Moreso than the issue of guns specifically, I think this is more of a personal privacy issue. Especially in an age where technology is sufficient to provide this sort of interface for just about anything, it seems like we should really assess the value of privacy. There should be a difference between "Information about private citizens available to anyone who asks for it" and "Information about private citizens that is held by public/government institutions and is available only to those same public institutions for discharging certain duties". It seems to me that registration of handgun permits should fall into this second category.

  While the requisite public regulatory agencies and law enforcement would have need of this information, I don't see why other private citizens should. I can't (or at least, I don't think I can) request the complete bill and total usage information of my neighbor's access to the public municipal water/well utility and then use that information to put up a "Here's a list of water-wasters in our town. Beware!" letter (or conversely "Look at these stinky eco-nuts who use much less water than everyone else. They probably don't shower more than once a week!"). What is the purpose for the public to be able to look up this gun data? I can't believe it relates to the "Guns are dangerous, everyone should know who has these dangerous objects" viewpoint (the same idea behind the public sex offender registry, which for the record I also object to on principle), as the NRA would have lobbied the information private simply to rebut that insinuation. It is also worth noting that as individual personal information is becoming more available with fewer restrictions on its handling that corporate entities are increasingly securing additional privacy rights (often, to obfuscate the harm they're doing to the public).

We need to start making new laws to protect the privacy of natural persons in light of 21st century technological and legal landscapes, while ensuring that information that benefits the collective good of society is openly available and that select information sharing can take place where necessary with proper protections.

"I don't mean to sound rude but aint that like saying yellow is still yellow even if you happen to think yellow is a shit color? What information is being conveyed with such statements?"

Simply that we have deal with the fact that something is yellow, no matter if we approve of the color or not. The damn thing is yellow. So now, what CAN we do from here?

"When people ask me what I think of windows 8 I recommend against upgrading. When people who have windows 8 express displeasure I tell them how to contact the vendor of their new PC to obtain a "downgrade" to Windows 7. The few people who care about what I think are now happy campers."

I offer similar advice, but I am realistic enough to know that especially as time goes on, the amount of people who are going to be satisfied by these steps is going to decrease. I've already talked to people who don't want to bother getting Win 7 as a downgrade, reinstalling, setting up their data and programs again (and/or don't have the technical know how) simply to get away from an OS that "works", yet has some irritating OS issues and esoteric "invisible in one's day to day life until a calamity happens" privacy, security, and ethics flaws.

"Or you could just install windows 7."
I most certainly can. But many of those people purchasing new PCs (including touch screens, tablets etc..) can't, or won't. It will become more expensive even for those who are self-built and buying their own OS. (Buying Win8 Pro is already considerably cheaper than Win7 Pro, Ultimate, Home Premium in many cases).

"Trick question."
Not at all. There is going to be a significant difference between using some Facebook tile, one that only connects to Microsoft directly, and one that is simply a UI add-on for some Free Software program. etc. I expect that with Windows Store and whatnot there is going to be a whole assortment of varying Metro app policies. Would you rather have a bunch of Facebook and Angry Birds stuff alone, or would you rather direct a user who WANTED TO USE A METRO APP to something like VLC Player (which is attempting to secure funding to get VLC player on the Windows Store/Metro Approved.). Not to mention, a "ClassicShell-like" FOSS alternative to Metro such as KDE/QT Plasmids that can provide the Metro-like experience without some of the dangers, if users are knowledgeable enough about their presence.

"The fact of the matter is Microsoft is a business and its survival is tied to customers purchasing products. The defeatist additude you are powerless and have no other choices is both incorrect and self-reinforcing.
There is no more powerful driver in business than voting with your dollar.
Windows 8 is not about imparting any new value on the customer. It is about CPR on tablet and phone market share. It is about a boiling frog approach to a closed app store model where all execution must be currated and approved by MS with hands in the cookie jar at every step. It is about epic leaks of data and privacy. It is about monitizing everything possible... even the shit metro apps that come with windows have ads with content downloaded from the Internet.
If you don't like all the bullshit you have a choice. If enough people fail to exercise their choice it will in fact vaporize.
For example the movie industry would like nothing better than to kill off DVDs and force everyone upgrade to blueray. Why don't they?

I'm not advocating quitting, or even rejecting the notion of offering criticism and voting with your dollar. However, I'm pragmatic enough to know that even if every single geek self-built PC rejected Win8, MS would barely be scratched compared to all the pre-installed and embedded marketplaces. Most users who want/need Windows for whatever reason and aren't open to switching to something entirely different as well as those that simply use what comes with their new PC/device, are going to increasingly be using Windows 8. Microsoft has heard our objections and frankly doesn't care - they are betting that the big OEMs and casual users aren't going to care and/or are going to LIKE this stuff on Windows 8. Thus, I'm advocating more of a harm reduction strategy. I'd rather have people who are going to be using Windows 8 informed about the privacy implications of certain features, than not, for instance. Likewise, if they're taught about these issues and how to mitigate any threat, they'll be more likely to become frustrated and reject these features in the future - maybe eventually becoming willing to say, try using another OS.

I've just gotten a little annoyed at all the "Win 8 is horrible" articles that don't offer anything constructive - its not realistic to just say "Nobody should use it!" and expect that to be a satisfactory solution for the masses. Its no different than those with attitudes that "Nobody should use Windows because it infringes on X (where X can range from everything from freedom to modify the source, to privacy, to supporting Microsoft's unethical dealings etc..), everyone should switch to Linux today!". The vast majority of users will instead offer some reason why they can't or won't switch - they like X feature, they don't feel comfortable/have time to learn something new that will mess with their productivity right now, Y program won't work, they don't know/understand/share the more esoteric objections related to software freedom etc. Instead a more compromising approach, teaching to inform and protect the very large demographic that won't be switching, will do much better than zealous venom or hardline pleas for rejection in terms of bringing the userbase to a point where they can understand and decide for themselves when they've had enough and are willing to search for other alternatives. Moreso, it ensures that a much larger user base will add their criticisms to Windows 8 and thus gives more weight to the complaints that the knowledgeable have been making since the beginning. If Microsoft detects a constantly increasing amount of users who turn off SmartScreen , maybe they'll think twice about including such a feature as they know people are paying attention and purposefully opting out; if they double down on stupid and make it mandatory in Win9, then all those users who are now paying attention will see exactly the sort of company with whom they're dealing and may be willing to give up certain features they weren't before to transition to another OS that respects their privacy, having seen the whole thing play out. None of this happens without education.

The more negative aspects of Windows 8 nor the OS itself will not go away simply because the geek and guru population shouts about its horrors or even refuses to install the OS. There are more pragmatic, and constructive ways to move towards positive change and they're going to mean getting average users involved, giving them insight, and letting them make the choice. Don't stop criticizing Win 8, but make sure that all your articles and blogs show way users can protect themselves and vote against these practices while rewarding those who provide alternatives respectful of privacy, security, value, user choice and experience.

Like it or not, Windows 8 is here and it shall be staying. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to dislike about the OS and keeping a steady stream of criticism (at least mildly constructive) is a good thing, in the hopes that Service Packs and forthcoming versions of Windows will improve it. However, just saying "OMG it sucks, its horrible, its unintuitive etc..." isn't going to change the fact that it is currently the latest version of Windows, the vast majority of new PCs not sold exclusively for business use are going to come with it thus leading to a growing installed base, which all means that developers of Windows software/drivers/etc.. are going to start targeting the "new, up to date" Windows. Criticism is important and the suggestion to move to another OS (preferably Linux) is good advice, but regardless there are still going to be a lot of people using Windows and increasingly its going to be Windows 8 in front of them.

Thus, I suggest that the power user, developer, and enthusiast community who will have direct or even tangential exposure (ie. All your relatives are going to be looking to you for tech support on their new Win8 PCs purchased during the holiday) should start educating themselves and others on privacy, safety, usability and other configurations, tips and tricks for Windows 8. Providing tutorials for accessing the different features of the UI, Metro features such as the Start Screen's live tiles, how to find certain functions is a great start. Instruction on Secure Boot and UEFI/BIOS features is important for users that wish to install another OS Suggesting additional programs like Start8 or ClassicShell to provide additional functionality or is another benefit. One of the most important issues I feel is that of privacy and security. Win8 has a lot of potential vectors for private information to be shared and it behooves those with the knowledge to show how to configure to protect one's privacy and any trade-offs that may require. For instance, should users turn off SmartScreen within Win8 itself? Create an "old fashioned/offline" user account instead of one linked to their MicrosoftLIVE account? What Live Tiles are safe to use and which send information to unknown 3rd parties or make it available for data mining? Likewise, the Windows Store etc..

Some will, quite rightly, say that it shouldn't require this sort of analysis and decision making to an OS without being the victim of privacy, security, or just an obtuse UI, but the fact of the matter is this is what we're given to work with in terms of the latest Windows OS. Much like how "Make sure you install Service Packs/updates, Install and use Firefox instead of IE for general use, Install MSE/another antivirus etc..." has always been part of the tenets of preparing and using previous Windows versions in private, secure, easily accessible manners, we're going to need to add some additional steps for Windows 8. Figuring out a relatively simple set of steps meant to help users of Win8 ensure that the OS is efficiently serving their needs is paramount for dealing with it as a part of the market.

While we provide constructive criticism and offer alternatives such as switching to Linux, we have to deal with having the Windows ecosystem revolve around Windows 8 until (hopefully) an improved, newer variant comes along. Just saying how horrible it is, in and of itself, isn't constructive.

Remember this was a debate/lecture; she didn't have the time to go into the whole minutia of "Lots of what we have now is bad, implemented in bad ways et.c.. but there is the potential for things to be done right if a whole bunch of things happen". She's spoken about that elsewhere, and I don't object to what she said that overall most implementations and discussions of nuclear policy at the present time are not beneficial (ie. Nuclear power and research in the middle east isn't UAE and Qatari sheiks pouring billions into patentless Gen3.5 and Gen4 research locally under strict security guidelines, its Iran and everyone else in the area trying to create old Gen1 reactors and enrichment for weapons as part of a powerplay against a US-provided nuclear Israel that is already assassinating scientists etc...).

We can absolutely invest in nuclear research without building a bunch of Gen2-3 plants and switching our power generation over to them, problems and all. In fact, under Stein/Green it would be even easier to do so because much of the funding would be public. Can you imagine how much money we could put into safe nuclear research with the end to our two occupations in the middle east? Hell, imagine the funding (both overt/reported and black) just spent on PMCs and similar private organizations with boots on the ground in the warzone alone. There are plenty of nuclear engineers and other scientists/engineers/support personnel that could be useful for development of new nuclear tec that are working for everything from the USAF and Navy, to DARPA, to private defense contractors, the DOE and elsewhere. There could be plenty of work for them in this industry - hell, they're already being funded and subsidized by the public; we could easily give them something more beneficial to do.

There is a great deal of variability to this and I can say that, while there all some decently intentioned programs, many of those caps are full of loopholes and toothless. There are only two power companies in my area, both run for profit, subsidized, and with no serious caps; both with huge violations, lies and fuckups. One was actually pretty decent, but they were then bought out entirely by the First Energy/Edison conglomerate that could be described as the worst of Wall Street and energy put together. Edison's umbrella of companies alone of a quagmire of malfeasance and sadly, since the one of the two local power company was bought out by them in my area, I'm saddled with their bullshit. The other local power company had been under investigation for years for basically taking huge subsidies, retaining control of the lines and fucking up (A near a decade back they lied about applying scrubbing technology to their coal plants and building some solar, while taking tax breaks and subsidies for doing both) . After the July Deracho when it was proven that the other company basically decided to save money by not trimming trees, people were angry enough to actually threaten to revoke some of their subsidies, so they actually started doing their job and lo and behold when Sandy came, things weren't as bad. The new Edison company however had enough money to give the finger to everyone and the outages were horrid... (which was compounded by the fact some of us were forgotten because they sent local trucks, despite outages, up to fucking Ohio because of the election on its way). No matter what, the patrons in the area have no meaningful choice (the idea of a free market in energy is absolutely asinine, much like telecoms, unless the lines are completely owned by the public), and are saddled with a "bad but getting better if we constantly watch over them every single second" local company and a "Fuck you" Edison-owned conglomerate company which retain control of the lines, benefit from subsidy and complain they always need more money, while jacking up "distribution costs" for customers. Energy is much like the telecom industry, a several giant holes that the public pours money into for worse service while some go laughing all the way to the bank, secure in the knowledge that they have We The People by the balls. Both situations could be improved by treating the physical hardware as part of the public infrastructure, providing proper regulations and enabling those entities in the private sector willing to do things "the right way" to contribute. However, that's not what we have right now. We have an oligopoly that absorbs public money like a vacuum that between lobbyists and cowards, many aren't willing to change.

Greed isn't simply an obstructionist wedge, but a serious issue impacting untold amounts of prosperity in this nation. I can guarantee that without the infested tendrils of those who profit from making things worse overall, we'd have a situation that could benefit all of us with the public ownership of critical energy infrastructure and research for the future, including implementing safe and advanced nuclear energy as part of a "green" energy plan. If the situation could be changed in the way that Stein and the Greens want in terms of regulation, implementation, public ownership of infrastructure we subsidize etc, it would actually be feasible in terms of "maturity" to start rolling out nuclear; but it would have to be in a way that it wasn't an issue of lowest bidders, cutting corners, private profits at the cost of public good, and the other ways that good ideas get fucked up.

If we fix the kind of issues the Greens (and Justice, and most "real" progressive parties and individuals) wish to tackle, we'd be in a place to implement latest-generation nuclear technology now and research for its future. However, I agree with many others that in the way things work at the moment, we can't just go building things willy-nilly under the current paradigm or else we will have all manners of disasters on our hands, present and future. Getting behind the Greens, Occupy, and other progressive causes is the best way to bring safe nuclear power and future research to fruition.

I think it is important to put a few things in context. First, Stein herself, the Green party, and a goodly amount of progressive leftists aren't against nuclear in its entirety, just technical, sociopolitical, and economic issues as it is currently implemented. If there were Thorium and similar (nearly no nuclear waste, safe without runaway reaction etc..) reactors, available for production en masse, unencumbered by patents and proprietary hangups, operated with the public good in mind instead of profit at any cost, and overseen by an impartial government monitoring body that actually abides by safety regulations and whatnot, Greens (and most progressives) would welcome them as part of the clean energy future.

  However, that is not the current state of nuclear power, and that is to what Greens rightly object. We could be on the path to bringing the above to fruition but in nearly all factors, there's issues of greed standing in the way and we need to deal with the implications thereof.

Search results being present in and of themselves is insufficient. The affiliate ID is embedded without providing the user reasonable and direct notification to that end. That is the crux of the issue. Users, especially new or non-technically proficient ones, have had difficulty for years discerning "sponsored" links and other advertising, marketing, or data-gathering elements (see: Windows-border pop-up ad saying "Something is wrong with your PC! Click here to find out what and fix it") from legitimate search data, even when they've actively been searching in a browser. Now they have to deal with it as part of a default desktop search, planted there as an official part of the operating system? No user, newbie or guru, should have to worry that of all things a Linux desktop environment's built-in search is spitting out results that financially benefit someone else, especially without a notification to the effect.

With regards to your second point, I can only suggest to work on your reading comprehension. I've talked about several other issues, such as the security and usability dangers that can result from failing to sufficiently distinguish between interactions and data stored on the local machine versus remote sites; blurred considerably with the new "WebApps" installed by default as well as the desktop search searching the Internet by default. In addition, I spoke of implications for privacy as a result of the covert Amazon ID embedding and how this casts new doubts on Canonical's handling of information, which does not bode well when 12.10 includes more options than ever to pass one's 3rd party data through Ubuntu with its new OnlineServices.

I can't say I'm comfortable with the direction Ubuntu is heading regarding privacy, online services and "apps" and more.

The whole Amazon shopping "lens" is by far the most blatant issue. I'm sorry, no operating system (or truly, any program) should build in covert, opt-out only targeted adware/spyware/affiliate, especially without informing the user. The error is all the more egregious because it is made by an OS that is supposed to be respecting your privacy, tuned for the user's benefit, and generally operating under the ethos of Linux and the open source community. How much trouble could it have been to let the user decide for themselves which elements the search/lens system would use? Those that had any sort of affiliate/financial benefit, upon its first activation would provide a notification to the effect of "Please note that the Amazon lens appends the Ubuntu referral/affiliate ID to searches made on the website. This means when you purchase an item on Amazon that you found using the lens, Ubuntu will receive a small portion of the proceeds. Please note that we at Ubuntu do not receive any record of what item your purchased or any other personally identifiable data related to your Amazon transaction. We encourage you to leave the affiliate ID opted-in as it helps us to bring all the great software in Ubuntu to you without cost, but if you wish to opt out simply uncheck the box to your right. You may also enter another affiliate ID if you check the box below and enter the information of your preferred supporter". With this honesty, I can gather that many users would leave the affiliate ID intact. It is completely unacceptable to not provide this information.

Thanks to Canonical demonstrating their lack of ethics when it comes to the Amazon lens, I'm increasingly suspicious that the OS is not designed with user preference and privacy, but instead puts covert financial benefit ahead of everything else. For instance, I think the lenses and web-apps themselves are dangerous from a security standpoint as it seems that by incorporating both local and remote/Internet results and programs, without the discreet choice of the user to do so, it obfuscates what data resides where, especially amongst the less technical users who need the most protection. There should be clear definitions of local, offline data and remote, online data and all users should have to make the conscious choice to say "Yes, I want my desktop search or application to interact with and pull data from the Internet, and this is exactly how". I also have to wonder how much of the data prevalent in these searches is being harvested - if Canonical is willing to covertly include their Amazon affiliate in the default desktop search of their OS, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't just as covertly take any information that their WebApps/OnlineServices/Lenses etc... and make it available for sale.

Users of a Linux OS, much less the vanguard desktop Linux OS which acts as the face of Linux to many newcomers, shouldn't have to worry their OS is being designed to undermine user experience, preference, and privacy for profit. It damages the entire Linux and open source community, which have brought many users to their distributions by saying "Hey, we're not like those guys. We put user experience and ethics before profit. Look, its all Free and Open etc...". While it isn't exactly fair to the entire Linux and FOSS community, Canonical's actions will bring down judgements of hypocrisy and be an easy sticking point for critics and competitors. I know many will say "Just apt-get remove XXXYJASDJFDFDSD if you don't like it" or "Switch to another distro", but realize that especially for those who are new to Linux/FOSS, they aren't going to stick around for that if they have a bad experience - they'll just leave.

Linux and FOSS have made some huge gains in the past few years, especially on the desktop. Look at all the new development and interest brought simply by the announcement that Steam will be coming to Linux. Ubuntu has been a "gateway" for many new users, giving them a chance to voice their support of Linux; that it is a worthwhile destination for software developers and users alike, as well as exemplifying a new way of doing things for a population increasingly tired of how their privacy and desires as users have been pushed aside in favor of those trying to squeeze every possible cent out of them in every possible way. For those behind Ubuntu to be guilty of those same sort of ethical decisions will provide a huge and unnecessary step back. I understand that Canonical wants to find ways to monetize Ubuntu, but we cannot accept them doing so through unethical decisions, especially as they will prove to reflect poorly on the entire community.

It is despicable that 12.10 has been launched with these blights upon it and I can only hope that by 13.04 the community will have put enough pressure upon them to curtail these practices.

Comments like these hold Linux back in the dark ages. "Compile it yourself, roll a new distribution, the command line is all you need, you only need to edit ten thousand configuration files to do things that can be done with a click elsewhere, RTFM, google it, go to IRC for help..." and the litany of other so-called solutions simply aren't acceptable if Linux adoption is to proceed beyond a tiny minority of ubergeeks. The very same people who are most vehement in the superiority of Linux are the same ones championing these sorts of solutions that ensure that many who would otherwise be able to have a better computing experience on Linux will never adopt because of foolish barriers set by arrogance, rather than technology.

As I said before, Ubuntu is more or less the "face" of desktop Linux. The "Gateway" distribution, with a desktop user focus and a variety of comprehensive paid and free support avenues of quality. Canonical making foolish decisions like this harms the entire Linux community. Linux has a chance to capitalize on the kind of momentum that has been built on the snowballing of having Ubuntu bring users to desktop linux, which brings further developers to work on Linux software and bring previously Win/OSX software to Linux as a worthwhile destination. Decisions like this slow that momentum. Like it or not, Ubuntu is pivotal due to its current position in the community. Gradually over time there may be a transition to another distro as a "face" of the Linux desktop user experience, (ie Mint is a good example) but unless it happens through organic growth, it will negatively affect user experience and thus Linux adoption. Its one thing for someone to have a good experience on Ubuntu, learning the basics there, and deciding they want to learn more/try something new etc... and switching to another distro. Its another thing entirely for them to have a neutral or poor experience; they will be unlikely to give another distribution a try and will go back to Windows or Mac.

I don't think its too much to ask for Canonical to give users a choice before embedding referral/affiliate links and to ensure good security practices by allowing users to choose exactly what, where, and how their OS's built in desktop search operates. Opt-in is the only ethical, logical choice - doubly so for an OS that makes "Freedom" one of its core values.

I

It is unfortunate that Ubuntu, which has become one of the most public and accessible desktop Linux distributions during its rise to prominence is making such a colossal blunder. In a world where one's privacy is being increasingly assaulted from all sides, Linux has shown itself as the alternative to walled gardens and locked down fences; software with an ethos that puts control squarely in the hands of the user. Ubuntu has brought interest and investment to desktop Linux - even the long-awaited Steam beta is testing on Ubuntu. Combined with other excellent free and open source software, like Mozilla's Firefox and Thunderbird, Libre Office, as well as user- desired proprietary programs (ie games, like those sold through Desura and HumbleBundle) that increasingly are offering Linux versions, a larger group of "regular" users than ever before have become interested in Linux and open platforms. Some are tired of lock-in and upgrade treadmills, some just like the fact that these "free as in beer" alternatives (with "free as in speech" being a bonus, at times) allow them to accomplish their tasks without spending a fortune, others come seeking an environment that is unpolluted by the insidious privacy and security violations that have grown unchecked, but are searching for a better environment.

  Linux and FOSS have become worthwhile destinations and for many these days, Ubuntu is the entryway into a Linux-based operating system. This whole issue with Amazon basically leaves a giant defecation on the doorstep of Linux. Advocates who have rightly been claiming for years the benefits of Linux, the freedom, privacy, user control etc... are going to have a problem on their hands when it seems the most visible desktop Linux company is engaged in the same underhanded moneymaking bullshit as everyone else. Its completely unacceptable and hurts not just Ubuntu, but Linux as a whole. Many newcomers are not going to stick around "learn, and choose another distro" if they have a poor experience. Even for Linux veterans who use other distros, it harms the community as a whole to the face presented to the world with rotting teeth, so to speak.

Thus, we need to do something to try to convince Canonical to make some changes. At minimum the entire feature needs to be opt-in. Users should be able to decide if they want to segregate their desktop/local network searches from their Internet searches. Most users, when they search for baby pictures or music they know they have on their hard drive, do not want to see Internet-based suggestions for the two; they certainly don't want to be poked to BUY related music or see ads for fertility specialists. From both a usability and security perspective, it is important that users (especially "joe users" that may not be technically competent) to know the difference between local and Internet content. If someone wishes to integrate the search, that should be a conscious choice. Next, its just plain unacceptable for Ubuntu to include Canonical's Amazon affiliate code on those searches, without user knowledge. This is basically spyware built into the operating system. Rightly so, people frown when others try to disguise their referral links and the financial benefit they'll be given, even when those links are present on forums and email. To have a major operating system do the same thing is lunacy. The hypocrisy of this happening on Linux (or any open platform or software) is even more repugnant.

Users should have to opt in for any "lenses" that search the Internet, be given a description of how/where they will be searching, and who will benefit from the search. If Canonical wants to offer this functionality, it should be required that when a user turns on any search "lens" that has an affiliate bonus that benefits them, there should be a mandatory explanation page that allows the user to understand what is going on and gives them the chance to opt out and strip the affiliate data from their searches if they desire. If they're honest and say "Hey, we do this to defer the cost of bringing all of Ubuntu to you for free, unlike those other OSes, and we promise not to sell your data etc..." I suspect most people will be fine with allowing the search to include the affiliate bonus. However, they should be informed up front and given a chance to disable the lens, disable the affiliate but keep the lens, or include an affiliate ID of their own choosing if they prefer instead

User preference, experience, and control should be at the forefront of a Linux and especially FOSS experience. We can't afford to have the most visible desktop Linux distribution acting contrary to this in the hopes of making a few bucks under the table, at the cost of the entire community losing one of its most important pillars and draw to users.

First - Yes. There is no reason why these games should have to be restricted to proprietary consoles. There are plenty of titles that are, and far more that could be developed to work just as well on PC if the "console" didn't exist. My X360 Wireless USB Dongle by itself can handle 4 controllers+headsets. I can plug in a FightStick Tournament Edition and use it for Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition, or fire up MAME etc.. There is no reason why BlazBlue, Mario Kart, and other currently console only titles couldn't be released on PC. You don't have to be limited to mice and keyboards or only certain game types but for the status quo, enforced by a handful of entities, that dictates "These kind of games are for consoles, not for PC". Break that, and everything is available. Those that do break out have been shown enormous gains; especially indie titles. Take for instance how Breath of Death VIII and Cthulhu Saves the World made more in one launch weekend (or was it week) on Steam than for months on XBLA.

Second - This is a catch 22. People only put a PC in the living room if they want to do "PC stuff" on it. If all the "console" content was available on the PC, people would buy PCs; there would be many PCs that were SFF/HTPC Gaming focused that would be a better value and more flexible than currently available console. People clearly want an "entertainment box" in their living room and there is no reason that an actual PC could not fulfill that niche if the games were not limited to certain console platforms; it can easily be customized to provide a "console experience" and then expanded if users desire.

Third - This again is the problem of the type of game released. Even second-class citizen ports by Capcom offer support for multiple controllers and the like. If a game was designed with a single-screen gameplay option in mind, it would support multiple inputs. MAME for instance and associated projects all support multiple local controller inputs simply because they're replicating games that were designed nearly exclusively for local multiplayer.

Fourth - It depends on the price of the controller; If the bloody thing actually comes close to or eclipses $100, there's no reason it shouldn't be multitouch. Especially considering how much of their audience is going to be used to touch games on Android and iOS taking advantage of 5-10 point capacitive multitouch I can't see this as a good choice. If anything, this would be the thing to eat a bit of the cost upon because it is going to make the premiere "new" function of the system seem old compared to the phones and tablets people already have. As far as precision is concerned, I figure either add a multitouch digitizer (which is admittedly expensive) or simply have a high end capacitive stylus option without one. There are plenty of "drawing" games on iOS/Android that are made to be interacted with by "fingerpainting", and even art programs meant to be used with capacitive styli, that work well enough without a digitizer I can't imagine that Nintendo is going to be producing the kind of games that require professional level artistic and design precision. Thus it seems like a quality capacitive multitouch is the best way to go. Single touch resistive gaming may have been great on the NDS era, but now people are used to "mobile" games that take multitouch into account, which will only grow more dynamic as time progresses.

Lastly - I would like to see better integration with Android devices being used as secondary displays and input devices for other computers (ie. Plug in my Nexus 7 and via USB video it becomes a secondary display and multitouch controller, not unlike the kind of the USB mini-monitors sold by MIMO and whatnot. This should be possible now unless Android has locked something down... I"ll have to look into it). However, I expect that, depending on technology (ie Bluetooth) and how much the WiiU controllers are locked down, someone is going to get them working on the PC, just as the Wiimote and Dual Shock 3 before them. However, what I was alluding to was not having to buy the console at all, under my hypothetical post-console environment. Thus, all the games would be made for PCs and the only hardware investment would be in peripherals like controllers and whatnot. I'd happily buy the next Legend of Zelda game for my PC if it was offered, with the understanding that it was made with a certain kind of controller in mind (ie WiiU Pro or tablet etc.. ).

In a post-console world where all titles were made with the PC in mind without being limited to a particular, proprietary hardware platform, I think there would be a wide range of hardware solutions for whatever sort of software and experience you wish, from a streamlined living room entertainment box to a traditional gaming PC. Many of these things can be had today but are less emphasized because of the fact that so many titles are console exclusive. Eliminate this restriction and I think the entire gaming paradigm would be refreshed and there would be tons of new growth.

To be completely honest, I oppose proprietary game consoles in this day and age. We no longer need a proprietary purpose built console to make gaming affordable. Modern consoles, especially those of the current generation seem to be nothing but moderate-spec'ed PCs that are locked down through various software (and hardware at times - see, X360 Hard Drives. No reason you couldn't use a "regular" SATA HDD, but you need to buy the overpriced proprietary crap). So you spend a few hundred dollars on a box that is essentially a small form factor PC that you don't really own, can't mess with or modify without being banned and everything you ever purchased deactivated (or, forced to buy another box) and that only links up to a proprietary network - you don't have the choice of saying "Sorry, XboxLive, I don't want to abide by your rules. I know, I'll connect to Bob's Xbox360 Matchmaking Extreme Network instead and play there - and paying constantly for the privilege to be locked in at every turn. The only reason to buy consoles (as opposed to other solutions) these days in my opinion, is the fact that so many titles are still "console exclusives" - basically, your games are being held hostage. If you want to play Final Fantasy, Lost Odyssey, Valkyria Chronicles etc.. you have to capitulate to the consoles. Its time for this to end.

Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't choosing which consoles you were going to buy based on which games they were expected to hold exclusive dominion over? What if every type of game was available for the PC instead, giving you the freedom to decide what hardware you wished. It would simply be a matter of recommended specs and peripherals, something that hasn't been any trouble for PC gamers for years. Those with existing computers that had the specs (CPU, GPU etc...) necessary could play the games on there, and should such a revolution occur it would revitalize the gaming PC industry with a huge infusion of cash. All those players that want "the console/TV/couch experience" would be able to build or buy a multitude of small form factor and home theater gaming PC. Peripherals would become a nice secondary market. Look at how the Xbox 360 controllers and headsets (or compatible XInput style controller) has become the "de facto" gaming controller on PC. Players just bought these controllers to play PC titles; because Microsoft was smart enough to make a USB dongle for the wireless versions and provide drivers at least on Windows (and really, make them pretty easy to implement even on Linux!) plenty of people without an X360 system buy the controllers if they want to play certain types of titles on their PC. Likewise, there are relatively simple 3rd party hacks (because the first parties lacked foresight, which is why these don't have quite the amount of presence compared to X360 pads) to use Dual Shock 3 and WiiMote+accessories on PC. In a console-less world, what if Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and others simply became peripheral manufacturers? I'm guessing there would be a lot more unified and open technologies used - it would be simple for some developer to say "Requires a Nintendo WiiUToo Tablet or compatible multitouch tablet device" for their gametype, the way that "X360 Controller for PC or compatible supported/suggested" is prevalent in PC gaming today. We just saw the launch of Steam's "Big Picture", a "console style" UI meant to be navigated with a gamepad or remote control, which despite its beta status seems to be greatly superior to Xbox Live's UI, which has tons of ads and "value added services" squirted all over its dashboard to the point that actual tasks on the unit are typically small windows that are given inferior focus! If Steam can integrate their Big Picture with XBMC and/or MythTV for instance, that pretty much makes for a better complete "console" experience than X360/PS3 offer today! You could take it one step further with a bootable Linux distribution that incorporated Steam, Desura, XBMC and other entertainment platforms, all wrapped in a "Big Picture" style UI for instance; just turn it on and enjoy your entertainment media on whatever system you wished

The key issue at hand is simply weening developers off the fearmongering and control of publishers and console manufacturers who at this point, are basically acting as proprietary lock-in inducing middlemen. The minor conveniences of say, never having to look at specs and wonder if your PC can run something properly, are bought at a huge cost to gaming as a whole. Hell, in a post-console world I can see a handful of simple gaming benchmarks brought together as a partnership between game software creators and PC hardware developers that could give an easy system to make it so that the technophobic could still have a pretty good idea if X title will run on their PC. We're already most of the way there with things like SystemRequirementsLab or the evaulatory benchmarks that come with many games that say simply "Your PC gets a B+. We recommend settings on high, but no AA/AF etc..." I'd like to see a world where games aren't being held hostage on a variety of platforms, ruled over by those who exert complete control hardware, game software, and even the networks the consoles are allowed to interface with.

As traditional consoles go, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my Wii...specifically because of its thriving homebrew, modchip, and hacking scene, which allows me to say... load game disk images from a hard disk drive (ie Undubs, out of region etc..), play media the Wii normally could not, and all this without losing online capability or hamstringing my system in any way; compared to X360 and PS3, its a paradise in this regard. I'm hoping that the WiiU will be price adjusted for different regions, use open standards such as USB3 and bluetooth, and include at least one of the tablet controllers with the main purchase. I'm a little disenchanted by the fact the tablet controllers, as far as I've heard, are basically single touch resistive touch screens instead of multitouch capacitive - why toss old tech besides the new? I'll make my final purchasing decision later (especially when I see how draconian the new online system is going to be and what sort of hacks will be available without compromising purchased content), but I'd much rather if I could just invest in the WiiU Tablet and Pro controller, in the confidence that I could run the games built with them in mind on any PC with the power to do so, instead of being stuck to a single platform

I have no problem with a "Needs more research" conclusion or "Here are a list of X of compounds that are no different between organic and conventional food", but that isn't the conclusion reached nor the headline proffered - they're choosing to dictate that those collection of compounds are a metric for a viable metric for health/nutrition, and suggesting that the study concludes that there is no difference in the healthful or nutritional value between organics and conventional - both intellectually dishonest There have already been studies as you've spoken of already, if you're interested in looking for them. Plenty of studies show the danger of many current GM crops; health problems and spontaneous abortions skyrocket when fed to livestock, for instance. Look to those cited by Dr. Don M. Huber (Col Ret, USArmy) - a former military bioweapons study chief at Fort Detrick. Organic diets have been shown to be more healthful and easily so - many of the cheap but harmful additives, preservatives, and other adulterants are not permitted in certified organic food products (ie no hydrogenated oils, no added nitrates in preservation of meat, no artificial sweeteners, etc..). There have also been studies targeting specific foodstuffs and comparing the two, showing the organic to result in fewer health problems in laboratory studies. The Organic Consumers Association is a good place to start, chase a few links here and there and you'll make it to multiple studies, should you be open to them,

You're bending over backward to defend their scientific credibility without any particular merit, simply because you dislike what I have to say. You should be just as vehemently opposed to bad science as I am if you were so impassioned for the betterment of the species, but instead you just try to frame my discussion as a purely ideological one, completely devoid of scientific reason despite the information provided. If there was another Stanford study that announced "Microwaves safe for unlimited human exposure" on the basis that "since we can't see them doing any damage to the surface layer of the skin, it appears they're safe", it would be equally as flawed scientifically, because of choosing such a limited and frankly ridiculous metric for "safe". Putting somewhere in the study, "Oh yeah, we noticed some internal temperature changes, but that really isn't important" doesn't make it viable or rigorous; much less announcing to the world in such a way that "debunks" all those previous studies showing the dangers of standing unprotected in front of a microwave emitter.

I've listed some resources identifying why this particular study is flawed and further data on the benefit of organics that have been found thus far. Take a look at them if you like, but by such a response I'm guessing you're laboring far more under issues of "faith" than I am.

Preposterous conclusions. This is the exact kind of "junk science" meant to incur bias that has become the hallmark of those "just asking questions" about organic farming, emerging medicine, sustainable energy, and anything that cannot be patented, owned exclusively, or controlled by a handful of corporate entities.

The study has a horrid, arbitrary definition of "healthier", attempting to say "conventional products can have the same amount of antioxidants, vitamins etc.. as an organic one, there's more too it than that" , is the sole arbiter of "healthful" is ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Its not much different than say It discounts data where it wishes and glosses over all of the many benefits, even where they do appear - "Oh, yes organic meat doesn't have nearly as many samples of antibiotic resistant bacteria...but oh well, you know its all killed in cooking any way so why does that matter? (Not like people are capable of imperfect kitchen hygiene, cook improperly or just prefer rarer meats, or any of the other circumstances where this could be important) It has demonstratively better phosphorous levels, omega-3 levels and tons of other stuff, but yeah... sorry, that doesn't matter. ". It also fails to take into consideration a huge amount of other aspects of health, from the beneficial effects from organic farming in terms of over all soil quality and thus future health benefits across a wide range of metrics from the produce there, the absence of current GMOs which have been shown to cause health problems such as destruction of gut flora, proper recognition of lower pesticide exposure, the absence of a huge amount of deleterious additives that are not permitted in certified organic foodstuffs, and many, many other traits that have been investigated and verified over the years that show the benefits of organic farming and ranching.

Showing "these randomly selected nutrients can be equal in both conventional and organic foods" and then asserting this is a debunking of organic benefits is intellectually dishonest. It is akin to how certain elements have attempted to frame the dialog for such issues as cellular phone and artificial sweetener safety. For instance, many studies were shown on how GSM non-ionizing radiation was safe because it could not be correlated with brain tumors (many of these, funded by telecom industries through both overt and back channels). Guidelines were made on these findings and those that disagreed that this proved safety were accused of being "anti-science kooks". However, there are many other possible threats not related to cancer, such as blood-brain barrier permeability (proven to be heightened with non-ionizing radio wave exposure in studies like - http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6039 ), but those studying have been met with adversity and lack of funding because of the social engineering effects of the previous studies cause many to think "the book is closed on mobile phone safety - they're safe" because of the dishonest framing of the "safety" studies of the past. The very same thing has happened with modern artificial sweeteners like aspartame, AceK, and sucralose - those who wanted them declared safe, picked proving that "They don't cause cancer" was, as intended, enough to quell public fears and frame the discourse, while ignoring their effects on everything from excitotoxic nerve damage, to endocrine disruption and more. There is a huge financial impetus for certain entities to ensure that such nuisances as "health risks" and "having all the information, with the fewest bias possible" don't get in the way of profit, and this methodology is how these entities control information and perception within the medical and scientific community; its very similar to the ways they manipulate political discourse within its venues.

I am pleased to note there have already been an assortment of criticisms and outright refutations for the Stanford study, such as this one done by Washington State University's Charles Benbrook - http://www.organicconsumers.org/benbrook_annals_response2012.pdf . For those inclined toward something less technical, articles such as - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-o/organic-food-vs-conventio_b_1857802.html and http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-food repeat a few of the points given by more scholarly critiques. The Organic Consumers Association has a pretty good repository of links to other scholarly journals and scientific studies on the many benefits of organic agriculture from around the world along with other info to help you decide, (though admittedly since they redesigned the website to make their activism campaigns more visible in the election year, you may have to do a bit more digging to find what you seek, especially on particularly in-depth or arcane subjects.

And now, I'm guessing I burn my karma - I have to say that I'm rather disappointed in Slashdot for how readily vulnerable many of its users seem to be to the kind of manipulation given by studies like this. Slashdotters consider themselves more than anything part of "Team Science" and that ", so all it takes is any supposed "experts" pointing out that "Their Word Is Law, Science Be Praised", and framing the other side as stupid, luddite, anti-science kooks to get them frothing about ignorant hippies and crystals, regardless if the other side has claims based upon scientific rigor as well - if it just "feels" wrong, that's enough. Case in point is anything having to do with vaccination - this is a community that will vehemently object to any regulation that suggests others can tell you what to do with your data, yet many seem to have no problems with mandatory vaccination - anyone who objects must be scientifically ignorant and is putting everyone's lives at risk, so its quite all right to take their choice out of the matter; they're just flowers-in-their-hair fools who don't deserve the right to decide for themselves. Nobody considers that there could be those that object to vaccinating themselves or their kid because say, they have a HLA-DR4 typing that makes them less able to deal with the stress it puts on the body, or they are advocating for a vaccination that doesn't include many of the toxic adjutants that do little for immunity but serve only to drive down costs and up profit at the cost of increasing the burden on the body; no, they must just be empty headed "anti-vaxers", enemies of The One True Science. Just be aware there are entities out there trying to "push your buttons" and manipulate your perspective; thinking you're above all that is the easiest way to fall and in truth, do more damage than those less learned.

Absolutely incorrect and unfortunately myopic - there is a much wider user base behind FOSS, with motivation from the altruistic to the selfish, realistic or idealistic. Look at RMS and the FSF, look at Debian, look at all the elements of FOSS that are designed primarily with philosophical purity in mind. Look at those who just want to be able to have total control over the software they need to get their business done, don't care about philosophical purity but want to ensure their coders have the access, understanding, and control necessary to write a module, update, or fix. Look at those who believe in privacy and openness in the face of the many moneyed interests that are seeking to lock down everything they control for profit while harvesting any information they can find that belongs to others, and create varying projects to provide alternatives; believing in the betterment they bring to society. Tor is a prime example - there are many alternative darknets, proxies, VPNs etc... for hackers, but Tor is made to be easy enough for someone with a relatively modest knowledge base can make use of it.

here are most certainly elements of the Linux and FOSS community that are altruistic and create software for a wide variety of non-technical users. Mozilla is a great example - they created some of the best known FOSS in the world and provided a browser (and mail/news client) that both at the technical/code level and usage level put the software completely at the control of the user AND have successfully made it easy to use. Firefox and Thunderbird for instance aren't like lynx and pine/mutt; they're software that adheres to FOSS tenets and allows the guru to inspect and modify to their liking, while also being easy enough that anyone who has used a browser before can make of them. Even more impressive is that because of great design with respect to addons and the like, AdBlock Plus, NoScript, HTTPSEverywhere can be easily loaded with a few clicks as opposed to being the kind of thing that required expert-level scripting to use. Granted, these addons (like the software itself) were created by the knowledgeable, but were made accessible by design. These weren't tools hacked together to solve the problem of a particular user and little more, but instead were inclusive and because of that, thrive.