If you test data against a thousand possible patterns, then about 50 of them will be found to be present at a statistical level of 5% (even if the data is 100% random).

If you're not correcting for multiple hypothesis testing, you are correct. If you do have 100% random data that holds to perfect randomness at all scales (which I'm not sure is even possible) and correct for multiple hypothesis testing, then you'll find exactly what you "should" find: no significant pattern.

You mention "Cancer clusters" as an example of attribution of significance to insignificant findings. However, these clusters are often found (at least in the genetics research realm) by hierarchical clustering, which is self-correcting for multiple hypothesis testing. If you're speaking of demographic surveys which find that (e.g.) "black females in Tahiti who were exposed to .... are more susceptible to brain cancer", then you're probably right. I too see those as examples of restricting the domain of samples until you find a pattern - but the pattern nonetheless exists.

You too, eh?
I play with an old logitech mouse that has a thumb button at the base of the left side (not near the top, like the new ones... yuck!), and I map my forward movement to that. It's right under where my thumb naturally rests while holding the mouse, so it's nearly perfect for movement.

The reversed axis thing is anathema to me, though. It's for flight sims only, and only with a proper joystick. Otherwise, it makes me dizzy. My college roommate played used reversed axes. He first gamed on flight sims, and described the reversed axis something like this: "Visualize the mouse as the top of your character's head. Grab it and move it forward, he looks down. Pull back, he looks up." With a control scheme like that, I always figured he had some anger issues.