Something tells me that a lot of these come from meaningless accounts that people make when they know theyre never coming back to the site.
Iv made something like asd123 as username and pass for stupid sites that MAKE you sign up just to access something.

I have a feeling that if you actually surveyed people to find out what they used for passwords and they were honest, like 90% of people would have their pet's name or something similar.

And its all SOLID

I upgraded to Karmic 2 days before its release, just thinking "oh, itll update itself find when the actual release comes out"
The beta was FULL of issues for me.
I use the same /home partition, and it wouldnt let me have access to it, so X wouldnt start.
Someone without any linux experience(not than Im any expert) would be stuck, but i was able to chown my /home/user folder and get X running.
Then my drivers wouldnt work. No nvidia driver would install, absolutely NOTHING would install through apt-get, it kept telling me another instance was running/installing something else.
Nothing would work on startup, no matter how many times I put it into the startup applications or ticked/unticked the "start at login" box.
I was also getting some pretty severe sounding kernel crashes(though nothing ever became unstable or crashed)

I did a reinstall as soon as the non-beta version came out, and it resolved everything except for getting Gnome-do to run at startup.
All my other startup apps work fine, why not gnome-do?

Iv said it several times and Ill say it again.
The only thing wrong with Vista is the system requirements.
My laptop with a 2GHz amd x2 processor and 2GB of RAM ran vista very poorly, even though vista only "requires" 1GB.
I cant imagine running it with 1GB.

But Vista works fine when you have 3+GBs
Not only was it speedy on my desktop powerhouse, but it was stable too. More so than I have found XP to be.

Windows 7 is absolutely great if you have a system that can run Vista decently, and win7 on my laptop actually ran a lot better than Vista.
The only issue Im having with 7 right now is stability.
Several months after the install, I have come back to my computer after class only to see a BSOD.
Still some kinks I suppose, and considering im running the release candidate its not unheard of.

While you have a very valid point, I disagree on a few things.
Windows 7 FEELS faster because when something is taking a second to respond, the rest of the OS acts normal, so things seem to be moving right along.
This was outlined a few months ago on /.

Windows Vista really isnt all that slow, so many people complain about it but they really just need to do their own tuning and removing of stupid programs(especially startup programs)
Windows 7 also uses less RAM than Vista.
A clean install of both Ultimate editions shows Vista using ~1300MB, where 7 uses ~800MB.
Thus 7 will run just a bit better on just a few older PCs with 1-2GB of RAM.
It also has some extra features, a UI improvement, but otherwise its Vista 1.5
And I like it a lot, but I liked Vista just fine =P

Only if wikipeida were a paid-subscription site.
It doesnt make sense to me take ad revenue from the site to pay every jackass that changes "there" to "their"

This is only a margin faster than the new USB 3.0 spec, at 4.9Gbits...

I see more headway being made in the flash storage area.
I really doubt hard drives as we know it will last another couple years.
With SSDs and flash being faster, it only makes sense

100% true.
When people say anything like "Vista sucks! Windows 7 is shaping up though" it makes me want to kill someone.
It seems to me that it now makes you cool to pretend to hate vista without an actual justifiable reason.
Windows 7 is better, but Vista worked perfectly fine for me for the last year and a half.

The only thing I can say that they changed is the memory footprint.
I dont know what they cut out or what they optimized, but Windows 7 Ultimate RC uses ~700MB on my laptop, where vista used ~1.3GB.
Both clean installs, same laptop.

Im not sure the realization that Vista=7 will set in, because most people have entirely refused Vista a chance because of bad reputation.
That reputation it got during the RC stage, and all the issues were pretty much fixed even before SP1.

Iv been reading some other posts about/by him and iv come to the following conclusion:

Hes probably a douche bag that doesn't know anything about anything except windows+lenovo.
The other explanation is that MS is paying him to bash linux in any way possible.

Both equally possible.

I mean the guy said Linux was too hard because it requires users to upload data.
He also quoted TurboMax as being a linux distro.

Windows isn't a cult.

It's a religion.

Exactly, just like scientology

Thats what makes me wonder why we are considering this dwarf star a candidate in the first place.
Why wouldnt we start with stars that are most similar to our sun.

Doesnt the white dwarf occur after the supernova explosion? Or something like that? Im no astronomer.

Wouldnt that mean that it EXPLODED and ENGULFED an area much larger than its current size, potentially destroying all life that could have been on these planets anyway?

Finding organic living matter on other planets would be fantastic, but unfortunately that wont be the first kind of extra-terrestrial life we find (prospective there is any).
Our most advanced instruments are just now able to detect exoplanets, and soon enough they may be able to actually scan the surface for signs of life.

If we COULD send instruments there that could detect microscopic living organisms, we might actually have a lot better luck at finding life.
This just isnt feasible currently, and were going to have to stick with superficial surface scanning for creatures crawling around until we can actually send instruments there that could report back.

If we did find intelligent life, I think it would be a good idea to send a rocket with a screen and dvd player or something, with a big red button on it that plays it. Imagine being on Earth 200 years ago and finding something similar, with videos of aliens and things.
It would have been revolutionary, and eventually we may be able to greet another intelligent race in a similar fashion.

Oh the possibilities..

Photoshop cs2 and cs3 work with wine =)

They didnt purposefully install the malicious software
That would be like saying IE is safe, and its the users fault for purposefully clicking the "Install ActiveX" button that happened to install malware.

If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.

Not that im claiming that *any* OS is safer than any other, im justing saying OSX did NOT protect the user.

Makes me think of black mesa..
We MUST stop this