What happens when you plug in a projector?

This is not a workable heuristic because resolution is not an invariant.

That's about the 70th percentile for household income (thus, a higher percentile for individual income). A median average US household makes around $50k, and a mean average US household makes around $60k, the 20% difference reflecting considerable skew from very high income households. That is household income, not individual salary, and most married Americans are dual-income (I couldn't find stats specifically on unmarried but living together, but I would guess that's even more likely to be dual-income than married), so a typical US salary is considerably under 70k.

There might be a language barrier issue here. The term "X figure" talks about the number of digits of dollars (excluding everything past the decimal) over the course of a year. A mathematically inclined person might rephrase that as saying it's "on the order of 10^X dollars". So a 6k figure job is a job that pays massively more than a googol of dollars.

You have assumed (reasonably, IMO) that he meant 6000 dollars per month. It's just not what he actually said.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Can you tell us the one true agile that doesn't have lots and lots of meetings? In my experience, Waterfall frontloads a few megameetings, whereas Agile backloads them in nickels and dimes.

Even with massive improvements to propulsion, you would want a near-closed-system. The Antarctica station is kind of what you're talking about, but it's a huge stretch to say we have civilization on Antarctica, and that's a situation where we have much much much better propulsive technologies relative to the distances involved. I'm going to define "

Also, it's not entirely clear what the Martians are going to sell to the Earthlings, but they'll be a captive audience for Earth's food monopoly if they can't sustain themselves (for example). Note that it has to be worth more than the energy cost of sending that food -- no matter how good our propulsive technologies get, there's a fixed lower bound on the energy requirements to leave Earth orbit.

I think anything short of an actual teleporter means that an interplanetary/inter...lunarary(?) civilization will need to be able to support itself as a closed system indefinitely, or at least for a matter of decades. This is assuming we don't download our consciousness to robots, or consider AI robots part of our civilization, or something bizarre like that -- in other words, it assumes that civilization means a permanent, multigenerational settlement of flesh-and-blood human beings that can live their entire lives without ever going to Earth.

Not necessarily. I can easily imagine larger creatures needing finer motor control compared to their size (note that large humans are often described as "clumsy" and small humans as "graceful"). In a similar vein, I know one proposed theory about why humans are so much weaker than chimpanzees is because we dedicate way more brainpower to fine motor control (one source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...).

The crime is that their employees' wages were artificially reduced. You want to respond by further reducing those wages to 0?

It might be closer to satire but it's not satire, it's primarily intended to elicit negative reactions. I would disagree with a definition of trolling that says that enlightenment is part of the intent.

As for patent troll, I think that's a separate derivation; it's not really the same word. Internet trolling is like fishing-trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T..., and we get a troll as "someone who trolls". Perhaps instead it should be angler.

Patent troll is like mythological trolls that live under bridges and collect tolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

The Da Vinci code famously includes the line:

They were not accurate.

I think the difference is, I get the impression that this Scorpion guy believes his own bullshit to a degree.

No. http://www.grammar-monster.com...

That's generally an American regionalism, that comes about mainly because it's not easy to do what we did in the pre-print era and stick both the quote superscript and the punctuation subscript in the same "slot".

In this spirit of good faith, I have since discovered that the 25 year sentence was, thankfully, a hoax:

http://www.snopes.com/media/no...

Winning a discussion doesn't mean you actually effect change.

It's self-preservation when you call the cops. Vengeance doesn't necessarily have to be a motivation, even if it is a result.

I have literally never been called a cheating bastard in my life. The only times men are called cheating bastards are if they are suspected of cheating on their partners (albeit "cheating" and "suspected" can be defined liberally in some extreme edge cases). No, it's not the same as whore. There really isn't a "the same as whore" (there also isn't the a "the same as womanizer", which I would say is a little closer to a parallel).

If you're not a sexist asshole, then why are you throwing in with the assholes? For the sake of argument, I'll assume you're white. When we say the kkk is racist, we aren't saying all white people are racist. Even when we point out the kkk guy is white, we're not calling you a member of the kkk.

When you point out that there are men abusing women, nobody has said that you are abusing women. It's a composition fallacy. If it's not about you, then it's not about you. The burned of responsibility wasn't shifted to the gender in the first place.

-- And yes, I fully admit that there are people who will wield the composition fallacy as a weapon. Just as there are people who will blame all Christians for abortion clinic bombings or all Muslims for 9/11, they are all blithering morons. But if I point out that the KKK or abortion clinic bombers are Christian terrorists, you waste everybody's time by jumping in and saying you are tired of your little small-town Church being blamed for murders and racism. If it's not you, it's not you; move along.

It's true that men tend to under-report. But now that evidence has been presented, it's incumbent upon *you* to provide evidence that these factors are sufficient to account for the difference.

...That doesn't even seem unreasonable to me, considering that a female is much more likely to be called a slut in an abusive manner. You can't draw a parallel statement there. Context is important.

I bet men will take a threat like "I'll chip your dick off with this ginsu knife" -- from a person holding a ginsu knife menacingly -- more seriously than women. I do not have statistics to back this up, but I will not take seriously anybody who asserts otherwise without a very good reason. You have to know your audience if you want to make an idle threat in good fun.

They weren't made-up numbers, he cited his sources.

No, not completely. There are two relevant aspects:

First, if victims are disproportionately in some class or another, that's important in figuring out how to address the problem. This is Amdahl's law. It may prove productive to spend effort reducing 70% of abuse by 50% (net: 35% reduction in abuse), compared to spending the same effort reducing 100% of the abuse by 10%.

Second, if class status is used as a weapon (even if it had literally no role in choosing a target), it's still useful to know. You yourself were citing that women are more likely to perceive words like "slut" as abuse than men are. Perhaps you're right and the problem is a big misunderstanding. A potential solution, then, is to educate people on how their words, intended as non-threatening, can be taken as threatening when seen from another perspective. That's sort of what happened in the case cited above with swatting -- that case didn't involve sexism or anything like that, but it's similar in that the kid that seemed to genuinely not understand the full consequences of his actions. Which doesn't excuse them. But that's why I think the 25 years he was sentenced to was excessive -- I tend to suspect that a month in jail would be more than enough to ensure he would *never* do that again and fully integrate an understanding of consequences into his psyche (even a week would probably do it); 25 years can only be justified as "sending a message" by pulling in another round of media coverage, which is a form of education, even if it is IMO unjust.

I'd be wary of the term "sexist against". The purpose of ladies' night is to increase the pool of women that straight men can hit on by providing women an incentive. Somewhat more sinisterly, those women are able to consume more alcohol so their judgement is also likely to be more impaired on average.

So it's not really against men or against women, it's more complicated than that.

It is sexist though, and it's not actually universally legal.