Doesn't seem likely to me. From what I can tell, the PSP was profitable for Sony, but it is being sorely beaten by the Nintendo DS series and now standalone portable video game sales are being cannibalized by smartphones. I would say that this is more likely to end up in a Zune phone and will be Microsoft's in-house alternative to nVidia's Tegra processors. I will chuckle if they contract AMD/ATI to do the graphics again, kind of like how they switched to ATI graphics when building the XBox 360 processor.

Oh, wait, I get it. This is a manly laser. It holds manly shows like "24." It will refuse to store shows like "Days of Our Lives" and "The L Word."

I read the patents. There are no chip circuit diagrams or descriptions of them (I guess diagrams of how shit is connected together technically forms a circuit - but if that is what you are asking for, I can mail you this napkin I drew on). They just show how a DVD player/console/etc are connected to a magic "SET TOP BOX" then connects to the TVs and wirelessly is connected to the glasses. This device handles the synchronization of frames with the 3D glasses and the TV. There is nothing describing the schematics for the actual "control circuits" - only what they do. I guess you have only figured out how to be snarky but without any actual substance.

So let's see Sony's control circuits for their 240hz display. What? They didn't include them in the patent? I guess you don't actually understand how patents work yet.

Yeah, read that right. Player 1 sees frames 1 and 4, Player 2 sees frames 2 and 5 and Player 3 sees frames 3 and 6. Hold up, I'm having a Gillette moment here.

1. Player 1 sees frames 1 and 6
2. Player 2 sees frames 2 and 7
3. Player 3 sees frames 3 and 8
4. Player 4 sees frames 4 and 9
5. Player 5 sees frames 5 and 10

That's right assholes. Five blades^H^H^H^H^H^Hplayers.

Well, good job with catching the straw man. But shouldn't police require a warrant to monitor my traffic? Seems like you don't agree:

Now, it would be one thing if I was a suspect but was innocent, but you are implying that we should all be monitored, and I simply extended the slippery slope.

Holy shit, you're being serious. How about we install a camera in your bedroom? After all, I hear a lot of pedophiles do their raping in bedrooms. Think of the children! You've got nothing to hide, right? All the video will be monitored securely and we will make sure to keep the videotapes safe.

Speaking as someone with an adblocker, I have to say that this still will not work. Why? Because other people will use the annoying ads because they pay more money. So people like me will just install an adblocker and not touch the settings.

Say I am new to the internet. I visit Anne's site which has a lot of ads that annoy me. I ask my friend Bob how I can get around this and he sets me up with an adblocker. I'm not going to even know how to whitelist certain pages. In fact, "whitelist" would sound like something the Black Panthers carry around, and I don't want any part of that. So now when I visit Carmen's site which contains unobtrusive banner ads, she still doesn't get paid for the impression.

This is a modern example of the tragedy of the commons. Viewers are grass in the pasture, and each web site operator is a herder, and the cows are the types of ads they have on their web site. Many will try to get more and bigger cows (more ads and more annoying ads), until it is no longer sustainable and the pasture dies (people no longer view ads because everyone has an ad blocker). At this point, even the responsible cattlemen suffer too. This is an oversimplification, but I hope it illustrates my point.

But if they could, they would be more likely to offer ads for weapons, ropes, shovels and lotion rather than report you to authorities.

<puts on sunglasses>

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Actually, I replied to and quoted someone who did say that. And I understand the censorship issue; I agree, Apple is censoring people, but I didn't reply to you, I replied to another jackhole.

Actually, it is well within it's rights to censor people posting on its bulletin board. Now, if Apple tries to get a restraining order against Consumer Reports or against people posting on Slashdot, then no, it is not within its rights. Again, I repeat, Apple is 100% within its rights to censor people posting on its forum. Doesn't mean it isn't unfair in some way, but still within it's rights.

If you are expecting me to be hypocritical, I'm not. I have no problem with Voice of America, China Radio International, Radio Moscow etc. The countries that jam those stations tend to be a bit on the totalitarian side, so it is fair to criticize them for any kind of censorship.

I think you answered your own question:

More info on Wikipedia.

Every time I buy a laptop, I take a look at what my laptop is lacking and put that into a list of what I want in my next one. Being able to use it outside effectively has been on the list since my first one (after all, it's a laptop, it's portable, I want to use it outside). My current one converts into a tablet, which is definitely nice; I can now use it while walking, but the display is not up to snuff and in bright daylight it is unreadable. Depending upon how things play out with OLED displays (still 5 years away nearly 10 years after I heard about the technology), a transflective screen may be what I end up looking for in my next portable computer.