Please excuse me. I was having a look at this forum and couldn't resist sticking my oar in. First of all, let me set out my stall. I live in Scotland and I suppose you could argue that living in a country with the political problems we've got (Brexit for example) I probably shouldn't be commenting on another country's political system. But here goes: I love the USA. My wife and I got engaged in New York City in 2010 and tied the knot on Martha's Vineyard in 2014. Obviously we don't have a vote in the upcoming election and nor do we have a voice. I think you'll agree though that we've got opinions that we're entitled to hold. I'm sure I saw elsewhere in this thread that neither candidate is particularly appealing and to a certain extent I can get behind that. However, the BBC very kindly broadcast Monday night's presidential debate and I watched it with my wife on Tuesday evening. You can say what you like about HRC (God knows, plenty have already). While she might be the kind of person who would WANT to do something stupid or reckless (private email server anyone?) I also feel she'd be the kind of person who could be talked off the ledge by the appropriate people (career diplomat or soldier perhaps) when the USA was in a tight spot. I know there's far more to being the leader of the free world than simply looking presidential but I felt that HRC did have that look. Let's now contrast that with her opponent. Donald Trump (even the name scares me) has spent most of the last twelve months either making horribly incendiary statements, or denying having made them even in the face of irrefutable proof. It is my honest opinion that DjT would try to run the USA the way he runs his business. I don't think DjT recognises the expertise of others unless it suits him to do so, meaning that if there's a major conflict somewhere in the world he'll go in full-tilt even if his military advisers tell him it's a bad idea. I'm not 100% convinced that those advisers wouldn't be fired if they told him something he didn't want to hear. If you've ever watched Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing, this'll make sense to you. If not, I urge you to watch it. In the first few episodes, President Bartlet wants to retaliate against a country that showed aggression against the US, and demands that they respond with the power of God's own thunder (I'm paraphrasing slightly here). He is then subsequently talked down by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Fitzwallace. In my view, HRC would respond well to such advice from the mil

Like you, I almost always disable that "feature". As a programmer I think it's important to know exactly what types of files you're dealing with, if indeed they actually have a file extension. Not sure about the history of this so-called feature, but I think it dates back to the days of Windows 95 when Uncle Bill (as I like to sarcastically refer to Microsoft) wanted to make all PCs easily accessible for the relative no-nothing user. It's not Microsoft's most annoying feature, but it's up there. Almost as irritating as the (thankfully) now defunct Microsoft Office Assistant, which in my view was a contradiction in terms on a global scale.