I know all about their religions. Good Christians and Jews, the ones who follow their books, do exactly this. It's right there in the Bible: if your children misbehave, you are to stone them. There's countless such examples. Also, women are to be subservient to men. A large number of Christians in America believe this.

Maybe you should look up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Education is dangerous to the extremists with beards if women started thinking for themselves then how can they have Sharia law?

Exactly, and on a side note, this perfectly illustrates the mentality of men who have beards. Hipsters and women who are attracted to bearded men, take note.

If you don't care for what other people think or their interests, why would they care about your ideas and interest?

He's not saying he cares one way or another, it was a personal observation, that somehow he has an easy time finding men who share his more intellectual pursuits, and that women who are intellectual are very rare for him to cross paths with. This is likely due to several factors, including his particular career field and geographic locale.

As an engineer, I generally see the exact same thing. However, I don't think it's because women are generally insipid morons (as I said before, it's easy to find men who are big fans of Duck Dynasty), it's because of my career and where I'm located. If I moved to NYC and worked at the NYPL (public library), I'd probably run across tons of women with zero interest in The Kardashians who would love to instead talk about all kinds of intellectual subjects (probably literature). As an engineer, I run across very few women at all, and most of them are administration or HR people, not known to be groups full of intellectuals (and HR people are, in general, just a bunch of morons, no matter their sex).

The only problem with your post here is the bit about your professional and personal life. Where do you live and work that you're surrounded by men on your intellectual level, but all the women are vapid morons?

You should try moving to Manhattan (NYC); there's tons of women there who do nothing but talk about all kinds of academic subjects. Go to OKCupid and read their profiles; they'll drone on and on about their favorite authors, obscure musicians, theater, etc. (I'm not criticizing this, I'm pointing out that this is the culture there.) It's entirely different than, say, some random mid-size city in the southeast, where all the women have pictures of themselves with guns and dead fish and pickup trucks.

It sounds to me like you just live in the wrong place.

No, it's not, it depends on the particular interests. If they have interests such as following the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty, and you have interests which include baroque music and classical literature, then it's safe to say that you're more intelligent than them.

There's nothing sexist about it. There's no shortage of idiot men who are big fans of Duck Dynasty, and there's relatively few people of either sex who are big fans of more intellectual pursuits like classical literature.

as it is for his followers to keep using those long out-dated moral standards from then in today's world.

The problem is that a large portion of the world's population (that is, everyone who follows an Abrahamic religion, which is probably at least half the global population) does exactly this.

That's the whole problem with these religions: they hold up these "holy books" as "the inerrant word of God", and claim that everyone should follow the moral standards contained in them.

The speed of the growth of the internet is a separate question from general public awareness of it. I am correct in what I wrote that by 1986 the internet was spreading quickly,

https://xkcd.com/1102/

That's a good point and an interesting story; I didn't know that before. You're right, that really shows the danger in being a greedy asshole and insisting on high patent royalties or worse not licensing because you want to be the only manufacturer. IIRC, the guy who invented the first working intermittent windshield wipers was like this too; instead of just selling rights to his design to Ford, he insisted on making them himself, and Ford just went around him. He eventually prevailed in court and won a large judgment, but it took a couple of decades or more, plus losing his marriage.

Luckily, we are finally starting to see more and more Robinson and Torx stuff. Philips screws are awful, though the Posi-drive variant is a little better.

Close, but not quite: Microsoft still has the vast majority of desktop OS installations, and they only support their own filesystems.

It's not quite like the screw thing, because there's no single company that dominates screws and screwdrivers. People keep using the same screws because of inertia: everyone's used to flat and phillips screws, and everyone has tools for them, so we keep using them even though they suck. Luckily, more and more stuff is finally moving away from those crappy standards, to Allen (recessed hex), Torx (recessed 6-point star), and Robinson (recessed square). You can get a multi-bit screwdriver and a big set of bits for every kind of screw for less than $10 now.

Just a quibble: IIRC, FAT32 is not covered by any patents at all. It's the "exFAT" filesystem which is patent-protected. FAT32 stopped being useful when portable flash cards passed (IIRC) 2 or 4GB in capacity. exFAT does a somewhat better job with large devices like this, but still, you're right, the only reason people use it is because it's ubiquitous and everything supports it, most importantly Windows, not because it's a great filesystem. So yeah, you could argue that this is illegal leveraging of their desktop monopoly. Too bad no one wants to spend the $$$ to challenge them in court over this.

No, you're entirely missing the point. Kubuntu gets next-to-no-usage because it's not a prime-time distro, it's just a small obscure variant of one. Not only that, Kubuntu is just a vanilla KDE setup (which is fine if you like regular KDE Plasma).

My proposal is that Ubuntu dump Unity and the GTK3 plumbing it sits on and adopt KDE instead. People already complain a lot about Unity being slow, and all evidence points to KDE being lighter weight and better performing than Gnome or Unity, due to superior architecture. However, Ubuntu likely doesn't just want to be a KDE distro for whatever reason; obviously they're trying to explore and push different UI concepts with Unity. That's OK: KDE lets you do that, when you have the development resources that Ubuntu enjoys. KDE already has several different versions of Plasma for different devices (desktop, netbook, mobile); the architecture allows you to have a completely different UI sitting on top of KDE's infrastructure. So Canonical wouldn't have such a difficult time developing their own UI (just another version of Plasma) which sits on top of KDE and benefits from its excellent under-the-hood architecture and performance, while letting them easily explore whatever new UI trends they want to try out. And then, anyone who doesn't like that can *trivially* just switch back to plasma-desktop and get a vanilla KDE experience if they want, without needing a whole new distro (or distro variant).

No, Gnome shell is no better than Unity, and probably worse. They both suck.

Ubuntu should just switch to a customized version of KDE. KDE has a far better underlying architecture than Gnome, and it's not that hard to make a different version of Plasma if you're a distro that wants to do things a bit differently.

Wow, thanks for the correction, I wasn't sure about the exact numbers, but that's even worse, and shows how critical herd immunity is.

Hmm, that's really weird. I'm currently using 36.0.4 on Linux Mint, and everything's mostly fine. It does seem to have a memory leak in it, so I seem to need to kill it and restart it every week or two, but it is normal for me to just leave it open all the time (on a laptop which gets suspended every night) with a couple dozen tabs in two windows. So not perfect, as I had said before, but not any worse than I've had with most browsers over the years. And FF is really good about remembering all my open tabs so I'm always right back where I was when I restart it. (And unlike stupid Chromium, it waits until you actually look at a tab before loading it, instead of trying to reload every single tab all at once when you restart and restore.)