the colony and give them each a map listing where the food and weapons are and televise it so its a situation sort of like that movie with stone cold steve austin

some homeowner's insurance plans have liability coverage which will protect the owner from negligence to third parties.  it should be listed on your declaration page what types of coverage you have.

there are currently 5 free spots and round doesnt end for a month so you can still join.  just keep checking when you log in to see if free spots are available and join when you can.

oh i dont think it's that high yet

it would probably go to a jury depending on the size of the fence the owners had.

In US there is something called the attractive nuisance doctrine.  An adult's estate would most likely not have a cause of action because he would be a trespasser and typically trespassers are only owed a duty to refrain from reckless actions concerning some artificial (not naturally occuring) condition on the premises.  However, most courts here impose on a landowner a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by artificial conditions (i.e. pool) on his property.  In order for the doctrine to apply the plaintiff needs to show: 1- a dangerous condition on the land that the owner is or should be aware of; 2- the owner knows or should know children frequent the vicinity of the condition; 3- the condition is likely to cause injury (dangerous because of the kid's inability to appreciate the risk) and 4- the expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk.

Edit: err sorry. would go to a jury on the question of whether it was likely to cause injury as well.  i think people could disagree on whether a 10 year old could appreciate the risk but i'd still give him the darwin award anyways for diving in the shallow end.  either that or his parents should be beaten with a rubber hose for not teaching him pool safety by the time he reached 10 years old