"Dark matter" is actually just a way to say "we know there's something here, but we have no clue of what it is". I think that anti-matter alone won't explain everything called "dark", but it could be a major component.

If and only if F=-1 (anti-matter and matter repel each other gravitationally), the following questions have already satisfactory answers, at least for me:

* Why is our universe composed of matter only?
It isn't. There are both normal matter [NM] and anti-matter [AM]. But since they repel each other and attract their own kinds, they gang into NM-only and AM-only "clusters".

* What's a galaxy? Why are they formed?"
Each galaxy is one of those clusters. They're formed in "separated blobs" instead of a single huge one due to the repulsion.

* "Why is the universe's expansion accelerating?"
AM-NM repulsion.

* "Where is the anti-matter?"
We probably already saw, named and cataloged anti-matter galaxies, since they interact with the light (what we have coming from them) in the same way as normal matter. (...mmmm. What if we checked for possible intergalactic repulsion? This would corroborate with the "F=-1" hypothesis, although a negative wouldn't rule out the hypothesis, i.e. it's not falsifiable.)

* "Are there anti-matter intelligent beings in the space, ready to throw mankind into slavery for their ugly purposes?"
Only if they want us to do information-related jobs, since they would be annihilated by any goods we do.
I, for one, welcome our new anti-matter overlords.

...when you remember March 14th is also Einstein's anniversary. Of course, the anniversary of a Mathematician would be better suited, but maybe a physicist is already good enough?

...will somebody sue me for patent violation due to previous art in "first", "second" and "third"?

I find a flamewar for this reason improbable, since Xfce doesn't polarize the discussion in "haters vs. lovers" as much as GNOME. And I can be wrong, but I don't think somebody will revert this, so count "they" as "one person doing and the others agreeing, by genuine agreement or plain omission".

GNOME always had a huge load of dependencies, and this is only getting worse as time goes by. Yes, this includes 2.x, but most of us wouldn't bother because it was popular - most would simply keep it, some would install something else, and few would have the trouble of uninstalling it.

However, since lots of people hate GNOME 3, the odds of people needing to remove all its packages rise sharply: "I DON'T WANT THAT UGLY BLOAT IN MY SYSTEM!" isn't something unheard... keeping GNOME 3.x as default DE would be counter-productive both to Debian's loyal fanbase (giving them more work) and to new users (since most potential users are turned off by retarded defaults in any distro).

Yes, there is net-inst. No, you don't need to install even the default desktop. But people, when getting in touch with a distro, will first and foremost go by the easier way - using the defaults. So, while they probably weren't lying that Debian+GNOME isn't fitting a CD anymore, it's probably the least concern that made them drop it as default.

I think GNOME OS will be ready to use Hurd as a kernel, so both will be launched at the same time. Right? Right???

I like the analogy.
When heated, moves forward, backward, at amazing speeds, but never actually going anywhere.

Depends on the tea, but most of them have less caffeine than coffee. Drink mate, on the other hand, and you won't sleep for two days. Except if you're used to it.