@JS, the phones may start radiating less, but the cell tower signals will become stronger to make up for it. You'll get irradiated either way.

This will never fly anytime soon. There are too many open issues, and by the time you try to nail them down with some standards, the technology will have already moved on.

Cablecards would have been a decent solution if people had been able to by TVs and other devices with Cablecard slots. But today, the only two things on the market with Cablecard slots are Tivo and Moxi. TVs with Cablecard slots are no longer sold. Why is that?

Right now, the technology in set-top boxes is changing quickly. Each year, new features are available that make the old boxes seem obsolete. This is a double-edged sword for both consumers & cable companies, since no one likes to change out equipment all the time. But people do want new capabilities.

TV & the internet do appear to be on a collision course. More & more people are dropping cable & satellite and getting the content they want via the internet (or Netflix). Once a majority of people get their content this way, cable companies will start to turn off the TV broadcast pipes and just be ISPs. They may still sell cable TV service, but for this they'll just give you a little dumbed-down nettop CPU to hook up to your TV to pull in some channels via the web. This will be just for folks who want to stick with the old paradigm.

Perhaps by that time, YouTube (or some other site) will be so big, that they will be the "standard" way to watch video content in the future (they're pretty close now).

@Oflife, I guess so you can use a bra to carry it around.

@AdamSpruijt, I cannot imagine that B&N will let this pass. I'm thinking they might hold up shipments of Nook now so that they can lock it down further and prevent this "abuse" (from their standpoint) of their network dollars. We'll see.

@Wiggy Fuzz, presumably, they are compressed air tanks.

@Jack, the patent office WILL give out a patent for something that's already been patented, simply because they are overworked and don't have the resources to always identify the previous patents.

This specific work was patented by Michael Deering starting as early as 1992:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=head+tracked&FIELD1=TI&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=ABTX&d=PTXT

@loocas, it's not wrong. The user's head is shown as if there were a camera attached to the display, looking back at the user. In other words, the user appears mirrored.

@(Unverified)

Hey Engadget, the Source link is wrong. It should be:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20090313584&OS=20090313584&RS=20090313584

@(Unverified), I believe what happened is that the video camera hit the ground first, absorbing the shock of the impact for the SLR. The SLR made contact with the ground only after the rig rolled around. The fact that the video camera is pretty well destroyed supports this theory.

@geekthree, no, just showing my age with a reference to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprockets_%28Saturday_Night_Live%29