The upgrade process asks you if you want "express settings" or if you want to make choices. If you're wanting to keep certain apps as defaults, you go the non-express upgrade route. It takes a few minutes at most. The only reason for Mozilla to be worried is that MS has the new lightweight browser while Mozilla now has the bloated piece of crap. The only problem with MS's new Edge browser is the lack of ad block.

Premature deaths? Are we arguing the 2nd amendment or abortion? I'm going to ignore that bit of your reply since it's insanely inappropriate given the left's stance on the sanctity of life.

You're a bit mixed up. You mention the "legal landscape" and dive right into murders and mass shootings. Those things aren't legal. Those things also often happen in supposed gun free zones. I would argue that leaving large groups of people in an area and eliminating a means of self defense is the bigger problem. It's been said a million times but it's true, guns don't kill people. People kill people. You're vilifying the wrong thing.

We had an incident right down the street from my home. A guy held up a convenience store in the early morning hours. The clerk had a concealed weapon and defended himself. The robber got away and the clerk was fired for violating company policy. He has a wife and children. The robberies had been happening for weeks with no sign of letting up, the police clueless. Maybe you want to sacrifice those people working in those conditions. I don't. He had every right to defend himself and get back to his family alive.

This is why we can't have a middle ground. The opposition always speaks of this perfect society that would exist if not for guns. It's fantasy. People will find different ways to kill each other. We banned guns from planes and lost thousands of lives to zealots with box cutters. You're preaching fantasy while people are trying to get by in reality.

The only thing holding back the US is the border between North and South Korea. The US is in compliance otherwise. Honestly, what options exist there? The US won't commit more troops, so it'd either have to put our current troops in danger or we'd have to pull out. If the US withdraws, that would likely entice North Korea to invade.

Sorry, but you're wrong. As an example, NRA is in favor of better mental health background checks. The trouble is, they're vilified to the point where people don't even care to know the facts and instead proceed on assumptions. NRA also spoke out against Internet "hunting" when someone wanted remotely operated triggers to shoot at captive animals. They may not go to the same extremes that the 2nd amendment objectors want, but they certainly allow for middle ground. Their mission is to protect the 2nd, they're not going to be in favor of things that lead to killing sprees if there's an agreeable way to minimize that risk without diminishing our right to bear arms.

I'm not sure whose legislative agenda you're talking about. I'm not aware that either org tells its supporters one thing and says something else to legislators. The legislators themselves pay lip service to these special interests just as they do with the public, the unions, etc.

If you knew anything about the NRA you'd know that they only promote responsible use of firearms. Yes, you can neckbeard that an oxymoron, but at least half the voting population here still believes there are very important reasons why the right to bear arms needs to exist.

As exemplified by gun free zones.

There are already treaties banning the use of land mines. This was one of Princess Diana's causes. Of course, that only applies to nations or groups that honor treaties or international laws, and would require other nations to enforce the restriction if violated.

Are you suggesting that they don't actually have asthma? A significant percentage of the population has asthma, it's not unexpected that a significant number of pro cyclists would have it as well.

It was an undocumented drone flying over a sanctuary city.

Probably impractical, but imagine if more things in government were funded at-will. Then the projects the people truly care about would receive funding. People could point to the things they helped accomplish rather than feeling like they're pissing their money away into pork projects and padding the wallets of the well connected puppet masters. A space suit today, maybe Mars tomorrow.

The ER isn't going to treat someone for a non-emergent issue unless it's something quick. They're going to point the person to urgent care or a public health clinic or whatever the equivalent is for the area. If it actually is an emergency, guess what? The ER treats them. You seem to think you can go to the ER for a flu shot and they're required to give it to you. Go try that sometime, tell us how it goes. If the person needs to be stabilized (by your words), then that sure sounds like an emergency to me. If they didn't seek out care before it became an emergency, that's their own damn fault. Like I said, there are services available. You just have to look for them. That requires effort though and this being America, I know that's a lot to ask.

What the "right-wing" doesn't want is to have clueless people like you destroying health care for those of us who realize that it is not actually broken.

I don't know where you live, but even my smallish town has a public health clinic. Many area hospitals also have walk in care for people that can't pay. These things are possible without overreaching federal legislation or abusing the ER. There's also the more recent trend of having urgent care clinics for things that are not life or death emergencies.

Humans being humans. I believe that some of this at its core is behavior hardwired into us from the earlier days of our evolution. Someone is always going to want more than someone else. Some of them will be entirely willing to accomplish that through the use of force or through thievery. That certainly happens in the animal kingdom, and we are animals ourselves. Yes, we could probably provide an equivalent existence for the entire population, but people in the developed nations are not going to lower their own quality of life by any significant amount therefore it's not going to happen. Not now anyway. If we get to the point where we can elevate everyone, then maybe.

A lot of us are doing what is basically busy work. It's not necessary, but as a people, we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves outside of work. Look at the sad lives of people who win large lottery prizes. Some end up worse off than before. I know of people that would qualify for disability, as an example, but they don't for the same reason. Look at areas where a lot of people live on entitlements. They tend to be high crime areas, do they not?

We could get there maybe, but we're not ready for it now.

If the open source projects were not available, then a business needing that functionality would have to employ resources in house to do it or contract the work to some other business. I think the analogy works just fine. There is a giant pool of work that needs to be done with regards to software, but it is certainly not infinite. For an individual business, that pool of work is not likely to be all that large.

Part of the role of the navy for any country is to protect the shipping routes.