This seems like it could blow the Arduino out of the water, at least the higher-end ones (including the ones that are currently being developed). If you can get full C++ and some actual computing power (I mean as opposed to the no-OS MCUs), and a mature IDE that'll facilitate designing GUIs, it would definitely change a few things. The Beagle Board team will also have to start rethinking the current design, since its current cheap model is $90.

And yes, I know that the Arduino as a software platform (and the IDE) isn't going anywhere, and that's great, but their plans to design higher-end models will have a very difficult time competing with a $35, QT-programmable board.

Back then you could HEAR your computer working! The dial-up modems, the loud spinning HDs, CD-ROMs, Floppy Disks, and dot-matrix printers. You knew what your computer was going just by listening.
Now it's all sterile. Software is downloaded onto solid-state hard-drives, in silent computers with low-rpm fans, if any. No wonder there are so many botnets -- you have no idea what your computer is doing anymore.

I sometimes wish I could turn the sound back ON. Sure, there was cyan and #C0C0C0 all over the place, but it FELT real.

Did you read through those threads? They were comprised primarily of trolling, troll-feeding, and bad jokes. A thread can have an immense amount of posts and still be completely boring and content-free.

Ok, surprise me. Compare Mac market share to Dell, HP, or Lenovo. You can get the figures of the PC companies here.

I often wondered how he (Ive) felt about this "arrangement". Jobs kept getting the praise though it was known that Ive was the one behind the overall product design direction. He was in charge of hardware design, specifically, but that's exactly the part which the competition is trying hardest to copy.

Exactly how is this a counter-argument to the statement that Jobs wasn't a designer?

The cake.

The value of kWp/m^2 is a factor in the overall result. If someone managed to find an extremely cheap solution that takes up more space than usual, that's still useful in certain situations. Of course the opposite is also true -- if you find an expensive way to convert solar energy more efficiently (using a smaller footprint), there's a use for that too. Advancement in both cases is beneficial.

The natural counter-argument is the question: Should the government stop funding research simply because some of the funds will (likely) reach undeserving parties?
It's not black and white. If there's been a history of wasted resources related to this particular objective, then more strict regulation should be enacted (and the natural reply to this would be: regulation is both expensive and corruptible... I guess some middle-ground is necessary).

Wiktionary: disruptive - Adjective: Causing disrupt or unrest.
MW: Disrupt - verb: to break apart / to throw into disorder. Origin: Latin disruptus, past participle of disrumpere, from dis- + rumpere to break.

Contrast with: "Disruptive technology"

But people are lazy, so they drop the context. Rather than adding the "technology", which would change the meaning (through context), they just say "disrupt" in the same way that we might say "grep" or "ping" in a non-technical conversation. It's annoying but if you challenge anyone about it they'd (probably) say that you should have deduced the context through the subject matter.

And yeah, it's totally an overused buzzword.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Certainly, the glasses will be cheaper and easier to produce, but even if you create a surface like that which is only a single "slab", there will still be scenarios where there's just no room, and the glasses will be the only option.
Of course, it's possible that someday you could get the same effect with a pico-projector, but doing the 3D scanning *and* 3D projecting from a single point really is sci-fi, for now.