Just 5 years ago there's no way we'd be celebrating 20 years of open bsd on slashdot.
No, that wouldn't have made sense, as 5 years ago OpenBSD had only been around 15 years.
Use the best tool for the job.
What are the chances, based on past performance, that the best tool for the job is a phone from Microsoft? On a platform where they're complete virgins?
Since there's nothing inherently wrong with Windows 8.1 besides the awful UI
Perhaps you didn't read the summary.
Not very reliable witnesses
That link makes two points: 1, that the witnesses had ulterior motives (they knew Smith, they had a financial stake in the success of the book), and 2, that if the witnesses believed their own testimony, then why did they leave the church. In fact, the second argument invalidates the first. If all the witnesses left the church, why did they never deny their testimony? Obviously they felt no loyalty to Smith, having left the church. Can you identify with that?
your scrutiny could use some scrutiny itself
That's an interesting point, but it addresses only one of the valid points made in the essay it refers to.
That one is pretty weak. In fact, one of its four citations (the last) links to an article with the necessary information to debunk the whole criticism.
all the evidence shows that Native Americans came from Asia
The last link in my previous comment demonstrates otherwise.
if you have the hard evidence
The same link also says, right in the concluding section, that the church's position is that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual document, not a historical one, and that "It is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."
How do you rationalize Smith's behaviour with the gold plates that nobody but him ever saw
They were seen by the three witnesses. To what behaviour are you referring?
and when the transcriber "lost" the translations (to see if Smith actually did have a source document from which he could reproduce the same translation) Smith then provided a different translation
Where did you get the idea that Martin Harris's motivation in losing the document was to test Joseph? I've read a bit on the subject and found nothing to support that notion. In any case, Joseph did not retranslate that portion, and the rationale for that is laid out in clear.
How he translated some Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, but the scrolls in question have nothing in common with what Joseph Smith translated
I'm not familiar with that claim or its background so I can't address it.
What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.
That's too big of an issue to get into here, but suffice it to say that your statement of the claim is an oversimplification (the original and current editions of the Book of Mormon state that the peoples of the Book are descended of Joseph of Egypt, and among the ancestors of Native Americans), and the 'evidence' that has been posited against is does not stand up to scrutiny.
Apropos, the answers to all of your questions and the cure to your misconceptions are readily found on the internet. Whether the internet makes some people into atheists, I do not know, but one this is for sure: knowledge, even readily available knowledge, does not by itself make one more informed. One has to know how to seek it out, filter the truth from the noise, and then judiciously apply it.
New systems generate new problems.