OK, let's take my not up-to-date PC (uptime: 397 days) and see what "important" updates are lined up for it.

1. USB driver update, without it my PC may crash if it changes power states (suspend/hibernate) or a USB device come out of suspended state. I do not use suspend/hibernate, no problem for me. Also, not security related. Restart required, maybe two.
2. Removal of MD5 root certificates. I did that already manually. Restart may be required.
3. Update to Remote Desktop Service to allow restricted admin logons. I do not use Remote Desktop service on this PC (I have other software for remote management). Reboot may be required.
4. Remote code execution (finally, something important) if I got to some site using IE. I do not use IE. Hardware acceleration is disabled on Chrome or Firefox.
5. Information disclosure, requires me to visit a site using IE. I do not use IE.
I got bored.

Restarts are about 30 minutes long, maybe more. The PC itself restarts quite fast, but then it takes time to close the programs and save all files before restart and then open them after restart.

Apache is open source. Microsoft could make Windows open source to avoid the fines.

The argument for this: if the software is open source, I can fix the bug myself or someone else may fix it for me (for example, CentOS and Debian maintain older versions of software like Apache and fix the bugs that are found, so if I do not want to use the latest, I can install CentOS and be good for ~9 years).

So, if Windows XP was open source, somebody would maintain it, now it's either Microsoft or nobody.

So, it will be just like Windows XP or newer versions with UAC disabled? Well, it was good enough with XP...

What if my version of Office is old enough to not have that? I have backups, the backups are made of the entire hard drive (with exceptions like page file) and do not depend on any software other than the backup service.

So, there has never been an incident where an automatically installed Windows update made the computer unbootable?

No, what we need to combat with software bugs is make bugs more expensive - so it is economical to to write properly working software in the first place. How about this: once a bug is discovered, for every affected computer, Microsoft gets to pay a $100 fine.

Also, how come Linux has less of the "OMG super critical" bugs, like Heartbleed?

I updated OpensSSL and only restarted the services that use SSL - apache, exim etc.

As for others, it depends on the vulnerability in question and whether I am affected.
1. Does it require an open incoming port to the outside? No problem, my router also works as a firewall and I have disabled the IPv6 tunnels from Windows.
2. Does it allow a local user to gain admin rights? No problem my single local user is an admin, I am not going to hack my own PC.

Windows 7 can reload graphics drivers if they crash, so I guess it should be able to just reload them for updates.
SSL support - wouldn't that only need restarting the programs that use SSL - browsers, email etc leaving my notepad, MS Word etc open?
Login service - probably the vulnerability falls in one of the two categories I listed.

Then make the updates not an annoyance to install. Pretty much every Windows update requires a reboot. Usually, after installing fresh Windows on a PC I have to reboot multiple times installing updates.
Compare that to Linux - reboot only necessary for kernel updates (and it seems that the latest versions no longer need it), otherwise you just restart the affected service. And even without that, Linux services are quite secure (compare the major Linux bugs like Heartbleed with the number of major Windows bugs).

Also, not all security bugs affect me. For example, let's say there is a bug that would allow someone to hack my PC over WiFi. If my PC does not have WiFi card, I do not need the update.

Photoshop is expensive. If I buy it I will use the version as long as I can do what I need with it. Just like everything else. I am not buying a new TV if my current one is good enough for me. I also bought a new PC (and installed Windows 7 - I hate the Flat UI of Windows 8) because I wanted to play games that did not run on my old Windows XP PC. This happened before the end of support, not that I was installing lots of updates before - I really dislike rebooting my PC, so much so, that I have enough UPSs that can provide power for an hour in total and am considering buying a generator.

What if I do not want to restart my computer? Windows updates seem to require that for every update (compared to Linux, where only kernel updates require a reboot, normally you just restart the affected service(s)).

However, there is probably going to be a way around it - disabling the update service for example.

How about this for a test of independence:

Will the baby survive if you kill the mother? A born baby can survive provided someone else takes care of it. An unborn baby (especially if the pregnancy is early enough for "legal" abortion) will die with the mother. An unborn baby that's almost ready to be born can survive if someone cuts it out of the dead mother fast enough.

What do you propose then? For both (not necessarily the same solution for both):
1. Unwanted babies, for example if a rape victim got pregnant from the rape and she does not want part of the rapist inside her for 9 months. While I am not a woman and cannot say for certain, I imagine pregnancy is quite inconvenient. It's a compromise if the baby is wanted, but what if not? OK, if the baby is a result of consensual sex then I guess she is at fault for not using protection or having sex at all. But what if it's trough non of her fault (rape)?
2. China's population problem. Their population still grows despite the policy (though not as fast as before) and they actually need it to shrink to be able to properly feed everyone. Would the USA (or the EU) accept, say, 400 million Chinese immigrants? No? Thought so.

Abortion happens when the fetus is still not an independent lifeform. Also, abortion is legal in many Western countries, which means that quite a lot of people (me included) think that a fetus is less of a human than a child that's outside of the mother (and that the choice of the mother matters more during pregnancy - otherwise we would have to, what, chain the woman until she gives birth? because there are more ways to get an abortion than one)..

However, once the child is born, it is considered valuable (especially since time and effort was put into raising her - also this is why if I was forced to choose between a 3 year old and a baby (say to carry out of a burning building or whatever, both children being not family to me), I would save the 3 year old.

And China is severely overpopulated - it's either the One Child Policy, random executions by lottery or starving.

So, Microsoft changed the UI of Office because otherwise people would have stopped using it and started using OpenOffice or something else?

Most software is just a tool, nothing more. Other tools change less - a hammer does not change (it may be made with different materials etc, but how you use it does not change), even the basic UI of a car does not change (clutch, brakes, gas, steering wheel, gear stick).

So, why does the creator of webmail feel the need to move the send button around? I understand adding new features (and the UI changes the follow them), but why change the "basic UI"?

Touchpads are great, but only after I disable the tap-to-click function. Trackpoints suck for me because they are either slow or imprecise (for me). A trackball would be nice, but nobody makes laptops with them anymore.

Give up land to repay debt. Oh, Putin would love this. Finally, a rationalization of what he's doing to Ukraine ("they owe us for gas Ãnd their land is really cheap because it's bombed to shit so we'll take quarter of the country, since they refused to give it up voluntarily, we are now sending our debt collectors, and due to the costs incurred by the need for debt collectors, we'll now take half the country").

Building a car is not very difficult and since cars have been around for a very long time, you can build a car that's quite nice without infringing patents that are still valid.

Patents last for 20 years, right? So, you can legally duplicate a 20 year old car provided that you change it a little bit to remove trademarks and copyright protected software, but then a 20 year old car won't have that much software (or you can copy a 30 year old car that does not have software).