Only as dumb as more than 99% of Facebook users.
Remember we used to tell kids not to give out their real name on the net? Then Facebook happened and what used to appear to be dumb is now the default.
It would be truly ironic for you to post what you've written above if your name really is Matthew Ventura.
Even more so if I was really the software dbaseIII that had become self aware over the years instead of someone taking the common form of it's name as a handle.

One notable "doxy", and I think she fits the term well by the old definition too, is the "journalist" responsible for both revealing that ghosts really exist with Amityville Horror and pushing the Darl McBride (SCO) vs linux line, is Ms O'Gara who revealed the home address of the founder of Groklaw. Her morals were definitely for hire so I think "doxy" fits.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/13/138210/sco-asked-ogara-to-smear-groklaw

You mean like screaming about evolution being not true?

It's the American way.
You can't have hard working educated clergy like Medel trumping those cocaine sniffing lay preachers who were "born again" after a life of debauchery. That goes against the grain of minimum work for maximum profit and is downright ungodly.
There used to be another American way.

The entire concept of "SJW" as an insult is ridiculous to start with and just makes me think of angry virgins who wonder why the "nice guy", or even just the guy who gets out of the basement, sometimes gets the girl and not them.
The term at least serves a useful role as an angry idiot detector.

Who exactly are "clean power foes"?

Among others, the idiots that opposed commercial development of solar at every turn and allowed China to corner the market with American developed technology. You would have noticed them, and others, so what is your motivation for playing the "stupid" card here? Is it a part of a joke that's unclear or something more sinister?

Competing against a monopoly that has small and expensive to run generators gives those magic 40% numbers.

You can bet that the 30MW wind plant is a lot more expensive than the diesel generators were

Not over the long term including running costs. Let's assume a massive hurricane trashes those windmills in a decade and compare it with a decade worth of fuel - even with that artificial constraint the windmills are likely to win against tiny little things that make as much heat and noise as electricity. We're not comparing with 500MW of coal or 1GW of nuke in such a situation so anything without a lot of fuel per MW/h wins.

Not so hard to reduce prices 40% when you are up against a local monopoly that has been gouging it's customers by ridiculous amounts.

This is the strongest rebuttal yet to the government assertions that people do not have an expectation of privacy in emails. If the Whitehouse and State Department staffs think that a private email account if secure enough for government business, then clearly the government expects that emails are private.

This the the best rebuttal to claims that the government has the right to root through people's emails (even just the metadata) without a warrant.

Please go read the recent BBC interview with an ex-jihadi to see some of the ways that al-Qaeda has been taking Islamic teachings out of context and twisting them to suit their purposes.

My thoughts exactly. More maintainable code IS higher quality code, in my opinion.

Making code run faster has a completely different name, it's called optimization (and is frequently the root of all evil). And it often involves the exact opposite of things you do when refactoring. Eg, unrolling a loop to make it run faster is pretty much the exact opposite of refactoring for maintenance & readability.

Accidental plays don't render the statistics useless.

First, they are outliers.

Second, OTHER songs will ALSO get "boosted" from accidental plays.

Basically, anecdotes are not data.

In the general sense, "Investment is time, energy, or matter spent in the hope of future benefits actualized within a specified date or time frame." (Wikipedia)

In other words, it doesn't have to involve ownership. The key phrase is simply "in the hope of future benefits".

Or, maybeæ you knowæ crowfund it just because traditional investors are too scared to do new things

Stop right there. People don't "invest" on kickstarter. They have no ownership interest in the business. The people who fund in kickstarter take all the risk, while having no possible upside beyond the products that they buy.

I could make a political point about how kickstarter and its kin are a response to laws that limit risky investments by all except the wealthy and the effect of "the closure" in Venice in the 14th centuary.

This. Ten times over. A company I did some work for in 2001 had some reasonable technology for a mobile payment system (as did many others - back then people in Italy were apparently using a different system to pay for fuel at the pump with their phones) but with the banks as stakeholders you find they are not going to change anything unless there is obvious short term profit. As nearly 15 years has passed they are getting a few more senior people that are starting to see obvious gains from those new fangled mobile telephone thingies and other devices.