True, but you can add a decent editor: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Evil

Hasn't al Qaida been doing this for months? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/qaeda-yeah-the-printer-bomb-plot-was-us/

This is exactly how I lose every argument with my wife... "Now you're criticizing me for how I criticize? Honey, I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore." But she certainly does!

If we're getting into numbers... I would have to say 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, or 42.

Like "World of World of Warcraft"! http://www.theonion.com/content/video/warcraft_sequel_lets_gamers_play

While the market share explanation is definitely true, it is not the WHOLE truth... Not even the most important. Because of the inherently monolithic nature of Windows (single vendor, closed source, current version), the Windows operating system is much more vulnerable than any open source operating system will ever be. Every user of Windows XP SP3 is running the exact same, binary (bit-for-bit) copy of notepad.exe. This means if you find ONE exploit in the notepad.exe program, you can exploit EVERY Windows user, immediately, just by replacing a specific address in the executable. On the GNU/Linux platform, everything is more modular. While the "current version" of Linux is 2.6.28.7, there are probably no more than a few hundred users running a 2.6.28.7-vanilla kernel, and even so, almost none of those will exhibit binary equivalence because of different modules, drivers and compiler options, as well as different compilers doing the compilation on different hardware. And that's just the kernel! Now consider the fact that there is virtually an infinite number of combinations of operating system tools, daemons and utilities, and versions, even on one specific distribution. If you find a way to exploit one specific ELF, there is no guarantee that exact exploit is even possible on just one more system than tested. In no way am I saying Open Source is inherently more secure. I am just saying that it makes it a heck of a lot less likely to encounter two binary equivalent systems in the wild.

I couldn't agree more! This article is EXTREMELY flawed in logic and cogency. ALL of the reported figures in section one pointed to the fact that these emigrants were returning home for personal and family reasons. Their own respondent data says that visas were NOT the problem. Yet somehow the authors have made the leap to: "In summary, if the U.S. Government and the business community could find better ways to offer good jobs in tandem with less restrictiveness in visa policies for talented immigrants, the U.S. might be able to recapture many of these immigrants and their potential to serve as a much needed growth engine for the U.S. economy." The authors used an admittedly unsupported premise as the foundation of their conclusion, "Although visa problems did not surface as the primary factor in losing these talented immigrants, a significant minority of respondents did indicate visa and residency permit issues as having played a role in their decision to return to their home country." This is the most poorly structured argument they could have possibly put together. This is purely political diatribe masquerading as a research paper from prominent institutions. Gosh I miss responsible journalism...