3/4" of an inch. WAHOO IM PERFECT.

Okay, this is a little weird to me. They are using mean averages for height, weight, and waist size, but representing the median for skin tone and facial features, and then calling the composite the average.

I top out at $5. #shameface

Holy shit, the reflexes on the black car. He brakes so fast you can see the weight shift forward and then back on his SUV. Dude is fucking spiderman.

Sure, and when the iPhone went retina it was thinner. Same with the MacBook, retina 2012 was thinner than the 2011. I'd say the iPad was the exception, and with the air line they wouldn't make that mistake again.

$20? You lucky bastard, jail in my town charges $55.

Hmm, why's that? I thought the idea that the next Air will be retina was fairly widespread by now.

Okay this is frustrating because I spent at least 90 second on this and it wont post. Damn you kinja! Anyway, apologies if this pops up three times. Current Macbook Air 11:

Okay, kina is eating my posts so I'll try this again. Apologies if it suddenly pops up multiple times. Current MacBook Air 11:

Okay, mocked this up real quick. Current MacBook Air 11:

Why not just put a 12" screen in a slightly thinner version of the current 11" body? I'm not breaking out a ruler but seems like it would fit no problem with all that bezel all over the place. And you could pop a 14" in the current 13.

Right, the m2 cancels out when calculating the acceleration of the moon towards the earth, but the mass of the earth is critically important. That was the mass I was talking about. When calculating the acceleration of the earth towards the moon, similarly, m1 cancels out but the mass of the moon is critically…

Yeah, no.

What are you talking about? Your final equation — a = GM/r^2 — what do you think the M stands for?

Um, if those were the right equations you just would have proved that acceleration = the gravitational constant. Which obviously doesn't make any sense because acceleration can be any number and the gravitational constant is.... constant.

Wait, why would you think that? I mean, we might disagree on some points here, no doubt. But in my head, this would be a distillation of the best parts of Trek. The utopian/dystopian dynamic explored in TOS, the future tech and morality issues that got touched on in TNG, the darker side and characterization of DS9,…

How the hell would you determine acceleration due to gravity without considering mass?

All I want from a new Star Trek is to have no more phony utopia bullshit. To think that we'd completely get over human nature in the next few hundred years is crazy, and also never works. Look, no racism! Except that every other episode is a thinly veiled racial analogy and most of the species are stupid stereotypes…

Ha, that's a good point.

No, I don't think it's possible for that distance. Back of envelop calculations give me a gravitational attraction of 1.55x10^26 Newton. Even on the high end of his speed calculations (90 min orbit) they would crash together rather quickly. You'd actually need a speed of at least, what, 30km/s? No way you could have a…