I understand why Fox and Friends wouldn't like this kind of feature, but what kind of legal ground do they have here? They don't own copyrights on the advertising (well, most of it anyway), and the content they do own (the TV shows) aren't being modified or changed by Dish.

The simple fact that's being reiterated over and over by tech such as commercial-skip and AdBlock is that advertising as a sustainable revenue model is on the way out. At the same time people have started rejecting being shoehorned into the time slots chosen by networks -- most people are willing to pay for their entertainment, but they want to watch it on their own terms, and this also isn't conducive to effective advertising. The sooner content providers realize this, the better off they'll be. The advertising-sponsored entertainment (TV and the Internet primarily) honeymoon is just about over.

Unfortunately for consumers it will probably get worse before it gets better because studios and actors are too accustomed to their over-inflated multi-million dollar salaries. Advertising will become more invasive as it clings for life, and all sorts of litigation will spring up before it finally falls apart. Some forms will always have a place in entertainment (product placement, for example), but eventually consumers will start simply paying for what content they want to consume.

Good catch. I do despise change for change's sake, and those around me would probably attest it's something of a defining characteristic :)

Crayons were just an example because I wanted to focus on children's creative expression (which was a primary focus of the "article"). I'm also open to the idea of markers and pencils.

Snark aside, my intent was express that if these tablets are doing nothing but emulating current children's creative activities (drawing, painting, etc) in the classroom (not during a trip in the station wagon) then what exactly is the point? If they offer some new way for kids to express themselves or to explore other creative avenues then it may be they have a place in school. If it can be demonstrated clearly that students learn things like multiplication through a computer game better than they do through standard teaching methods then, again, maybe they have a place teaching math.

I realize there is software written for tablets (someone linked to many below) which emulate activities such as drawing and painting. The point of this article is that creativity and learning are improved over traditional methods. I doubt that doing things on a tablet is even equivalent to the physical interaction of other methods, let alone superior.

Is a math program better than watching and interacting with a teacher? Are 8 blobs of colored pixels really better than the 5 oranges and 3 apples on the table?

Is drawing (with a 100+ ms latency) better than on a piece of paper? Will a flat glass screen provide the subtle, subconscious insight into texture, shading, pressure, etc that crayons do?

Is a finger painting program provide as meaningful feedback as actually getting paint on your fingers? Just how well can you simulate the color and paper for water-colors?

Humans are social animals that have evolved to use our hands to examine and manipulate our environment. There's a reason smaller children do things like finger paint -- it's a very tactile activity with clear feedback.

Technology has a place in the classroom, of course -- the newfangled school computers I used in my middle school years are what pushed me at CS and programming -- but tablets like the iPad are solutions looking for a problem. That they're failing to find one is why we get these articles claiming they're "better" because, gosh, 77% of adults guts' say so.

You say they're a tool -- okay, nice truism. Please, tell me what tablets do to improve more traditional methods.

How does a device which drives and rewards specific behavior (tap the star to win!) increase creativity more than free-form finger paints and crayons?

Oh, that's right. It's a $600 toy they're trying to justify buying. Surely there must be something better they can spend the $6,000 on than 10 iPads.

This is Insightful? Give me a break.

First, .xxx solves absolutely no problems. It will not make porn easier to filter (why use .xxx if everyone is filtering it?). Arguments about specific TLDs aside, I seriously doubt that .xxx in particular has much to with this situation. Rather, .xxx is a symptom of a larger problem.

ICANN has stopped working to serve the public's interests. The proliferation of new TLDs, including .xxx, has been brought about for a single purpose: to make registrars more money. With .xxx its been nothing but a blatant extortion campaign against large companies -- "register, or else". If the goal of this direction is to fundamentally change the hierarchical nature of DNS (say, to move from www.microsoft.com and yro.slashdot.org to www.microsoft and yro.slashdot), then that is probably a good idea in the long run, but the way in which they're going about it is nothing more than a money grab.

Put simply, ICANN has stopped working for a better and more stable public Internet and has instead taken a dive directly into the registrars pockets. I personally would like nothing more than to see the US stick it to ICANN if it will help put them back on the right track (or work towards their outright replacement).

Hey, maybe if the source is published publicly, some bright person(s) can improve it and issue a "fork" of Symantec's code :)

All they probably have to do is remove a few speed up loops!

Wow, +4 already? The tinfoils must be up and about today.

Believe it or not, most major software vendors have licenses and policies in place (e.g., Microsoft) to allow sensitive institutions (governments, defense contractors, etc) access to their source code. The primary reason is actually the opposite of what you say. Customers such as the Indian government want to be able to see what's actually in the code before they agree to buy and install it on their own systems and network.

Think of it as the 1% always getting to run open-source software because they have the clout to demand it (and under strict a NDA).

Occupy Microsoft!

Wait, how is this different than the failure that was vendors.slashdot.org back in 2006/2007?

Surely I'm not the only one who remembers when they invited Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and I forget who else to participate in tech discussions, and it turned into a total flop? I can't find the original Slashdot story talking about it (pulled down?), but I think it was somewhere around here.

Wow, that's the first time I've heard of anything a gesture-based (i.e. Minority Report) interface would be good for. Allowing a surgeon to manipulate an image display without touching anything is just cool.

As to the costs of joining the program (moving to Seattle, 6% cut, etc), it might be worth it if you get to have face-to-face contact with the engineers and developers of the Kinect SDK. Having the engineering team right there listening to comments, complaints, and suggestions to improve and modify the SDK would be very helpful.

It's also interesting to read his open letter to Coyne that is posted along with the video.

He may be wrong, deluded, full of himself, or just lying, but I have a strong sense that the reporting of this whole event was very badly skewed against Haught. At least now, with the presentations and video made available, we can see how it really played out.

Well, at least it's not all bad!

From T (useless) FA:

OMFG! A conspiracy unmasked! User settings aren't deleted!

So, because IE doesn't delete your settings it isn't being removed? By this same stupid logic we can determine that almost no modern software is ever actually removed.

I'm quite astounded with the depth of these morons' investigation.

FTFY ;)

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the False Premise.

Besides, people who are replacing their real computer with whatever the current "hot seller" is are not the primary customer of computer component retailers.

Assuming they don't do anything stupid to themselves, NewEgg is going to be just fine.

I'll see your NCIS and raise you a CSI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoM5kfZIQ0

The hacking thing was dumb and hurt to watch. CSI broke my brain.