AFAIK, not according to the computer simulations, which is what backs up the Theia hypothesis.

Again, I don't think this is compatible with the simulations.

And he does have sex in one of the books (Backwards, I think), though the human(?) girl did not expect the penile spines, and so was rather put off by the whole thing.

It would be risky to do, considering what it would do to the market for Chinese hardware once it was found out.

Apparently, the NSA is either stupid enough to think that nobody could ever figure them out, or just as stupidly shortsighted as other branches of the US government.

That depends very much on what level of crime we are talking about. I would imagine that most crime is at a level where the situation you suggested is not a problem.

Also, I would imagine that a sophicsticated crime syndicate is in at least as much risk of being hacked by rivals and vigilantes as by the government, so unless you are doing it in such a way that they can figure out who you are, such a tripwire might not help much. Of course, it is perfectly plausible that the feds would not employ much sophistication in their hacking, so that the syndicate will know.

There is a difference between knowing the math and applying it. A nice, easy to remember story can make that difference.

Grammatically correct is not that much of a reduction in key space. I would imagine that "Adjective" "Noun" "Transitive verb" "Adjective" "Noun" yields a larger keyphrase than four random words, and it is probably easier to remember than "Noun" "Noun" "Adjective" "Noun", even for rare words.

IIRC, a malevolent USB device can access everything going on on the bus. Do you use a USB keyboard? That is every key-stroke recorded and sent to the CIA.

The original question was "Why should this exist?", so direct your complaint to the GPP.

Woodruff WAS the bad guy who smuggled non-effective medicine. He SHOULD have been the bad guy of the movie: "Worse, the real Woodruff rejected the one truly promising drug at the time, AZT, as hopelessly toxic and instead smuggled drugs like Peptide T, which never panned out. " (from Science Based Medicine).

That view makes the word "unique" close to meaningless.
Disregarding objects where quantum mechanics are the dominant theory, everything is unique. No two LEGO bricks are completely identical at the atomic level, so they are all at least a little unique. If there are no degrees of unique, they are all unique, and as unique as this spacecraft, or the moon, or the George Washington.
So it merely becomes a word for "a thing that we can distinguish from other things given enough effort", which is another way to say "a thing that is not primarily controlled by quantum mechanics".
We don't need a word for that concept.

The metric system makes calculations where you combine units easier. These tends to occur in science, particularly (in my experience) when calculating energy (because so many different formulas give energy, or because J=N*m=kg*m^2/s^2=Pa*m^3=W*s).

Not all forms of the foms of punishment that satisfies the need for venegeance will be equally bad at rehabilitating. Both needs exist and there certainly is a tendency for them to run counter to each other, but you don't necessarily have to choose either one or the other.

In addition to the possibility that you could be lying that other posters have pointed out, the possibility of punishment could also works as a deterrent to keep other people from doing their first crime.

It isn't a dichotomy, legal punishment is part vengeance by proxy, part rehabilitation, part keeping the criminals off the streets, and part deterrent.

To keep vigilantism to a minimum. Part of the social contract for our societies is that we have given up our possibility for vengeance, on the promise that the state will punish the people who should be punished. If the public does not feel that this bargain is being held up by the state, they might take the matter into their own hands.

I think you give the author too much credit. As I read it, it is steeped in pure lust for vengeance, no rational thought required.

Socioeconomic status of the parents, including stock portfolio and presumably correlating with political connections, is worse than IQ tests in predicting success. However, so few people have large amounts of stock and many political connections that it could be a better predictor for this subpopulation, but still lose out over the general public.