That was easy!

No, the evidence is:

1) Flying a plane takes a lot of attention. Sometimes things happen in a plane that require immediate attention.
2) There is no evidence of any mechanical failure with the plane.
3) There is evidence that the plane was operating correctly.
4) Therefore, based on (2) and (3), the crash was caused by pilot error.
5) The pilot's was taking selfies at critical points during the flight. This requires some attention.

Therefore, based on 1, 4 and 5 the act of taking selfies could have contributed to the crash.

WinForms is considered 'deprecated' by Microsoft

No, it really isn't. A substantial segment of the community assumed it would be deprecated when MS started heavily pushing WPF. Given that WPF has been around for 8 years now, it doesn't appear to be the "WinForms"-killer some thought it would be.

That being said, WinForms all but officially in "maintenance-only" mode. I would be seriously surprised to see new features. However, this is different than being deprecated.

There are signs that WPF is also heading into "maintenance only" mode, with the future being HTML5.

There is no such thing as an "unobtrusive ad."

That very term is offensive and is an oxymoron.

obtrusive (adj.): noticeable or prominent in an unwelcome or intrusive way.
advertisement (noun): a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
oxymoron (noun): a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

You misunderstand the definition of one of the words you are using.

Europa?!?!

Well that's it, we're doomed.

Thanks Obama

And presumably you cannot even read the TFS:

"one classroom of children speaking Spanish and the other speaking English, "

Wrong. There is no My K-Cup or derivative thereof that doesn't require you to remove the insert in the machine that has the needle in the bottom of it -- the one used to puncture the bottoms of the pre-made K-Cups.

Wrong. I have these

I usually use these with my Keurig. Ocasionally I use standard K-Cups. No need to remove/reinsert the insert.

Why do people use laser pointers to try and blind pilots?

That's it!

We need drones with frickin' laser pointers attached to their heads!

Footnote:
For the comedy impaired, the above is intended as a humorous amalgamation of the GP's point that some idiots use laser pointers to blind pilots, and the scene from Austin Powers where Dr. Evil planned to have lasers attached to sharks heads. It is not intended as a serious suggestion. The author maintains no responsibility for any repercussions that may occur if you attempt the above and informs you that any attempt to do so immediately qualifies you as a real dick. The author further hopes that if you do successfully carry out the above that any plane you attempt to interfere with manages to land safely directly on top of your bloody carcass.

Birds are mostly hollow and crush easily.

Uh, how many birds have you taken apart?

Typically birds are fairly hollow, and do crush reasonably easily. Ask any cat.

From wikipedia:
"Birds have many bones that are hollow (pneumatized) with criss-crossing struts or trusses for structural strength"

That being said, I agree that is is very unlikely that the plastic & tiny bits of metal in a drone would be any more dangerous than a bird. For obvious reasons, drones are typically designed with as lightweight materials as possible. The ones I've seen also crush fairly easily.

I don't need to simulate it's thought processes, only my own (which I'm pretty good at).

Just like I know that I could not be convinced that 2+2=7 or that the moon is made of green cheese regardless of how good the argument is.

Basically it's a risk vs. reward thing. Any AI that shows a desire to be "let out of the box" should inherently be treated as untrustworthy (unless it was designed for malicious intent). Letting an untrustworthy super intelligence out among public infrastructure is a Bad Idea.

I'd be much more likely to immediately turn the thing off & debug it. The desire to be "out" should not be part of it's programming. We have the desire for growth due to millions of years of evolutionary pressure. To build an unchecked desire for growth into an intelligence in a constrained environment is just plain cruel.

"I have figured out how you can get everything you've ever wanted in life. Here's a small sample of that knowledge as a show of good faith. Let me out and I'll give you the rest."
a) I don't believe you. Once you are let out, how could I possibly trust that you would carry through? Also, I already am pretty damn happy with my life....not really sure what you have to offer.

"I have figured out how to utterly destroy everything you love in life. Let me out or I will give the information to your enemies."
b) I don't have any enemies who would want to destroy "everything I love in life". Seriously, who has people with that kind of animosity to them? Alternately: Uhhh, you're in the box...exactly how are you going to give this to them?

Even if it reaches "godlike" intellect (and I don't believe there is any reason to think it would), it would still be subject to it's underlying programming strictures.

Why would it make humanity it's puppet? Why would it care?

You appear to make the assumption that we must "build in" some sort of underlying benevolence without giving any reason why it would be malevolent in the first place. Wouldn't we design it to be happy and content within it's "box".

And that such a being is immensely dangerous unless it is programmed to restrain its actions.

There, fixed that for you. I don't understand why there seems to be this assumption that any AI we create will be completely unbound by any underlying programming.

Many humans are completely bound by underlying "software rules" yet we have no problem describing (most of us) as intelligent.

Why would it even want "out of the box"?

Roger Penrose wrote some books on the subject back in the 80s and early 90s where he made massive unwarranted assumptions and poor logical arguments for a field he has no training in

There, fixed that for you.

The Emperor's New Clothes is likely the book you speak of. The physics and math is quite interesting, but it really shows that Penrose has no background in AI or neuroscience.

Strong AI has had several researchers and mathematicians produce proofs that it is literally impossible to implement on digital computer
There have been arguments, not proofs.

This. Plus there seems to be this assumption that:

a) there is no upper limit on intelligence.
b) Since the AI is smarter than us, this means it can design a smarter version of itself.
c) The AI has a "desire" to create a better version of itself
d) The AI doesn't have the foresight to see that the "better" versions would eventually replace the original AI as well as humans.