I read that in the sense of, "Let's say that I'm in the position of being a general manager", as a hypothetical rather than something to be taken literally.

Even with a lot of questions surrounding the IQ, the generally understanding of intelligence and the importance of it, one fact is quite undisputed:

If controlled for social factors, IQ is by far the best prediction of your future educational performance. So the chance of becoming a scientist is directly correlated to your IQ.

The original IQ test, as invented by Alfred Binet, was created to determine in what class to put children who started school. In 1882, France introduced compulsory education, but many children in France had no or questionable birth certificates, and when they were about to start school, it was not clear what their real age was and which class would be suitable for them. And then there were the children who required special care, and until the beginning of the 20th century, it was up to the subjective judgement of the respective teachers to determine which children should get it. Thus Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon developed a test to more objectively assess the educational potential of a child, the Binet-Simon-Test, which was to calculate something called the "intelligence age" of a child, and which was used as a criterion in what class to put a child.

It should thus be expected that the IQ as measured by the Binet-Simon-test (and the later development Stanford-Binet-test and all subsequent IQ tests) is quite predictive for your educational career, because that's what they were invented for.

It seems that there is room for convenient router functionality that asks you this: 'A device with MAC address x requests access to your network: GuestLAN. Allow?'

Handing out passwords to untrusted parties instead of tokens is archaic anyway.

But seriously, when modded minecraft takes 6+ gigs

Yawn. Firefox alone accounts for anywhere between 1-3 GB with all my tabs.

This is on an i7-5820k and Nvidia GTX 970 with 32GB ram - a PC that ranks 97% world wide in 3dmark.

The plural of anecdote is not data. For example, on my setup, an FX-8320 with 8GB RAM,a GTX760, and not an SSD in sight runs Minecraft just fine with a couple of mods.

Last but not least, while I understand popularity and ubiquity inspire varying levels of contempt (I'm certainly not innocent on the issue), I've never really understood technical arguments against games. Sure, you have your Arkham Knights, which provided insurmountable problems for a not-insignificant percentage of buyers and deserve a critical look at the code.

Then you've got Minecraft, played by literally hundreds of millions of people with little to no problems, including my 8 year old niece on her potato PC.

There are many things which could be improved in Minecraft. Whether it's going to gobble up 2GB of Ram versus 3 or 4 or 6 isn't that high up on the list.

Wrong. Thanks for playing!

but they're certainly not designing lessons, teaching classes, or exploring subjects

Soooo, I'm guessing you've never put a lesson plan together then?

2005 called, it wants its complaint back.

You mean Hitler didn't waste time and energy on quack science and other assorted occult crap?

I can certainly see that there's a definite feminist wave ongoing at the moment which I'm sure isn't going to hurt Hillary, but at the same time, you're never going to go broke overestimating the general stupidity and vulgarity of the average American.

Oh, I guess the fact that the unborn life can't consent to its murder makes it OK?

Call me when a fetus can pass a Turing test then we'll talk. We don't have differing moralities on this, just different definitions, and you treating it the other way like there is no alternative is, at best, an argument in bad faith.

My point being, once you've made pleasure the only guide

Once again, as an actual hedonist, I'm offended that you think any of this has anything to do with it. Maybe in your world, where a glimpsed bare ankle immediately fills your shorts with splooge, anything more daring than that might seem like some sort of overcoloured insanity.

There's a reason they're called other people: They are literally not you.

"perversely"? Really?

Are you calling their conscience kicking in a bad thing? What you call 'coping' I call 'being morally numbed by life threatening situations'.

War is a bitch. If people are shooting at you, a lot of morality goes out the door (and a large part of the population won't blame you for that). Clearly, these drone pilots do not have such an excuse.

Dammit, beat me to to it. I cannot wait for the day when conservatives understand the concept of consent.

I find this an interesting statement. Running the numbers, I find that you'd have to be using a rocket burning something rather better than H2/O2 (we're talking Isp >500 just to reach escape speed, much less to reach the target rock) to allow two launches of a delta-IV heavy.

Huh?

The fact that a Delta-IV Heavy has a LEO payload of over 27 tonnes is a fact. You don't need to "run the numbers". As for the kick stage, I didn't specify a propulsion system - for all we care (since we haven't established a timeframe), it could be an ion drive and not even take a rocket so large as a Delta IV-Heavy.

Meanwhile, the Falcon Heavy is to make its first launch this year, with double the payload of a Delta IV-Heavy. And as was mentioned, the Tsar Bomba was not optimized to be as lightweight as possible.

And this entirely ignores that noone actually has a Tsar Bomba sized nuke available to be detonated.

Oh, and you didn't allow for a backup

It's almost as if I didn't add "with enough advance warning" for that scenario and leave what "enough advance warning" is unspecified. But if there's another rock the size of the Chicxulub impactor out there and we don't see it until the last second, we deserve to get hit - we're no longer talking about a 50 meter spec (Tunguska-sized), rather a rock with a cross section 30% bigger than the island of Manhattan. We're talking about an impact of a scale that happens once every hundred million years or so.

A more appopriate version of the BBC's article:

---------------
OMG - matti makkonen .fi sms pioneer dead!!!
---------------
WTF - mm just died @63! #txtpioneerdeath was father of sms & dvlped idea of txt msg with phones. @2012 msged BBC that txt would be here "4EVR".
--------------
shoutout 2 Nokia for spreading sms w/Nokia 2010. thought txt good 4 language. was btw mng. director of Finnet ltd and "grand old man" & rly obsessed with tech.
--------------
OMFG people!

It is not only possible, but the easiest option, to "blow them up Armageddon style" (minus the drilling and the like). There's a lot of simulation work going on right now and the results have been consistently encouraging that even a small nuclear weapon could obliterate quite a large asteroid into little fragments that won't re-coalesce, while simultaneously kicking them out of their current orbit. A few years ago they were just doing 2d calcs, now they've gotten full 3d runs.

Think for a second about what nuclear weapons can do on Earth. Here's the crater of a 100kt nuclear weapon test. It's 100 meters deep and 320 meters wide. You could nearly fit a sizeable asteroid like Itokawa inside the hole. And that thing had Earth's intense gravity field working against it and was only 1/10th the size of weapons being considered here. In space you don't need to "blast out" debris with great force like on Earth, you merely need to give it a fractional meter-per-second kick and it's no longer gravitationally bound. And the ability of a nuclear shockwave to shatter rock is almost unthinkably powerful - just ignoring that many if not most asteroids are rubble piles and thus come already pre-shattered. Look at the "rubble chimneys" kicked up by even small nuclear blasts several kilometers underground (in rock compressed by Earth's gravity). Or the size of the underground cavity created by the wimpy 3kT Gnome blast - 28000 cubic meters. Just ignoring that it had to do that, again, working against Earth's compression deep underground, if you scale that up to a 1MT warhead the cavity would be the size of Itokawa itself.

You of course don't have to destroy an asteroid if you don't want to - nuclear weapons can also gently kick them off their path. Again, you're depositing energy in the form of X-rays into the surface of the asteroid on one side. If it's a tremendous amount of energy, you create a powerful shattering shockwave moving throughout the body of the asteroid. If it's lesser, however, you're simply creating a broad planar gas/plasma/dust jet across the asteroid, turning that whole side into one gigantic thruster that will keep pushing and kicking off matter until it cools down.

The last detail is that nuclear weapons are just so simple of a solution. There's no elaborate spacecraft design and testing program needed - you have an already extant, already-built device which is designed to endure launch G-forces / vibrations and tolerate the vacuum of space, and you simply need to get it "near" your target - the sort of navigation that pretty much every space mission we've launched in the past several decades has managed. In terms of mission design simplicity, pretty much nothing except kinetic impactors (which are far less powerful) comes close, and even then it's a tossup. Assuming roughly linear scaling with the simulations done thusfar, with enough advance warning, even a Chicxulub-scale impactor could be deflected / destroyed with a Tsar Bomba-sized device with a uranium tamper. Even though it was not designed to be light for space operations, its 27-tonne weight could be launched to LEO by a single Delta-IV Heavy and hauled off to intercept by a second launch vehicle.