@(Unverified) I believe and don't quote me on this. But that it requires more processing to scale the image down from 3k to those resolutions. The Scarlet isn't just skipping lines of data like the DSLR's do. It's actually scaling each image down.

Why is it that carriers can offer us $500 phones for $100 on a 2 year contract but can't offer us $300 netbooks for the same price or even free on the same contract?

Now if I could get an $800 laptop with decent specs (core2duo, nvidia 9400m, HDMI, 13-15" screen, 320+GB HD) for $200 on a two year wireless contract, I might jump at that. But not for a crappy netbook.

It doesn't make logical sense to ever go 100% cloud because:

1. You'll always need a local OS to run your hardware.
2. Local software will run faster.
3. Not everyone wants to be dependent on an internet connection all the time.
4. Not all data should be stored in the cloud.
5. Some people are paranoid about letting others control all their data.

I think the best case scenario for future computing is a hybrid of local machines, home servers and web servers.

Google has a winner with Android. Chrome OS however looks pretty non eventful. Like they are putting too much emphasis on the cloud. We'll never go 100% cloud.

More importantly, why is Divx still so popular on the net? Especially when MP4 is more standardized and almost every device these days support it. Mp4 should be everywhere, not divx/xvid files.

What is the cpu specs? Will we see it in the states? Sprint?

I don't understand why all these companies are prettying up the lids of laptops while leaving the bottom looking like generic crap.

I'd love a laptop in a black anodized aluminum case please. Not just the lid, the whole thing. Add a full sized DVI port next to the HDMI jack and firewire 800 jack. Put a nice big multi-touch track pad on it with two buttons. Oh, and throw some nvidia graphics in please.

Back in the year 2000 I spent $2000 on a VGA camera with a zoom lens. A Sony TRV900 DV camera. You make it sound like this is ridiculous.

@cjwild
I would assume he would be able to see the bus at all times, if the display goes black however, then he would naturally just take the glasses off.

I'm so glad you guys brought up the augmented reality angle because I firmly believe glasses like these are the future of computers. I believe that in the future none of us will be carrying around cell phones, instead we'll have eyewear like this. One side of the lens will act as a camera and the other side will act as a display. We'll be able to virtually see in the dark at night. We'll be able to walk around our house and change the colors of the walls.We'll be able to call up various widgets like a flat screen monitor, change it's size, virtually mount it on a wall and watch ultra hi-def content. When we walk away from it and the display will stay on the wall that we put it on. The system will remember where we put widgets/objects in relation to the real world using object/location recognition and GPS.

Further more we'll be able to play war games on our neighborhood streets with toy guns that actually shoot. Like playing a game of laser tag where you can actually see the laser exit the gun. The graphics processor will be able to see the real world objects we're shooting at (like a tree or a person) and graphically alter them to show damage in real time. This will totally redefine first person shooter games.

Eyewear like this will also help those who currently wear corrective lenses. No longer will bifocals or trifocals exist. This eyewear will replace them. When looking down at a menu or a book the system will intelligently be able to increase the size of the text making it easier to read.

The possibilities are endless. I could go on and on about ideas and uses for future augmented reality eyewear like this, but I think you guys get the point.