I have to disagree. Tower PCs are currently only useful because our mobile PCs don't have the horse power. Mobile PCs will keep getting faster and smaller. So will tower PCs. There was a time they used to be a lot bigger and heavier. However, let us look at what made them that size : (1) hard drives - used to be huge and heavy. Seen SSDs of late? (2) CD-ROM drives - who needs them now when for half the space you get a memory card reader that takes media with more space? (3) power supplies - needed to be big and are probably what is keeping the tower PCs at their size, but there is now less need for large supplies with performance per watt going up. (4) graphics cards & CPUs - going to come full circle soon - these two will merge into one processor that uses less power than your average desktop CPU (5) motherboards - these are already really small. So, if you take these main components, the need for a full tower sized case actually is diminishing really rapidly. If you ask me, with tech like wireless HDMI, your tower pc is probably going to be confined to the attic or some unseen space very soon. We're very quickly reaching the point where smaller devices have enough computing power for most of our needs and as far as heavy lifting goes, I figure it is only a matter of time before every small little computing device at home is able to "lend a hand" and "help out" with all that computing. The very fact that PS3s are dominating the SETI distributed computing stats should say something. The PS3's cell processor is quite the beast. Are you trying to say that the PS4 is not going to be smaller and faster? What about the PS8? Do you thing you will be able to see it?

Really? Heard of priest-scientists? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/nyregion/13jaki.html?_r=2&hpw , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23640170/, http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/priest-turned-scientist-francisco-ayala-wins-153-million-prize/19414671)

Well, its like getting 50 teenagers into a mini.

These days, here's the thought train that Linux comes with: Linux->Open Source->XMBC->Linux MCE->Android->CHDK->Tomato,DDWRT->KDE->Firefox->VLC->Git->Linus->his blog->stuckincustoms->photography->digiKam->Picasa->WINE->games on Linux->how much things have changed. After that, it gets pretty random :)

Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh god yes!

Honestly, give up on Kubuntu if you want to use KDE. In fact, even using Ubuntu + KDE which was more stable than Kubuntu in my experience, I still had to manually customize a heap of stuff and it felt flaky. Then I switched to OpenSuse 11.2. Bliss I tell you. It is KDE how KDE should be done. I didn't have to tweak anything - even Firefox fitted in from the get go. Give OpenSuse a try. Those guys know what KDE should feel like and it shows when you use their distro.

Its simply because the older we get the more we are able to focus. Kids are inherently more distracted. The more we get absorbed in a task, the faster time seems to pass. As we get older, we involve ourselves in a lot of stuff.

Very true. A hostile environment for the sperm has been proven to result in a ratio of females to males that is greater than one. A friendly environment will bring the ratio to less than one.

But that's my point - in the real world, the objects themselves are always sharp - it is up to you to direct your eyes and focus on one object while blurring out the others. The 3D was so convincing that it made you want to look around - a natural human reaction, but you couldn't, because what you wanted to look at was blurred. It is the lack of freedom of being able to look around in what otherwise seemed a beautiful 3D world that really took away a lot of the immersion.

Reminds me of a line from "V". "They're using the most powerful weapon - devotion"

Am I the only one who read Hillary Clinton but thought Hilarious Clinton?

Because they tested slow movement. How many times have you moved your finger that slowly? To me, its an edge case as far as use cases go. That's why I'm skeptical.

I have a problem with that test - it does not measure perceived accuracy. They used a paint program to draw straight lines. While that is a good test of the accuracy of the physical device, is that really a good test of the perceived accuracy? The perceived accuracy is what matters to most people. The iPhone may be able to draw straighter lines, but if the Android device feels more responsive and feels more accurate, then that's the one that's more accurate. I guess its like comparing two toys - while one may be made of better materials, etc etc, if the other one is more fun, then people will gravitate to it. As much as I hate it, being an audio guy myself, a system that delivers louder music with a more punchy bass is usually more appealing to people, though it makes my skin crawl when I think that using that system, you will never hear a piece of music the way the artist intended. I think its a similar thing here. If the android devices feel better, they will be more popular. That's it.

We'd all just like to know :)