There is absolutely nothing that "touch" brings to the table that can't already be done with the tools we have: mouse, keyboard, and touch-pads/touch-pad mice.

Multi-touch, perhaps?

No fullscreen/ touch browsers except IE? How is that Microsoft's fault? Surely that is a missed opportunity on the part of third-party developers? Or do they exist, but you just haven't found any yet?

They tried the desktop-specific app store. Remember the Marketplace? Don't remember it? Well, that's kinda the point. The Mac version worked because there ain't much boxed media available for Mac (relative to Windows), so you needed somewhere to go to get your software. Windows had a thriving ecosystem of sources for software, rendering an app store pretty much redundant. Having a single app store across all platforms, even if you segregate the apps according to their platform, breeds familiarity, allows for one upload / vetting process, allows for multi-platform apps to only need to be uploaded/ managed by devs in one place and probably several other advantages I can't think of without topping up my caffeine levels.

Why would anyone want a touchscreen laptop? How about multi-touch. For some things, a keyboard and mouse just can't compare to the efficiency of input that this brings. I accept various posters' points about smudges, however, and continue to live in hope that at some point, preferably in the not too distant future, manufacturers will bring a suitably cost-effective solution to the party.

And just how is this any different from the F/OSS alternative of installing any given distro and slapping your preferred window manager / dock / whatever on top? Sure, you pay for Windows, but there are paid-for Linux distros out there too!

Having tried both 8 & 8.1, I have to admit that even the "Modern" interface is starting to grow on me. Sure, I don't, so far, have a touch screen, but plenty of folks do, it's a not-iconceivable upgrade, and it remains mouse/ keyboard drivable. What stumps me, however, is why they used it for the new SERVER editions. In my experience, a touch screen is far less likely to be used in a server environment, so this approach is just nonsensical to me!

Not really my area of expertise, but wouldn't the ablation caused by focusing that much energy on a point on the asteroid essentially turn it into an incredibly massive, rather fast unguided missile?

I'm all for efficient use of resources and energy, but surely this is one case where the most energy-efficient method has issues we could well do without?

Then, by virtue of the infinite monkeys theorem, the OP might actually get the kind of answer he needs!?!

Emphasis mine...

Methinks this might have been the answer to the question "what risk did he pose"...

Even if he wasn't responsible for @dchobbyist, their investigation of him in connection may have highlighted his identity as @natsecwonk, causing the focus of their investigation to move from "who is @dchobbyist?" (an investigation that perhaps was higher priority due to perceived security risk, but to which they have not announced any final conclusion), to "who is @natsecwonk?" (possibly not originally being investigated as it's more of a political risk than a security risk, but to which they now had the evidence for what they saw as a relatively quick and easy media coup). It would be interesting to see if they ever do announce the identity of @dchobbyist...?

And perhaps even more unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable also happened to be his employer!

"... biting the hand that feeds you" ringing any bells with him, you think?

Not disagreeing with your opinion here, but there is ample precedent that making attacks against the appearance of people who are, however tangentially, in the public view is not only condoned, but in some sectors encouraged... just take a look at the front covers of (let alone what's inside) some of the trashier magazines at any newsstand and see comments about cellulite, fashion choices and other attacks of questionable morality. Again, I'm not saying it's right for these to be allowed / encouraged, but I also don't see them going anywhere soon!

This reminds me of one of my favorite aphorisms in the world of IT (or any other industry, for that matter):

For every idiot-proof system, there is at least one system-proof idiot.

Please note, this comment is supporting your challenge, not countering it!

The only issue I can see with it as portrayed in the article is the difference between what is in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles" - and what perhaps should have been in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who make exclusively electric vehicles".

A subtle difference, but the difference between a bill that could be argued is an exception solely for Tesla vs. one that could cover any manufacturer that have electric-only vehicles (possibly in addition to gasoline-powered or hybrid technologies). The bill, as described by the article (and that is important, as it's the journalist's reporting of the bill, not the full text of the bill itself) would apparently cease to apply to a company the moment they make something other than an electric-only vehicle. Potentially, it could even be considered to exclude Tesla from complying, as they not only make the vehicles, they make the chargers and spare parts too (letter of the law vs. spirit of the law)!

Good point, BUT... You forget that with traditional gas refuelling, as well as 7-10 mins queueing up for your takeout, you also have to spend 3-5 mins standing next to your vehicle while the gas pumps into the tank... add the two together, and you're already more than halfway to that magic 20 minute timescale (which is only likely to get smaller as charger/battery tech improves... when was the last major improvement in gas refuelling timescales?!?)...

Erm... Musk wasn't the one bringing up the Hindenburg. To be fair, the comparison was not (originally) invoked by the various commentators in this forum. I have watched the full video at the link. My understanding of the German language is slightly rusty, but Musk was only speaking in English anyway! Musk's criticism of Fuel Cell was based on comparing relative energy densities and efficiencies between projected Fuel Cell tech and current Li-Ion battery tech, with an afterthought suggesting that Fuel Cells are suitable for rocketry, but even then, rocket disasters were not even mentioned. He presented a marketing-speak case for why Fuel Cell tech is only proposed by companies for marketing reasons (which, in itself, is somewhat hypocritical!). That being said, the whisky salesman who introduced the video DID invoke the Hindenburg disaster. Maybe this is where some of the confusion is coming from?

Oh... who am I kidding...? This is /. where no-one reads the summary, let alone the linked article, much less listening to a nearly 40 minute multi-lingual clip!