This makes sense, so long as they remain light. I own a netbook, exclusively, because of form factor. Up until recently, I had a 15" Macbook Pro, and liked it a lot. But even at 5.5 pounds -- even with its space-efficient form factor -- it was just too big. I didn't want to carry it with me unless I was travelling long distances for extended periods. So I traded it in, and now I have an HP110 netbook plus a desktop. It's easy to keep my documents synced between them. The netbook is powerful enough for me while I'm on the road (I mostly use it for writing academic-type articles). And for all of my heavy-lifting-type computing, I use the desktop at home. This, to me, is the perfect set-up. So I sincerely hope that netbooks are able to keep up with my needs in terms of portability.

Call me a troll, but I don't think that this poll reflects the interests of a well rounded person. Sure, I like Physics okay. I have a degree in a field related to Anthropology. But so much of the way that I think, and so much of the way that I think about science or math or engineering specifically, comes from literature and history. And I find that amazingly valuable. The humanities are undervalued in the United States. And this poll only reinforces that problem.

From the perspective of somebody who teaches liberal arts courses at a small university, I am really not keen on PowerPoint. I can see the point of it for business or conference presentations. There, the goal is to impart as much information, in as organized a manner, as possible. And speed and interactivity aren't much of an issue. But I find that a certain amount of inefficiency -- a willingness to repeat myself or to digress when needed -- is important pedagogically. It allows students to interact with me -- to ask questions that don't just get cursory answers, but shape the content of the course. And it means, as the article suggests, that students have a chance to digest a little bit while I write the important points down.

The result is that more than many of my colleagues, I end up writing on the chalkboard. Though an even better solution from my perspective is to project a blank Word document, or a Word document with just a couple of notes in it, and edit it -- take notes -- as I go along. Typing is much quicker and more readable than writing on the board, which means that rather than writing one or two words at a time, I can write full-sentence ideas, or exact quotes from students, that better reflect what is going on in class.

I can see how this might not be an optimal solution for every professor. If I had a large quantity of information that I needed to impart to students, or if I had photos or diagrams to show, I would probably do PowerPoint as well. But from the perspective of establishing an active learning environment even in a lecture setting, PowerPoint is more often than not counterproductive.

I really like the idea, but not so much the implementation. Two observations, and one theoretical quibble:

1) On the hardware side, turning the multitouch interface into a second touch screen that could work as a mouse-like input device (like the video shows), or bring up a keyboard (like the lower half of the iphone, only taking up the whole space) would be preferable. A keyboard without physical feedback would be awkward at first, but after getting used to it, you could do away with a physical keyboard entirely. You could also stick meta-materials from the UI down there. You could have something like a system dock with quick links to open programs and switch windows. And you could have, say, the clock, wireless indicator, battery indicator, etc. down there. It would cut down on clutter on the main screen.

2) On the software side, I'm not sure that I see the advantage of their version of a linear window manager the way they have it set up. Instead, it seems more useful to fan applications in and out, turning the name bars on the side into tabs. Window one opens and slips into place with its name bar on the left side of the screen. Window two opens from the right, partially obscuring window one. Window three moves window two all the way to the left, leaving window one entirely obscured, except for a tab. And so on. That way, you have a visual representation of every window on the screen at all times. Much simpler to track than having to zoom out.

And my theoretical quibble: I know, it's odd coming from a longtime mac user, but I dislike the concept of a physical UI so closely tied to a particular software system that you have no alternative but to use them together. I look at this, and I fear "The Windows Computer of the Future." You buy a multi-touch computer that has Microsoft's future OS on it, and the hardware interface is so specific that you couldn't, if you wanted, chuck the software and install Linux. I can imagine a Linux-like alternative being written for this interface. But I can also imagine a set of patents that would encumber alternate OSes, such that you end up with a One Computer One OS system. Which is far, far too restrictive, and invites vertical monopolistic practices.

Gah! I can't believe this. The geekiest place on Earth, and only one reference to the incredible hulk?! What, is gamma radiation now such a serious topic that we can't make fun of the news with a reference to ... unpopular culture?