the one thing that I always get worried about in topics like this: if we're getting rid of POTS, are we replacing it with something that has the same features? Or are we throwing away those feature because we don't know they are there? In just about every case of someone wanting to replace old with new, we loose features in the bargain. This will be no different.

The other point to keep in mind: the telephone companies are supporting this. That should wake you up: it means it benefits them and takes away from us. Always a good meter to measure this kind of stuff against: entrenched business loves it. be afraid...

Forget all the talk about whether malware uses it or not and how the infection happened...small computers exists all over the place with good mics and speakers: smart phones. This could be useful as yet another tool in the tool box for doing cool things with computers. If nothing else, I see a fun way to communicate on a plane when they tell you to turn off your transmitters.

Along those lines, I've wondered for a long time as generation after generation of console come out: why doesn't any game controllers use a trackball? is there durability concerns? other concerns? Anyone know why they skip this?
I've been a big trackball fan since my early days on computers. One of the nice things about them (besides just a preference for that kind of control) is it takes less desk space...desk rodents claim too much of my needed clutter space. Ever since the realization that game pads/controllers need NONE when you're using them (held by the hands) I've been disappointed that a controller doesn't use a trackball at some point....
Ah well

Quick run it on a Windows install disk!

Well, the human already has to receive the server at the dock...so you take the labor you already can't get rid of and add a small task of plugging in a simple harness...then put the server in the datacenter "inbox" for the robots....
I'm picturing the harness piece fitting in as simple as take server out of shipping package (already needed) attach barcodes (needed in most cases already) and plug ethernet, power, etc. from back of box to some standard slot-in style connector that matches a connector in the rack (the "harness" add-on" that would be the new task) that takes about 5 minutes. Maybe I'm just under thinking what a harness would need to be.
not addressing if the whole automated DC would be cost effective, just commenting on how to make the cabling work for it in the simplest way I can think of.

Isn't this the same complication that been hashed back and forth for source code on software for years now? Source code is the "design" or the instructions on how to build....the executable is created by automated builder called "compilers" and such....not a new problem just because it involves a 3D printer....

How about a wiring harness put on by humans? I mean, I can easily see that a robot is not going to take a server off the dock and slot it into a data center, so humans have to be involved at some level. so why not have a human take the equipment from the dock, manually put a standard harness on it, then hand it to the DataCenter robots to rack?

Haven't seen any updates beyond that each One comes with a Kinect now.
If Kinect is now required (games require it to play or the system errors if it's not plugged in) then it's a no-sale for me. Kinect is interesting tech, but not when hooked up to a MS owned box...especially one that is "always on and ready" .

That's it, I'm just going to go back to talk....not Gtalk, just talk.

I would think this would be nice for the office or desktop: your open docs and apps can be spread over the desktop, keep whatever you are updating or need high resolution for on the monitor. When you don't need the high res view anymore, drag the window onto the desktop and move something else form the desktop to the monitor.

Wayland's goal is to replace the X server on Linux with the Wayland system for a graphical windowing environment. That replacement concept is a big part of the 'hate'. Those of us that use the features and/or like the potential of X do not want to see it go away, and so resent the threat of getting it taken away. As far as FOSS being about choice, that's fine, but if Wayland pushes to get rid of choice, then that's a bit different. Wayland wants most if not all Linux apps to be written for Wayland eventually. Where's the choice there?
As far as the rest of the hate, a big part of that comes from Wayland implementing , from a technical standpoint, the kind of windowing environment that a lot of technical people know to be inferior to what we already have. I don't care how good the code is, if the code is doing something that's not worth doing, it's still a bad idea. same with the ease of writing for the new system: I don't care if it's easy as can be and super clean to write apps for it. If the window system isn't doing he right things, then not going to show any kind of support for it. "Hello World" written for the command line is easy and cleaner than a GUI, doesn't make it the best way to write apps.

I was wondering about 1)
Why DO cable companies pay for OTA content? What keeps the cable company from sticking an antenna up and just grabbing from the air? I know the fees are standard practice, but I actually started trying to think through what they are buying....and couldn't figure it out.