I voted D-Link. I assumed the poll was asking about favourite router for personal use - thus consumer grade routers.

For me the poll was really a choice between D-Link and Linksys, as these are really the only brands I have experience with. I have a D-Link DIR-655 and a Linksys WRT600N.

The D-Link is not only rock solid, the UI is one of the nicest I've ever come across. It's intuitive, well organized, and frankly nice to look at.

The Linksys on the other hand is a little flaky, and the UI is one of the shittiest I've ever come across. It's not intuitive, it's poorly organized and it looks like shit. I hated having to go in and change any setting.

HOWEVER...I've since flashed the Linksys with DD-WRT, and it is now AWESOME. Up till now, the router (as in any router) has always been my least liked piece of hardware in the house, but now I love it.

tl;dr: With native firmware, D-Link is great and Linksys is shit. But with DD-WRT Linksys rules.

We have more than one computer, but my wife and I both share the main PC. We're both logged into Google+, at the same time, on the same computer...but using different Windows profiles. No problems at all.

Yes...you're over thinking the circles concept. Each circle is just that...a circle on your "circles page" that you can drag and drop any of your contacts into. They don't interact with each other, nor do they take away any of your contacts from the general "contact pool" once that contact has been added to a particular circle.

If you really wanted to, I'm sure you could create a Vann Diagram to show the relations between all circles, but Google doesn't do that for you.

Agreed...the key word in the title is "above". Not "across" not "through" but above. I mean, the wingsuit is cool and all, but I don't see this as any more interesting as "Jetman flies above Canadian Tundra". Actually the latter might be more interesting if they included data on the perfomance of the suit in cold vs warmer climates.

In defense of the article, it did have some concrete conclusions, e.g.:

"There are conflicting reports, however, as to whether its graphics will be comparable to those on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 – meaning it could surpass or fall short of those systems.

Seems to me a similar story was posted not too long ago. Summary of the discussion: graphical calculators serve as an anti-cheating tool, as they cannot be programmed, except that they can be programmed if you're smart enough, and therefore actually serve no purpose. The only practical solution seemed to be providing students with a school owned graphic calculator at the beginning of the test (thus taking away any opportunity to pre-program the calculator).

Technically correct, except you forgot to mention that a link then appears, which you can click to "Show Details". The total size then appears.

Lemme guess...if MS had allowed you select 20+ objects, requiring a few seconds each time to calculate the total size each time you did that, you would be the one screaming how slow and laggy W7 is. Some people you just can't please...especially the ones who have decided to hate you no matter what you do.

Actually, I think your post does a great job of reinforcing the point I was trying to make. All the examples you cite are kinda cool little projects in themselves, but why are these game changers? All I saw was a bunch of half baked UI projects, but how do they come together to significantly improve the way we interact with computers?

To cite an opposite example, take similar Apple PR videos. I'm no Apple fan, and own no Apple products, but I can't ever remember watching a promo video from them and not grasping the point right away. It is immediately apparent why they consider their product/feature to be a game changer.

Not the case with this video. I'll admit there were a couple "neat" moments, but between the half baked projects, the recycling of features they have been showing off for years (e.g. Surface), and the ability of the narrator to make zero points while prattling on for over three minutes ("we're ready for the future" How? "By having a vision" What fucking vision?), I was left with a big fat "SO WHAT"?

Did you watch the video? I found the summary's weaknesses much more palatable than the ridiculously vague video in TFA, which was filled with corporate-speak, and showed off a bunch of interactivity projects without demonstrating how any of these would be used in real world applications, let alone how they would improve the way we currently interact with computers.

Suggested Form Letter:

Dear Sen. Susan Collins:

Fuck You. No.

Respectfully,
Your constituent