You're conflating the "ends" with the "means".

1% of human society are also psychopaths infallibly detectable at an early age by testing brain wave reactions

This is untrue -- there is no such thing as an infallible test of psychopathy. Not only is it known that children can "grow out of it" even when they show clear signs of psychopathy in childhood, it is also known that adults with "psychopathic brains" can be perfectly normally functioning. (Current thinking seems to be that a combination of genetic factors and environmental factors both need to be present for psychopathy to develop.)

Even a test which is 99.99% accurate can be extremely dangerous if applied to the general population when the condition is rare in the first place. See e.g. this TED talk for a good overview. This is why screening of the general population is a very bad idea in most cases.

"Microsoft Serves Self" wouldn't be controversial enough for New Slashdot.

I'd probably rather be programming in C# than Java, but Java is where the enterprise is (at least in my general vicinity), so that's what I use professionally. For me, it's actually not a lot of features which are deciders, but "no checked exceptions", "usable generics" and "lambda" are heavily in C#'s favor.

However, Haskell is light years ahead of both of those as a programming language. You don't actually need that IDE support when you're programming in Haskell since you don't have ridiculous numbers of classes to keep track of. A good editor is all you need. The ecosystem around Haskell is also pretty strong these days -- maybe you haven't looked at it recently? Is there anything in paritcular you're missing? (That's not to say that an IDE isn't useful, but it's definitely not necessary for coding in Haskell.)

(I can't speak specifically about F#, but I've also been very happy with O'Caml in the past whose bastard child F# is. That was a few years ago and the "ecosystem" was definitely poorer than Java at the time -- I don't know that the current status is.)

Dynamic/static and strict/weak are orthogonal in general. A dynamically typed language could just as easily verify that all necessary methods defined by an interface are implemented by an implementation -- it's just that the check would happen at run-time rather than compile time.

The term "beginning of time" may not make sense in any physical sense. It may be the case that time has no beginning, even if what we typically call the "universe" does have a beginning. (I'm not even a layman, but as far as I understand it, some current theories suggest that the universe is the result of the collision of eternal vibrating/fluctuating "branes" in higher-dimensional space.)

(Also AFAIUI:) "Singularity" simply means that the math of the currently known laws of nature breaks down or diverges -- it doesn't necessarily mean that time somehow didn't exist.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism (theism requires an active belief).

Except is isn't really. Agnositicism is the postition that the existense or non-existence of god is unknowable. Philosophically that's much a much stronger claim than atheism.

Claiming that you have proof that there is no God because in your view there is no evidence of His existence goes beyond the strictly logical.

Who claimed that anyone had proof that there is no god? I claimed an absence of evidence of a god. Absence of evidence that should be there if this god posesses any of the properties attributed to him/her/it/them by Cristians/Muslims/Jews/etc. Empirically that is indiciative of a lack of god.

Agnostics acknowledge that there are things that cannot be disproved.

No, they're being cowards in refusing to take a position. They certainly have one (one way or the other), they just refuse to state it publically.

The more rigorously motivated place the null hypothesis squarely in the "there is no god" camp, waiting for evidence to the contrary.

Welcome to atheism.

Kill yourself. There is no life after software development.

"Atheist" simply means "not theist", i.e. does not believe. It does not imply logical proof that there is no god.

Without proof either way, agnosticism is the only rational position.

That's a nonsense. If god intervenes in the world (as all Christians must believe) there should be evidence -- there is absolutely none. This is consistent with the atheist view. It is not consistent with the Christian view.

Your taking offense means absolutely nothing for the validity or non-validity of an argument. You seem to be a sensible person, but please don't use the "that's offensive!" defense. It doesn't belong in any civilised debate.

What I can't accept is your assertion that my belief is false, when there is in fact no scientific evidence to support either viewpoint.

You say that as if you think that somehow makes it a fifty-fifty proposition.

Lack of evidence of a god when that evidence should be there is in fact evidence that there isn't a god. So I'd say it's overwhelmingly likely that your belief is false. (Of course there are no absolutes, but it seems strange to take the overwhelmingly unlikely position rather than the overwhelmingly likely one when living one's life.)

Unless of course you're worshipping a malicious or trickster god who deliberately hides from you and makes himself/herself/itself immune to evidence. In which case... I'm not sure anyone would wish to worship such a god.

There's also the inconvenient fact that lots of people believe just as fervently in a different god from yours. How do you know that they're wrong and you're not?

are exactly equivalent. If your RDBMS is so crappy that it can't see that, then that's not the user's problem. SQL was supposed to be an abstraction, right?

Politically motivated.

Does the silent update give me a link to that page?

Investigate functional languages (O'Caml, F# or Haskell) and my comment may make sense :).

The larger point is that such details as indexes shouldn't matter -- you just want to solve your problem and shouldn't have to worry about irrelevant detail.

Yes, beacuse silent updates let you know which security problems you may have been exposed to.