I don't want a touch-based desktop, even if it's a direct console to Deep Blue (or whatever is the most powerful supercomputer these days). A desktop's monitor is ideally just at the edge of arm's reach for me, and fingerprint-free. I don't want anyone touching my screen, except maybe tapping with a pencil or pen to point out things. Desktops/laptops are meant to be used with a mouse and keyboard, in my opinion, not poking the screen. That's for tablets and phones.

I seem to recall Android apps having to have the ability to distinguish between tablets and phones, and offer up potentially different UIs for both, each optimized for the amount of screen space available. I don't see why Microsoft can't go the same way, even if it means developers having to work extra to create two different UIs.

Or they can just ... not install Windows 8, and stick with Windows 7, which'll be even faster on the new, more powerful hardware.

There's always another way, you know.

It's not horrid on a touch-enabled device. The problem comes when you try to use an interface obviously designed for touch with no touch input. Sure, you can use it with a mouse, but that just feels awkward and weird.
Windows 8 is probably going to be amazing on tablets, but i don't see why Microsoft tries to force it on desktop users. In their stead, I would just keep the Windows 7 UI, and put that on top of the upgraded codebase. Or if they want to tie the platforms together so badly, make the OS detect the type of device it is installed on, and use the appropriate interface (Not-Metro for touch-based devices, regular for non-touch-based ones).

Wasn't it the Bhagavad Gíta (?) quote "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds"?

How does one break out of a chroot prison, exactly?

"I bet you my Nobel Prize and a beer you can't hit the unobtanium sample with the coils on manual!"
[Cue resonance cascade]

Or "Oh crap..". Or "Hey guys? This is pretty weird...".

Call me crazy, but aren't such consoles meant to replace several of the consoles you're talking about? Like a VCR, DVR, laptop, Apple Mini, Region 1 blu-ray player, Region 2 blu-ray player, etc.
That seems to be the point of such media center consoles...

Calling it Amulet while having the form factor of a watch is somewhat misleading, I was thinking how a necklace could possibly have a secure enough interface to the body to measure the required responses.

But that's the least of my worries. Body impedance can be dependent on quite a lot of things, such as hydration, and skin resistance, which is again dependent on many factors, such as the temperature, stress, etc. Could such a small device carry a sophisticated enough algorithm to reliably and quickly account for all these factors to establish the identity? Or would I need to wear the device for months so it can learn all my electrical characteristics? What if I gain implants later on: a pacemaker or artificial heart would significantly alter my impedance, likely requiring a re-calibration.

If these problems can be worked out,the technology has promise. If not, a coordinating watch for a personal area network still seems like a good idea, some way or another...

Spokespeople in their official role are a different matter altogether. What I'm driving it is the comments of third parties being considered part of the advertising, as you said. They are not, in my opinion, and the company pushing the advert should not be held responsible for what unknown people comment on its pages. comments should be owned wholly by the commenters, as they are the only ones who can take true responsibility for what they are saying.

No, you made the accusation: "websites have a very clearly understood social responsibility for the content they host", you have to support your point with evidence and citations. I can support mine that people don't give a crap about social responsibility by showing Facebook usage figures.
As for taking responsibility for my website's content, you're right: I don't take any responsibility, since I do not have a personal site (other than a Facebook profile, but that's debatable if it's "personal" as in "my own").

Then please do quote the applicable clause from the Facebook terms and conditions.

Social responsibility is not legally enforceable. Not following it may mean you're an asshole, and people may not use your services. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case with Facebook, so I think it's safe to say people do not give a shit about social responsibility.
As for who takes responsibility? The commenter, naturally. Again, who takes responsibility for something you say on Speakers' Corner, who gets arrested for hate speech? You or Boris Johnson?

I fail to see how the company profited from derogatory slurs...

It doesn't, not in the slightest. The government holds responsibility for its actions towards its electors, but not for all the actions of its people. Otherwise, I could sue your state for any given thing, like trying to slander me. Bad government implies bad politicians, but it has nothing to do with the populace in general.

That's simple hate speech, prosecutable under law. Connecting this to the article, someone targeted by the "hate speech" on the page could file a complaint and have the court investigate it, but certainly not Facebook or the company itself (who was not a target).

Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say? In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner? Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?