But Dilbert had a girlfriend! (http://branders.name/dilbert-the-perfect-girlfriend/695)

All seriousness aside, you might try #5: meet them at church. I believe the single women in church outnumber the single men. Of course, if you're not a Christian, that might not be to your taste.

I suppose that's why the DHS later said there was no credible threat (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-usa-security-mall-idUSKBN0LQ0IY20150222). Granted, that contradicts what they said the day before. But if the government really wanted to instill terror, they wouldn't turn around and say not to worry.

No, but if I remember my history, the abolitionist movement stared among the Christians in the North. They weren't Menonites or Catholics, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.

"the people who say all this stuff can't ever stop a real terrorist attack"

And you know this how?

There is lots of work going on to "save" these languages, in various ways: recording oral and/or written texts, writing grammars and dictionaries, teaching children the languages in the classroom, translating learning materials into them, promoting literacy in these languages. Some efforts are more successful than others. Do a web search for "documenting endangered languages", or for the individual languages.

And if you want to look for other languages--many of them endangered--a good starting place is the Ethnologue (ethnologue.com).

Max ka'i atohol.

833,000 people would disagree with you.

Ok, if you meant in the future...yes, you have a point. The real way to preserve a language is to preserve genuine human-written or -spoken texts, and preferably a grammar and a lexicon as well. Even better if the grammar is computer-processable. (Disclaimer: that's my job, albeit not for endangered languages.)

Kush awo'tan, wen lek te k'op Yucatec.

An early version of Enigma was broken that way; the one used by the German military during the war, and particularly the one used by the German Navy, was considerably more sophisticated. But more importantly, the real genius of Turing was realizing that not only could this problem could be mechanized--many other things which were considered to be pure thought, and therefore not mechanizable, were in fact mechanizable as well.

As for Rejewski, yes, it would be nice to have a movie of his life. If and when someone does that, we can debate whether your last statement--that his life would make the better movie--is true.

"The message of the movie is that the uncommon man can do amazing things, but the message we need is that the common man, woman, anybody can and should tinker with the technology that manages our whole world." We could debate whether we need that message, but I don't see how you could get it from Turing's life without destroying the truth. He was an uncommon man, and he did amazing things. And he was not a tinkerer.

47%, not 46% or 48%. I smell fish. If they'd said 50% (or better, half), I might have believed them.

No, the last stable release was a couple months ago (Dec 2014). You must be looking at Sharepoint Workspace, which is a discontinued product.

It doesn't protect against multiple check-outs? I'm pretty sure it does, in fact I couldn't check out a document on SP this last weekend because someone else had forgotten to check it back in. And because it prevents multiple check-outs, there is no possibility of collisions. (I'm not sure if there's mechanism on SP for breaking a lock, like there is on svn. I suppose there must be, I just don't know how it works.)

I generally agree with you, but I think it goes both ways. One starts with some data, formulates a theory to explain that data. But often the original data is not sufficient to test the theory, so you (or other scientists) go looking for more data. Darwin did continue looking at data, and certainly physicists do that: the various colliders that have been built over the last several decades were built not just to collect data so someone could come up with a new theory, but--IIUC--to test specific theories that had already been proposed.

If I'm not mistaken, most aircraft drones are piloted by someone a long ways away, using radio. Radio doesn't work underwater (extremely low frequency does to a certain depth, but the bit rate is miniscule); the only effective way to communicate underwater is sound (like sonar). And since drone control needs to be bidirectional, that immediately gives away the position of both the controller and the drone. So I don't think remote control drones are practical underwater.

Of course there have been non-remote control underwater drones for a century. They're called torpedoes.