Gee... I say your references are not good and I am a troll. All I asked for was proper citations.

I have an old LG Cosmo 3. Everything you asked for is all I do with it. I need to replace it though as the screen is now getting too scratched up. I think they still make them. Though I might upgrade to a Kramer.

A large impact in a shallow ocean area might well in every human dying within a decade. Most immediately. It would also first steam clean the planet, and then set an ice age in motion.

Now I'll grant that this is unlikely in any century, less likely by far, in fact, than that we'll do the same thing to ourselves via war or some other means. (War seems the most likely, but it's not the only contender. An escape from a biological warfare lab is a possibility. I'm not counting natural evolution as "doing it to ourselves", but it's happened to other species. In fact it is currently happening to a large number of amphibian species, some of which have already gone extinct.)

But I do consider asteroid impacts worth worrying about. Not worth obsessing about, however, as they are a bit down the ladder when it comes to humanity exterminators.

I also question his method of assigning proper degree of concern. And the reliability of his assertions. E.g. he claims that only one person has ever been hit by a meteor, but there's no evidence that that's true. He should have said only one person is known to have been hit by a meteor. But how many people in remote areas of the planet could have been hit and the reason for death, or even the fact of death, not officially acknowledged? And clearly nobody could cite an instance before around 1700, as even the existence of meteors was denied. So you need to ask what is the probability of someone being hit by a meteor and the fact being officially recognized. This is a quite different question. He performs the same type of factual manipulation (less obviously) in a few other places.

That said, it's not a major concern while other concerns rate higher. But a species ending event is worthy of particular concern over and above the concern over the individual lives lost, as you also need to consider the future lost, and not just a few personal futures, but all human futures.

Who decided? Who decided that corporations were legal persons? It sure wasn't the voters.

The site you link to has no peer reviewed papers, charts with out proper methodology cited, and links to essentially nowhere. Not acceptable.

Looking it up I see a dip due to the recession (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). The question is if this trend will continue. The next question is if it is enough or too little.

Fail. Link points to a report which contains numerous links to actual reports and paper providing what was asked.

Because people don't spend a few hours to research their politicians before voting for them. Ignorance is not an excuse nor is laziness.

Then who keeps electing them? In a democracy you don't always get the government you want but you always get the government you deserve.

With a few exceptions such as assembly if your code is not readable you are doing it wrong. Code needs to be maintainable. The maintenance costs and lifespan of code often far exceed development cost and time span. If you are not writing clear code you are writing crappy code.

I was once complimented on the clarity or my Perl code. I posted some and got several stero-typical responses fo 'well it could be written better as....'. Then someone piped in and said something like, "screw it, It's clean and easy to read. There's nothing wrong with it". And that is what my experience as a maitnence programmer taught me. If no one can read it to maintain it, it is crappy code.

Don't use your retirement for this! Too risky. Only money you can afford to lose.

White. Now what sort of penguin is standing next to you?

OTOH, using "roll your own crypto" is nortorious for individualized holes and weaknesses. It does tend to mean that the "one size fits all" means of breaking the code won't work, however. Or at least may well not work.

That said, if you have good enough communication to share custom crypto programs, you may be better off using a one-time pad....as that can't even theoretically be broken. But it does require a good source of random numbers (e.g. amplified triode vacum tube with no input so you're just amplifying noise). Such things are reasonably easy to build, but for some reason they aren't normal computer accessories. (Video cams watching a flickering flame are another good source.)

But custom crypto is hard to do correctly. AND it requires good communications to standardize the programs. So if you have the communication, a one time pad is better.

It's worse than that. The entire basis of the "infinite monkeys theorum" is that given enough random chances even highly improbable things occur. So he was not only wrong, he didn't even understand what he was describing. So why should he be believed where he can't be checked?