I can't help thinking that this story is related.

"Microsoft Windows is now powering the British Royal Navy's nuclear-armed submarine fleet; giving all new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death."...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Submarines-Windows-Royal-Navy,6718.html

"Microsoft...bringing whole new meaning to the terms 'crashing your computer' and 'blue screen of death' "

While I agree that the Electoral college is a farce that spits in the face of democracy, other posters are correct that the Iowa method doesn't fairly represent either.

I think that the states that have amended their constitutions to divide their electoral votes to the same percentage as that state's popular vote have the best solution.

SO if 30% of people vote for candidate A and 70% for candidate B and the state has 10 electoral votes, then 3 would go to candidate A and 7 to B.
Seems right to me.
Anyway, it beats the Katherine Harris method of giving the votes to whomever you damn well please (ie where ever the biggest bribe came from)

I have a ThinkPad with a mat screen and an Acer with a glossy screen. The fact that I have both is the reason I felt qualified to comment in the first place. Being in IT, I regularly see and use both types of screen. I HATE the glossy screen and so does my wife for that matter.
The glare is terrible in many lighting conditions and when I used it at work I found it gave me eyestrain and headaches. The ThinkPad screen however is a joy to use in nearly every lighting condition. However, no LCD's look great outdoors under bright sunlight. Glossy's glare horribly and mat screens get washed out.

While we're on the subject, I've found the same problem with TV's. Some are putting the glossy screens on them to a) help bring up a cheap LCD panel with a poor contrast ratio b) because outh breathing idiots like the look of them in the store.
Next time you are in an electronics store that has a home theatre section, notice that 9 times out of 10, it's dimly lighted, and usually only by indirect lighting. They know that these shiny, glossy screens are crap in normal lighting conditions.

Not me, no way.
ThinkPad W700 dual booting XP and Linux.

USB webcams are pretty cheap these days. Why not use two, one on each side of the monitor?
In fact I've seen web cam kits with 2 in the package.
The would let you have true parallax, AND would have the benefit of making it appear that you are looking at the viewer.
Solves the two main problems I see being discussed here for an extra $29.95 or so.
Plus, it would make cool things like 3D position tracking possible (think Minority Report).

I think that's just your second head telling you lies.

I'd let them sue, then in front of the judge, offer to have the researchers repeat their findings while hooked to the Namesys machine.
Namesys can't complain since it would be admitting their machine is crap, and they can't dispute the results either.

While this is pretty neat, I'm not sure it 'enhances interpersonal communication' since everyone using it will be bobbing back and forth like a Stevie Wonder impersonator convention.

Not to mention some schmuck in the US will soon sue because it made them puke from motion sickness.

Bahahaha!

I'm glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read this.

What does the Optimus keyboard have to do with screens you can't see? You argument is specious.
I never said anything about aesthetic quality being the only thing that matters. Neither did the commenter I was replying to. In fact it wasn't mentioned at all.
The point was that worse than choosing form over function, designers these days are making stupid choices that they don't have to make.
It costs no more to put a mat screen on an LCD than a gloss one. There's no real compromise to form over function by using a mat screen. It's just pure stupidity. The only people that would find a gloss screen better in every day use would be people that only work in the dark where the lack of lights reduces the maddening glare that plagues gloss screens under any kind of lighting conditions. Once CSI buys a few, that's about the whole market flooded.
This is about like Apple stupidly putting only one button on the Mac mouse for years so that they could claim a nonsense advantage in simplicity for marketing purposes. The reality was that MacOS ended up being more complicated to use given you had to make up for the lack of buttons by chording the mouse button with various key combinations. It was a similarly stupid design decision based on a marketing assumption that was false in the first place.
The real problem is that stupid consumers fall for this nonsense which causes it to work as a marketing ploy. Instead of shopping like crows and buying the screens that are shiny and pretty. Buy the ones you can actually see what's on them.

God forbid someone rock the establishment boat for something as trivial as the possible destruction of the Universe. I mean hell, what are these people thinking.
To think they put their own selfish self preservation above the unimaginable importance of the discovery of a new muon or something.
Cause I know when I'm approaching the event horizon, being able to identify the types of matter my body is being deconstructed into will be of great importance to me.

And don't they know speed kills?

I agree completely. Who ever is responsible for this should be smacked like a bad bad donkey ok.

I have to wonder if these Andy Warhols of industrial design ever have to actually use their crap out in the real world. Or even in daylight?

All this sounds like to me is that enough governments finally agreed on a standard that they want the HD manufacturers to use. I would say this is about the point where the tech industry is getting into bed with government like the telecom industry did back in it's day.
Trusted computing platform. Built in, black box hard drive encryption. And with the recent 'bogus Chinese Cisco routers that might have enemy sniffing capabilities' scare I'm sure routers and other core Internet architecture are in the process too.
In my mind this is the real reason to push open source. For protection from a police state as much as protection of free choice.
It gives good reason why things like Asterisk, Vayatta, Linux/BSD, etc. are important and why we need them to have significant market share in core communications areas to insure initiatives like those I mentioned don't become defacto standards.
IMO anyway....

I know I don't really want them out in general use, but they're great for the IT dept to use for many tasks. I know I love being able to snag my EeePC and bring it along when I leave my office to go to another building. Then if a call comes in, I can jump on wireless wherever I am and quickly boot and look at the servers, network etc.