I wonder how long it will take until this is set off by someone playing GTA or CoD or something in the computer lab...

Well, my biggest time waster is now on Linux, without having to fiddle with WINE or anything. I guess I can now relegate this commercial OS to a seldom used secondary partition. Woot!

Also:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/06/10/sid-meiers-civilization-v-now-available-for-steamos-and-linux/?ns_campaign=article-feed&ns_mchannel=ref&ns_source=steam&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/11/civilization-5-linux/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rockpapershotgun%2Fsteam+(Rock%2C+Paper%2C+Shotgun%3A+Steam+RSS)

FYI: As of yesterday, Civ V now runs on SteamOS. Supposedly all the DLC is supposed to too, but they're still working on that. And it is one of the play-anywhere type games, so if you own a copy, you can play on windows, mac, or Linux, no need to buy a new copy for the other OS. I'll be getting my dual boot running today to try it out.

Civ: Beyond Earth has been officially "Win, Mac, and SteamOS" for a while now. I'm guessing it and Civ V use the same base underlying engine, or at least close enough to make using code form one in the other easy enough, so they're using Civ V in SteamOS to test their code for the Beyond Earth release. (I know the preview footage from E3 yesterday that some aspects of Beyond Earth look like a reskinned Civ5, particularly the map, combat, city, and diplomacy screens. So I'm expecting it to feel like an expansion that adds a whole bunch of stuff combined with a TC (Total Conversion) that replaces all the existing content)

If I had mod points, I'd vote this up, especially since it is actually relevant to answering the person's question.

Sorry I don't have any sources, but I know I've read a fair bit about experimental brain interfaces as Multiio describes, but from North American sources, so hopefully some usefull stuff turns up. As far as that goes, the wikipedia article on Brain-computer interfaces has some hopeful links.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface#Prominent_research_successes

Of particular note is all the succesfull experiments where they've had monkeys controlling robotic arms to feed themselves, using brain-wave monitoring devices to provide joystick type input into a computer, and stuff like that. From what I can tell, that's just the "proven and done" stuff. More complex things like outputting text directly to a computer makes sense to me, but I haven't seen any mention of that sort of thing.

To all those who, instead of answering the question have been providing "pull the plug" or "why don't you research ways to kill them" answers: don't assume anything less than perfect mobility is essential for an enjoyable life. I, for one, would want to keep on living so long as I can keep learning and experiencing things. Even if it amounts to never doing anything physical again and spending my time learning on the web, I still consider that to be a life worth living. We can't, and shouldn't, make these decisions for others, especially for those we don't know. After all, while there may be a few that really want to die and get a lot of media attention, there are just as many, probably more, who share my view: never pull the plug on me until my brain has completely, utterly, and without the slightest trace of a doubt ceased activity. And even then wait a week or two just to make sure it wasn't just faint for a bit before doing it.

Whenever locked in cases like this come up, I can't help but think of Anne McCaffrey's brain-ships series. Basic premise being that locked in people were hooked into spaceships. If they can control prosthetics, they can control anything else, the theory goes. If they can never live outside a machine, well, give them the best possible opportunity to be as productive as possible in a machine, ideally by doing things that un-injured people can't do. I'm sure it is possible, but it is a field that needs a lot more work.

In the pdf of his presentation he mentions that there are 24 router models confirmed vulnerable spanning Cisco, Linksys, NetGear, and Diamond. I have yet to spot the actual list of vulnerable routers, though.

He also elaborates on how a technically skilled person can figure out if any particular router is vulnerable.

The link to the list of vulnerabilities is found in the pdf. Here's a copy/pasted list of the ones known so far.

BEGIN COPIED TEXT:

Backdoor LISTENING ON THE INTERNET confirmed in :

        Linksys WAG120N (@p_w999)
        Netgear DG834B V5.01.14 (@domainzero)
        Netgear DGN2000 1.1.1, 1.1.11.0, 1.3.10.0, 1.3.11.0, 1.3.12.0 (issue 44)
        Netgear WPNT834 (issue 79)
        OpenWAG200 maybe a little bit TOO open ;) (issue 49)

Backdoor confirmed in:

        Cisco RVS4000 fwv 2.0.3.2 (issue 57)
        Cisco WAP4410N (issue 11)
        Cisco WRVS4400N
        Cisco WRVS4400N (issue 36)
        Diamond DSL642WLG / SerComm IP806Gx v2 TI (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6998682)
        LevelOne WBR3460B (http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/101/507219/30/0/threaded)
        Linksys RVS4000 Firmware V1.3.3.5 (issue 55)
        Linksys WAG120N (issue 58)
        Linksys WAG160n v1 and v2 (@xxchinasaurxx @saltspork)
        Linksys WAG200G
        Linksys WAG320N (http://zaufanatrzeciastrona.pl/post/smieszna-tylna-furtka-w-ruterach-linksysa-i-prawdopodobnie-netgeara/)
        Linksys WAG54G2 (@_xistence)
        Linksys WAG54GS (@henkka7)
        Linksys WRT350N v2 fw 2.00.19 (issue 39)
        Linksys WRT300N fw 2.00.17 (issue 34)
        Netgear DG834[â..., GB, N, PN, GT] version 5 (issue 19 & issue 25 & issue 62 & jd & Burn2 Dev)
        Netgear DGN1000 (don't know if there is a difference with the others N150 ones... issue 27)
        Netgear DGN1000[B] N150 (issue 3)
        Netgear DGN2000B (issue 26)
        Netgear DGN3500 (issue 13)
        Netgear DGND3300 (issue 56)
        Netgear DGND3300Bv2 fwv 2.1.00.53_1.00.53GR (issue 59)
        Netgear DM111Pv2 (@eguaj)
        Netgear JNR3210 (issue 37)

Backdoor may be present in:

        all SerComm manufactured devices (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6998258)
        Linksys WAG160N (http://zaufanatrzeciastrona.pl/post/smieszna-tylna-furtka-w-ruterach-linksysa-i-prawdopodobnie-netgeara/)
        Netgear DG934 probability: probability: 99.99% (http://codeinsecurity.wordpress.com/category/reverse-engineering/)
        Netgear WG602, WGR614 (v3 doesn't work, maybe others...) (http://zaufanatrzeciastrona.pl/post/smieszna-tylna-furtka-w-ruterach-linksysa-i-prawdopodobnie-netgeara/) :END COPIED TEXT

I continue to think that about 95% of all computer users would be happy if their current OS locked the feature set exactly where it is now and henceforth do nothing except patch bugs.

Maybe do a "new version" if they really must, but only if it doesn't eliminate or forcefully change the current workflow, doesn't require any additional resources, and can demonstrably *IMPROVE* the user's experience with the OS. Which for most people, means that the time that they spend actually using the OS is decreased. After all, for 95% of users, the OS is simply the digital equivalent of their desk. Most people don't want to spend their time staring at their desk, no matter how "pretty" it is, but rather they would prefer to be doing stuff with whatever they put on it.

Side question: How many people would upgrade their desk if the new version of their desk had drawers that took twice as long to open but made a fancy "Wooosh" noise when they did it? Or where you had to push a couple buttons on the side of the desk before you could pick up a pen (or touch the keyboard)?

Exactly!

I've been saying this for years in regards to "new" operating systems. I don't need more "features", I don't need it to look "prettier", I don't need animations when I do something.

Pretty much all I need is something that will organize my files and provide the necessary APIs and backend support for running a predetermined set of programs. (a set that has remained pretty much unchanged for the past 2 years, and only a few additions in the past 5)

Well, I'm glad that someone's out there talking about it, but here on /. it really is preaching to the choir.

That being said, I'd love to see this video get sent out to the masses of people on some major news channels. Getting a couple million more people interested in upgrading and modding their own computer would do wonders for increasing the interest of computer parts manufacturers in catering to the upgrade/modding community.

I'll have to look those up. Like with most old games, EVN doesn't really need sequels, it just needs to be updated to use more recent hardware, such as bigger screens.

Are these ideas realistic anytime soon? Not really. Are they possible with today's technology? Iffy, although some probably are. Would I like to see most of them actually in existence now, if it were possible? Most definitely!

Especially the space ones, and the pyramid city. I like those ideas!

Deffinitely one of the top shareware games ever. I played it when first released, played it for many years after. Even made a few mods. Still have a copy of it kicking around, too. :)