Make the insecure code hard to write and make the secure code easy to write. Problem 99% solved.

For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's an incredibly lazy way to silence dissent.

The problem is that these shills are often doing the Slashdot equivalent of the Gish Gallop. Sometimes it's best to just shut them down by outing them as shills.

(Not that I'm particularly fond of this either, but sometimes it's necessary as a matter of pragmatism.)

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.