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.

What I got from the video was that Apps are using X11 like VNC on a per window basis...not that X itself works like that. Their reasons may be good or bad, but X does not work that way in of itself.

I'm always curious about this attitude: how does being a developer make you an expert on something. Does someone who builds a highrise know everything about the building once it's full of people using it? How does that logic work?

I liked Daniel's video. It provided more detail about X than I've seen from any Wayland link so far and cleared up a lot about Wayland to finally get me interested in it's development. Daniel in particular is the first person I've seen talking about Wayland that I'm interested in listening to since he actually knows facts and can communicate them well as well as have a great attitude about what he's doing
That said, and I know I'm biased in favor of X, I'm very disappointed in the solution to all the problems in X11 that he detailed. Due to issues with how X handles it's job, the solution has been for years to let the client fix it at their end and use very little of X. Avoid fixing X. The Wayland solution sounds like take that work around and build a new display around it. Not encouraging.
From his description I agree: the X11 code cannot be fixed. But, my impression is that as coders/developers they applied a coders take to the problem and came up with a coders solution: Take the code written app-side as a work around and build a design on it. Reverse engineer a design based on code that exists. That sounds really negative and I know that will raise some bile, especially since the standard answer is "if you think they are wrong, code it yourself". Based on that video, there's no way I could code at his level so there's no ground for me to stand on there.
What makes me comment on this topic is that I like the X11 design/architecture and feel strongly it is more useful now than the alternatives (RDP/VNC/etc.) and will be more useful as time goes on. I would like a designers solution in that fix the design, then work towards getting that design coded. From the sound of things, that would mean dumping backwards compatibility with X11 protocol, but I would still rather loose X to a better design than loose it to what I see in the Wayland design. Unfortunately those who would be able to handle that kind of development look to be focused elsewhere...

Or working from their large expensive homes with government purchased expensive teleconference equipment connected through government purchased custom private lines to government purchased electronic conference rooms and telepresence equipment.