Except, they don't need to convict everyone. Just a few people. These are a bunch of teenagers who think they're invincible, they see some of their buddies dragged into court and they're going to stop.

What's the difference between this and High Frequency Trading? In both cases you're using very fast computers to give you an edge over normal people in buying items that you will then sell a short time later for a higher price to people willing to buy them.

I just bring my princess leia outfit.

if only we could do that for the opposite gender.

The real headline should be: Programmers at Rockstar have wives.

How much do you want to bet that the student is a Muslim or looked like one?

You've got the right idea, but you're blaming the wrong people. Do you really think that all those high school boys would wake up at 7 am for football practices in the mud if the girls weren't crazy over it? i.e. the solution to all our problems is to get nerds laid more.

That's not an environmental impact at all. Hardly. What you're asking is: "What's the environmental impact of employing more programmers?" Sure, let's say worst-case, facebook hires programmers that would have got another job elsewhere, that other company must now hire different programmers and it trickles down eventually until some people who were going to be unemployed get a job programming somewhere. Okay, so now those people have a job. Let's ignore the fact that you're essentially saying that we should cut down emissions by making people unemployed. It's true that having a job will probably cause them to contribute a bit carbon emissions than if they were unemployed, but studies have shown that the large amount of our personal environmental impact is non-reducable (around 50%), even if you were to go homeless and live on the streets, we might see maybe a 10-20% increase of their personal carbon emissions. For even a couple dozen programmers that's nothing compared to running 20,000 more servers per year and that's absolute worst case. What you're arguing is the economic cost for facebook, whether it's worth all the man-hours to make their severs more efficient. That's debatable, but if you want an example, you just have to look at Google where they have a team that is devoted to increasing efficiency, despite the fact that they are already running some of the most power-efficient servers in the country.

As opposed to refusing while being unconscious? :P

Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it. A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player. It is symbolic. A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing. While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that. In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer. However they are especially associated with coding and programming. So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too. It's just not symbolic of what he does.

Who needs to get laid when you have slashdot?

Sampling is right. I know people who've jail broken their i-phones and they've downloaded every app they might even be remotely interested in. Sometimes they don't even know all the apps they have, never mind using them. In fact, this whole 60% figure is inflated because people who can get apps for free are going to download a lot more than people who pay for them. I really doubt that there are 6 pirates for every 4 people who buy their apps.

I highly doubt this would work. Smell works in combination of a lot of different factors. We are not programmed to judge the compatibility of a mate based solely on smell, but once they pass the other checks, smell adds some unconscious warning or encouragement. Asking people to judge someone in the dark would be asking for them to consciously judge the smell, which would result in a totally different effect. The better test would be to somehow have 1 person for each sex and somehow make them give off scents of others, then see if their ratings go up on average depending on the smell. Of course this is also flawed, you'd never really be able to replicate the entire smell and the signs the brain is looking for are incredibly small. It wouldn't be surprising if a difference in immune system proteins and anitbodies manifests itself in some other signs as well, voice, appearance, skin tone and complexion. Basically, there are too many factors. But I suppose that's true for all social sciences, and that's never stopped them yet!