They aren't all "current-gen" devices. In fact, a number of the devices that are to be banned are not even sold anymore.

It isn't. It is C/C++ code running in a sandboxed environment. Security is done by analyzing the machine code and only allowing "safe" operations.

Google isn't at risk as long as they are not selling it as a medical device. If someone wanted to create specific medical software for it they could but they would most likely need to file for FDA clearance. If something bad did happen, it would be on the entity that created the app and not Google.

It will still be able to installed. The EFF also has it in the Chrome store.

Gamer here. The reason people hate the SHIELD is that mobile games pale in comparison to games for dedicated systems. Having existing android games is a great idea, but it assumes that they work well with game pad input. Since most phones don't have physical buttons, developers have to create for the touch only interfaces if they want to be successful. Sure, you can do virtual touch buttons, but the best mobile games get away from buttons and instead use some form of gesture or swipes to control things. They take on a different form than the types of games you play on a 3DS or Vita.

The other reason that the SHIELD isn't going to work out is the price differential. You make a point about making back the difference after a few games. To me, that isn't really worth it. The best of Android gaming comes nowhere close to some of the even more mediocre 3DS and Vita titles. The average Joe might not tell the difference and be perfectly content with the games on their phone, but they also are not the target audience for this device. A gamer typically expects a higher production value and game structure that is not feasible to support on a mobile platform. People expect $1 / freemium games, so selling a larger game at a higher price that more accurately covers its production costs is a death sentence.

Angry Birds is actually a great example of how games monetize on various platforms. In the app stores, it is going to cost $1 max, because people generally aren't willing to spend more. This is the price that the market has decided on, mostly based off of the pricing models set by Apple. Now, to make more money off of the user, they will provide various forms of DLC, whether it is a set of levels or simply letting to skip a level. The console versions of the game, which function exactly the same, will cost about the price of other games for that console, potentially a bit less to set it apart. Still, they will charge at least 20x the entry cost of the mobile app, based on pricing expectations and what the market will allow.

The SHIELD has an issue here because it doesn't fit squarely into either pricing scheme. It is a capable device and could deliver gameplay comparable to that of the 3DS or Vita. That said, it is building off of Android which until now consists of mainly throw away games. The only real chance Nvidia has with it is to put money out there to get some higher end games on it. Otherwise, gamers like me aren't going to spring for it to be stuck playing what amounts to glorified flash games that were free and everywhere only a few years ago. At least with the 3DS and Vita, gamers know that they will be able to play titles from Nintendo and Sony. They have a reputation built up with their previous games, and we as gamers know what to expect quality wise. The SHIELD has none of this. There are no titles to sell it, nor have there been any promises of studios working on anything worth experiencing.

The benefit of being a hardware manufacturer is that AMD can build and provide the low level access. Guess what? The are providing the GPU/CPU combo in both the Xbox One and the PS4. So it doesn't matter what Microsoft or Sony do, that low level support is there. High-end games were typically done using a low level API like Mantle in previous gens. The big deal here is that AMD is bringing that support to PC. Since their console GPUs and the new desktop GPUs are built around the same architecture, any optimizations that a developer may make to get things running more efficiently on the consoles where the hardware is weaker can be easily brought to the PC.

Does this mean that I can buy cigars from him again?

Don't you love having to click on each story to read what will be a crappy summary?

When is this kid going to actually need the phone? I'd assume that if something came up the kid could use a landline. Schools have them, any reputable child care place is going to have them. There really is no reason for kids to be carrying around phones. I was just fine without one when I was a kid. So were all of the other kids. Instead of trying to find the right technology to solve a problem, first ask yourself if there is really a problem here that needs to be solved.

No, he means exactly what he says. While there are Hulu apps for Roku and the Xbox 360, not all of the content is available to stream to those devices. It comes down to licensing but it is still very annoying. http://www.hulu.com/support/article/20116158

When did all of those elderly Americans move to Britain and start using twitter?

The ones you buy directly from Google are unsubsidized. You don't sign up for a contract when you buy them. On contract they are typically free.

No, the rush to the bottom and the $0.99 price point is what is holding back phone and tablet games. A game that actually has some production value is a huge risk in a market where everyone and their child is attempting to sell the next Angry Birds. It is far too easy to be lost in the huge volume of terrible titles and a higher price point doesn't go over well.

Yes, Microsoft sent lobbyists to X.Org to prevent them from filing their paperwork on time.

It is because when it comes to computers, we have a more comfortable and more efficient way to interact with them. If other people had more comfortable way to do physical tasks, they would also complain when the less comfortable way was suggested.