Our laws have got to be the most daring hack ever.

Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?

(And no, they don't need a rocket delivery mechanism -- it can be shipped pre-emptively to the country most likely to meddle with them.)

That would be me. If someone were threatening me with bodily harm over something
I said, I'd call the cops on them. Let's see them summon more force than that.

Well, alright, lets take close air support in Afghanistan. What would have been the cheaper, easier-to-maintain solution with better time on station?

I distinctly remember it being promised that the F-35 would beat anything but an F-22 in air-to-air combat, at a fraction of the price. It was not part of the original concept for the system but it was definitely sold politically as being capable of acting as a poor man's F22.

I wonder about the helmet mounted display, whether that's something you'd consider absolutely necessary in an aircraft whose job is to hit surface targets in contested airspace.

To be fair, that was not the original justification for the thing. That was mission creep.

I think the original impetus was to have something stealthy that could do ground strikes in enemy territory. And it makes sense to do a naval version of the same thing. If they'd just focused on that they'd have been done a long time ago with a solid design, which of course in engineering nearly always turns out to be more versatile than you planned for. Adding STOVL and the whizbang helmet (cool as that may be) as necessary elements of the system turned this into an "everything for everyone" project, which almost always turns out less versatile than you hoped.

Sure you can identify scenarios where the A-10 is useless. But in the last twenty years it's been extremely useful in a number scenarios we've actually faced.

The idea that a system ought to play every role in every conceivable situation is why the F35 performs none of them very well. In hindsight the idea of accommodating the Marines' need for a STOVL aircraft in the same basic design probably dictated too many compromises in the plane's other roles.

If anyone could win a civil lawsuit against any gun owner (no matter how responsible) for emotional damage because "guns are scary", would you still think people had the right to bear arms?

Then explain why there's a court involved, and why the government will enforce collection of the civil suit damages?

It does if by "responsibility" you mean "consequences". And especially if by "consequences" you mean "government will do nasty things to you".

Hint: libel laws are an exception to free speech, not a "responsibility".

But does the HUD reduce profit margins?

Mickey Mouse Protection Act

First of all, we have billions of years before that happens. Second of all, we can just move the Earth a little farther from the sun (if we're still living here or it has sufficient sentimental value). This, incidentally, relates to asteroids in that we can use the slingshot effect to transfer energy and momentum from asteroids to planet.

Any plan to reach a NEO before it hits requires some ability to detect them (preferably when they're far enough away that we only need to give them a gentle nudge).

"Avira flags all that crapware that most other antiviruses are paid to ignore," said a spokesman for Freemium.com.

Got it. Bugs in the airplane's airflow decrease fuel economy, but aren't considered a safety concern.