...who make themselves known to you as atheists - ie. a self selecting sample of activist atheists.

I think you'll find most atheists just don't care.

Yet it works fine in Australia, and has done since 1999....

That's not true - I'm using KeepassDroid with a version 2 Keepass database fine...

The Win7 Gui is the Vista gui with a less intuitive, more click requiring taskbar.

The only reason Win7 got the glowing reviews it did, is because by the time it came out, computers finally had the power to run Vista.

And a small screen (at least in Unity's case - Gnome 3 isn't too bad on a netbook).

The worst thing is that if you actually try it on a small screen, it becomes clear that the developers have never actually used a computer with a resolution lower than 1680x1050. That screen hogging side panel hurts your brain when it starts collapsing and you find yourself having to chase icons around.

For small screens the old Ubuntu Netbook launcher was perfect - I even use it on a desktop (1366x768 - so still fairly low res), and it was touch friendly too. I don't know why they abandoned it so quickly

That would be why he suggested the other option - a capabilities field.
It amazes me that there still is no capabilities header, despite similar existing for mimetypes and languages....

As a New Zealander living in Austria that still visits New Zealand, I'd say New Zealand hasn't had a sane government for years.
Australia's is still pretty sensible (the internet filter stuff makes a lot of headlines, but no one seriously expects it to ever pass - and even Conroy seems to have given up on it now) for now. ..but god help us all after the next election if the Australian people don't stop believing Tony Abbott's lies and end up electing a Coalition government.

at least our software can handle variable length strings.

Can't, but will anyway is more correct.

Besides, they're too busy looking for (legal) porn to seize.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

If you try to sue someone over a trademark that you haven't shown yourself to be defending, and that you have allowed to become common usage, you will probably lose.
Therefore there is an incentive to be seen to protect your trademark. But that's as far as it goes.
As others have said, being seen to protect your trademark definitely does not include frivolous lawsuits that you have no chance in hell of ever winning. That just makes you look like a dick, and may even hurt future legitimate attempts at defending the mark.

No, you didn't show an equivalent to a function that creates a closed context.
You showed an equivalent to using the result of such a function when called with a specific literal.

Your C example, whilst it would return the same output when treated as a whole, did not represent equivalent code to the Javascript.
It was like saying that because you could just do:

print "hello";
print "hello";
print "hello";
print "hello";

rather than

for i = 1 to 4
    print "hello";
end

that therefore loops are useless syntactic sugar.

All programming languages are syntactic sugar - that's the point. The trick is choosing which particular level of sugar suits you.

Those two pieces of code are not equivalent, and only show that you used an example which doesn't require closures.
The direct Javascript version of the C you wrote would be:

function op(e) {return 9 + e;}
for(var x = 0; x < 10; x++) { sum += op(x);}

One contrived example of superfluous closures doesn't make the concept useless.

I wasn't advocating Python as such - if I was to push a pet language, it'd be Smalltalk - I was just rebutting a specific point.

All those issues are VM issues.
Given that android uses a from-scratch VM which isn't the JVM, why is it impossible to consider that it could have been a VM designed to work with Python?