If it is accepted as a religion, it is accepted as a religion. Or can you point to a legal ruling that separates religion from religion in the eyes of the law?

My work system has hundreds (literally hundreds - over 200) different applications from different industrial system vendors which I have to use in various situations to configure the systems I work with.

And you think it is a PROBLEM that these are organized by vendor name and machine system name in my start menu.

You have no connection to the reality many people who actually have to use their systems for work live in.

You are correct. I did figure out how to switch to another Office suite by now.

Yes, it is a bad thing that the scroll wheel affects things which are not under the mouse pointer. If I move the mouse pointer to a window or widget and mouse scroll it is because I expect that action to affect where I moved the mouse pointer to. Otherwise, why would I have moved my hand to the mouse?

YOU can not set the boundary. Only the church can. If they accept someone's claims that they are catholic, then they are catholic, no matter what boundary YOU set.

They invented churches and they are considered legitimate. By the government. You are correct that you have no say in the matter; the government will acknowledge any invented religion filling certain criteria, and it is quite possible to invent new churches and have them considered legitimate today.

And for those five seconds you are ruining the movies for dozens of people around you. And you are completely oblivious to the fact that you are. And even if you realize you are, you consider such concerns beneath you.

Model citizen right there.

What is the point of checking - and thinking about - the pickup point DURING THE MOVIE?

Seriously, if that is your best contender for why it's a-ok to be an asshole to everyone else in the movie theater, then you have nothing. Your sense of priorities is completely screwed up, and you have no business in a proper establishment.

We need more such intolerant country clubs of cinemas. I would pay membership to such an establishment, where people with such poor control of their compulsions to check their phone are banned.

The reason I dislike going to the cinema is not the movies. It's the audience being completely unable to keep sound and light discipline.

There isn't anything fantastic about the technology in the F35, especially not for the price, but not even when ignoring the economical aspect.

Modern block designs of F16 and F/A18 have comparable avionics to the F35. The Silent Eagle F15 is just as good at avoiding enemy aircraft radar as the F35, and there is no reason the same technology could not be applied to F/A18's except lack of demand.

There is nothing wise about the F35 except throwing a bone to the US government. Which of course is a big part of any decision to buy fighter aircraft.

Avionics can be - and constantly are - upgraded. The block 60 F16 is just as advanced in the sensors and guided munitions as the F35 at a fraction of the cost, and with a superior airframe.

The point of the F35 is not advanced avionics - those are easy to replace and upgrade - but to lower cost through more common parts in the aircrafts while retaining airframe capability. And that is not what they're getting anymore.

So now the F35 is all about generating jobs in various states so the senators will keep the budget for it going. There are no technical advantages of the F35 program left.

There is rather a huge difference with a low unit cost assault rifle, which can be retooled or replaced with ease, and a modern fighter aircraft in general.

And the F35 is not in the middle lane of complexity of modern fighter aircrafts, it is leading the pack, both mechanically and electronically.

Further, the M16 core design was good (apart from the still present problem of direct gas actuation of the receiver bolt) and implementations details were the problem. The F35 is by design a compromise between competing demands. It is by design built, from the ground up, to not do any task well.

It has a body designed to accept the fan the Marines want to get sort-of VTOL capacity. This cripples it in other roles.

It has a half-baked stealth system, because of the fan and other trade-offs, and when in stealth it can't carry more load than an F15 rebuilt for stealth - an airplane costing much, much less in acquisition and operation.

And a pointy-nose in general is horrible for CAS. Almost no time over target, too little armor to go low and use direct fire weapons efficiently and too high speed to perform observation and guidance. The F35 solves none of those problems, except the speed one in the Marine version, but that plane is even more fragile than the non-fan version making it terrible for a CAS role.

There is no way to change that downstream on aircraft which are already built. The F35 will cripple US air capability, not directly because of its own problems directly, but because it removes aircraft more suited for the roles due to eating up their budget.

Quite correct, compiled code is scanned all the time. And in doing this, bugs are CONSTANTLY found. Big, bad ones which leave wide open holes.

And many of them are around for years before they are patched. Many years. Some are still not fixed, after many years.

And yet more of them are not possible to detect until other changes in the software or architecture exposes that part of the executable to a new environment. The bug could have been there for dozens of years - yes, there is code in Windows that old - and still not be patched today.

The difference is, with open source, we know exactly how long the bug has been there, and when it was fixed. With closed source, we have no way of knowing. None. Really. All we can know is what is exposed in the builds we have access to with the interfaces we have access to.

And you know, if "someone didn't look" then they didn't know. Srsly. What kind of brain damage produced that line of reasoning?

And how long have the bugs in the Windows networking code been sitting there? Oh, right, you can't know, because they're not telling us.

Perhaps you should use some of that logic which you wish others to experience.

And you base this on what comparative statistics? How many security related bugs have the closed source developers found and fixed while these bugs were closed by a community scouring over the code?