You have demonstrated you have no idea what prediction means in science

Plate tectonics disproves man-made earthquakes! Everyone knows the earth is always moving!

Considering the number of men who have achieved high station who were utterly unsuitable, why is suitability only ow a big issue when a female candidate enters the fray?

But really, "vote for me because I'm a woman" is no different than "vote for me because I'm a Christian" or "vote for me because I'm a conservative". If one is wrong, then all are wrong. If ability is what you want, then I'd say the bulk of political systems in the industrialized world are built completely wrong. Instead of choosing some sort of technocratic governing expert, we choose people based on the best slogan, the best hair, and the best attack ads. But oh no, we can't ever ever choose a politician because their women. Suddenly it's all about merit.

In a society that believes in liberty and equality (what was everything from the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1968 but an attempt to fulfill that promise to all citizens), what is wrong about a member of a group that has traditionally been denied high office, and is only now having a true shot at the highest office, proclaiming their membership in that group? For chrissakes sake, you've got genuine demagogues like Ted Cruz running around declaring his suitability for office largely based on hisreligious beliefs, and a pack of Tea Party types who seem to support him precisely because he so strongly identifies himself with them.

But oh no, if Hillary Clinton's supporters point out she has two X chromosomes, why that's a violation of this high notion of merit, that the other side ignores frequently (how else does one explain a rich man's alcoholic halfwit son becoming Leader of the Free World).

And I'm sure legalizing interracial marriage was attack on the religious rights of God-fearing Southern Baptists.

Don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone who shares your gender. But why should your not liking gay marriage translate into gays being forbidden to marry?

Have you ever considered the possibility that all those years of misconduct by Microsoft have sowed a considerable amount of distrust in the developer community, and that even where Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, so vile was its conduct "back in the day" (which ain't all that long ago, if you think about the OOXML open standard scam), that it might take years, or maybe never, to convince a lot of people that there isn't some evil plan in the works.

Give me one good fucking reason why I should ever trust Microsoft again?

Indeed. I have written several cross-platform Java apps and utilities that run just fine on Windows, Linux or Mac boxes. One can certainly write Java programs that are locked to one platform, but I've ever seen the need.

It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors. Microsoft isn't trustworthy, and as there are alternatives to .NET, the easiest way to protect against future bad behavior by Microsoft is to use those alternatives. Why risk future woes when you have no need to?

"All but insuring" is not the same as "impossible." I wouldn't touch Mono or any other .NET runtime or compiler with a ten foot pole. There are other cross-platform/cross-architecture development tools out there, so one can completely avoid .NET and still write software that runs on all major platforms. In fact, pushing .NET in the way you do makes me rather suspicious. There's nothing Microsoft would love better than heavy entrenchment in other platforms so it can be turning the screws.

Microsoft has many times expressed its visceral hatred of open source. It is not to be trusted, not ten years ago, not five years not, not today, not ever.

There are other ways to develop cross platform code that don't require putting the loaded gun of Microsoft's dubious anti-litigation commitment to your head. .NET simply isn't so good that I'd put my fate in Redmond's hands.

Wow... just wow.

I'm more commenting on the criminal's stupidity. So great a risk for such little reward. The punishment seems just to me.

I can't imagine being sentenced to nearly two decades in prison over $30,000 bucks. It's like committing an armed robbery for a couple of packs of cigarettes.

Frankly, the kind of person that frightens me the most is the person who believes deeply in their causes. If they're working for non-profits or as private individuals, fantastic, but put them in power, particularly high office, and you have an inflexible individual often incapable of compromise. The Tea Party is an awfully good example of this; people who sincerely believe in the absolute rightness of their cause, and viewing compromise (which is what politics in a democracy is all about) as a betrayal of their beliefs.

Pragmatism, too, can go too far, but at the end of the day I'd rather have people who can drop ideology down a notch and approach politics as a statesman's craft. Perhaps the majority will never be truly happy, but to my mind the notion of a majority is a false one, largely constructed out of artificial archetypes.