I am CURRENTLY attending classes and there are professors who specifically state - both during the first lecture and in their syllabus - that any recording, copying, video taping, etc. is strictly forbidden. I know you may think it is odd (I agree), and I should ignore those rules or this and that, but why would I want to piss off the person who submits my grade?
Plus, there is a significant enhancement in the amount of information you remember when you involve more senses - seeing and hearing is great, but when you add the process of recreating what you see it engages a lot more of your brain and gives you a better chance to remember and process information. That is particularly useful when you're in the process of learning (your brain is highly receptive to the intake of information) and you have the ability to get answers to questions or clarification before you cement information in your brain (after you leave).
Bottom line, taking notes is a valuable part of learning. Using computers to enhance note quality, as well as accessibility and retention is a brilliant idea that warrants far more attention (IMO) than it has received.
I concur with what you're saying, and I have a couple of points to add:
I feel like I've made my point, though I could go on. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't own a tablet (by any definition, or a Netbook). I have used them, I have talked to people who live with them every day. They don't work for me and what I do.
I agree, which is the purpose for the following statement:
Or are you trying to argue that anything that benefits people (social security, healthcare...) contributes to "paying people to stay home and watch TV"?
In his own post, he refers to social programs as things which "[pay] people to stay home and watch TV." By his own definition, and my interpretation of its meaning, he is completely wrong. He made a very ambiguous (not to mention loaded) statement and I called him out on it.
I'm not attempting to impregnate my own opinion here (or maybe I am, but not on purpose), but you can't defend his statement by saying things like education are covered under his definition of "social programs."
Also, that chart is about the nicest way anyone could possibly portray the "defense" budget. As mentioned in a later comment, the defense budget is actually sourced much differently than the alleged "social programs."
In other words, the "defense" budget in the United States is greater than the next 20 countries (ranked by their defense budget) combined. And just FYI, only 11.5% of that budget goes into that R&D you praised. But hey, I guess that's doing pretty well since we only seem to think 4% of our federal budget belongs in education! (now my opinions are showing)
Seriously, I'm a huge Android fan but... I'd take an iPod Nano wristwatch over these any day: cheaper, better battery life, and easy to use
Error in operator: add beer