Ok, here is the history link of the page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
See some odd things going on there (especially during October 2016)?
While the word "honesty" has many connotations, in this case it simply means "not lying". That's how the researchers defined honesty, so what you're saying is true, but isn't relevant to this study.
The study uses and defines "dishonesty" instead of the word "honesty"...
In its most basic form, dishonesty involves the conscious attempt by a person to convince others of a false reality (Abe, 2011). In this work, we operationalize dishonesty as a generalized personal inclination to obscure the truth in natural, everyday life situations. The most common type of such dishonesty is represented by “white lies” or “social lies” that people tell themselves or others in order to appear more desirable or positive (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; Granhag & Vrij, 2005). While most people claim to be honest most of the time (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Halevy, Shalvi, & Verschuere, 2013), research suggests that minor cases of dishonesty are quite common (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Hofmann, Wisneski, Brandt, & Skitka, 2014; Serota, Levine, & Boster, 2010), especially when people believe that dishonesty is harmless or justifiable (Fang & Casadevall, 2013) or that they can avoid any penalties (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009). In other words, people tend to rationalize their own dishonesty (Ayal & Gino, 2012) and perceive it as less severe (Peer, Acquisti, & Shalvi, 2014) or nonexistent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
As for Michael Flynn, Wikipedia considered him noteworthy starting January 5th, 2010 [wikipedia.org].
And below is the whole content of the page in the link you mentioned...
Michael T. Flynn is a Major General in the U.S. military and the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan. He published an "extraordinary" report on "the failure of his own service, American military intelligence, in Afghanistan over the last eight years." 
And there is a note on the top...
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 5 January 2010
Speaking of "noteworthy"... Really???
U drunk? Class 3 is profane and untrustworthy. So 50% of the profane are liars, but 0% of non profane are.
The 4th group are also liars -- claimed to use profanity but actually don't use it -- so I am not sure how you come up with 0% here.
By the way, I don't agree with the study methodology and conclusion. I understand that they tried to quantify behavior, so that a measurement could be applied. However, the accuracy of quantification method that the study used is NO WHERE NEAR the acceptable level in science but rather way too low (up to 67%). Thus, the study is just garbage...
The honesty of the status updates written by the participants was assessed following the approach introduced by Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, and Richards (2003) using LIWC. Their analyses showed that liars use fewer first-person pronouns (e.g., I, me), fewer third-person pronouns (e.g., she, their), fewer exclusive words (e.g., but, exclude), more motion verbs (e.g., arrive, go), and more negative words (e.g., worried, fearful; Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003).
You do realize that LISP is one of the older programming languages, around for decades, and apparently, its popularity stagnates on a pretty low plateau?
To me, there is another reason why LISP would never gain popularity these days -- recursive. To be efficient in this language, one should be able to think and program in recursive which requires a complete understanding of what is to be done or the program could easily go into an infinite loop. Most newer (so called) programmers nowadays can't think or program it that way. Instead, they think and program more in iterative way. Also, recursive has a down side which is limited memory. In order to be able to program with limited resources, again, one must understand and have a complete understanding of what is to be done... Not easy to find that type of people these days...
I mean, we use the CFAA for damn near everything? Why not this, where it actually seems to apply?
OK, an explanation could be found here on LA Times. You could also read below quote (from the given link) for the specific part of the answer.
At the federal level, prosecutors can use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to target ransomware. But state prosecutors typically must pursue such cases under laws against extortion, or those that target threats to injure a person or property that have not been acted upon.
That doesn"t quite fit computer crime, Hoffman said.
"With ransomware, the threat has already been carried out," he said. "The data has already been encrypted; it has already been compromised. It"s more like data kidnapping."
At least one other state, Wyoming, has outlawed ransomware.
The human mind is a MASSIVELY parallel computer,
No, human brain is NOT parallel computing. You may think that you can do multi-tasking, but your brain is actually switching tasks for you.
..., but its slow as shit compared to even the first intel CPUs when it comes to complex math
Even though it is not as fast as computers, apparently it is fast enough to make you think you are performing parallel computing.
Why should that matter? You sound like a speciesist. If you went back 30 years, and asked Americans if they would object more to gays marrying, or robots marrying, I think the robots would win.
It does matter. Your argument is actually trying to pull in something else -- inferior feeling among humans -- which is not the point. I'm talking about living and non-living things. And as I said, if one day the human societies decide that robots are living organisms, then I'm sure that the thought would be changed.
Nothing in parent's comment indicated he/she is religious.
any other use of it is an abomination to nature
Outside of obtaining a particular tax filing status and access to social security spousal benefits, what does it mean to be married? What is the difference between an unmarried cohabitating couple and a married couple?
Hospital visitation? Inheritance? These would come much easier with marriage status...
Change in attitudes can happen very quickly. A decade ago, a strong majority of Americans was opposed to gay marriage. Today, it is the law of the land, and even the most ardent opponents have mostly given up any hope of reversing it.
That's completely different. Two guys are in the same species. Robot is not even considered as a living organism. If one day they categorize robots as a part of living organism, then your example would hold.
If my neighbor wants to marry his Roomba, I will not object.
I don't have any objection either. It is not really my business.
isn't it like 10 minutes or less from the strip to the airport? say 5 round trips an hour at $14 each round trip. $7 there and back for different people is $70 an hour before expenses. not too bad.
Nope. In reality, the driver app doesn't work the way you are hoping it to be -- allow you to pick up back and fort. Also, in reality, what you said may or may not happen at all. If it does happen, it won't be as often as you think; thus, you can't really make money that way.
Disks travel in packs.