The problem with screen keyboards is that you actually have to look at the screen to hit the keys correctly. With real keyboards, touch typists have a physical reference to position their hands. That's why they type blind. With a flat screen keyboard, however, you lose the physical reference frame.

The patent for this screen keyboard, however, uses multitouch technology to automatically align the keys to the position of the hand. Since the keys are always in the same relative position to your fingers, you will always have a physical point of reference: Your own hand. That way, you can blindingly hammer your keys against the screen, knowing that your fingers will always hit the keys they are aiming for.

The patent also details the way this virtual keyboard would appear anywhere on the screen: Just place your hands as you would normally do while typing, and the keyboard will pop up. [USPTO via WMPowerUser]

Apparently nobody had thought to test if a punted football could reach that high, and when Titans punter AJ Trapasso hit the screen, none of the officials knew quite what to do. It's not a reviewable play, but even if it were, it's not really fair to make a team waste a challenge on interference from the stadium which is entirely not the team's fault.

The solution? The NFL could change the rules so there's a "re-do" option if the screen is hit, which will require another referee to be watching the flight of the ball (none were at the game last night). Or the Cowboys owners could raise the screen to be out of the ball's flight path, but that would cost at least $2 million. It's a tricky situation, and one that'll have to be worked out quickly.

My suggestion: This screen seems like a real danger to the integrity of professional football. If the Cowboys owners will cover the delivery fee, I will be willing to take it off their hands. My email address is over there on the masthead. [ESPN, thanks Robert!]

Billed as an "intelligent, multi-user Touchwall" the kit, made by Schematic, uses their previous multitouch panels to create a surface which can be used by multiple people.

It is being used for the first time at an advertising festival in Cannes, where it can recognize attendees by their RFID badges and offers them a personalized workspace wherever they happen to be standing. It also displays relevant info, such as 3D maps of where they need to go and features a built in social network element for users to leave each other messages.

But the special thing about the Touchwall is its multi-user capabilities where people can work side by side and even share information. [BoingBoingGadgets]

Granted, this is partially my fault—I didn't keep it in the ugly cover that comes with the Kindle, just like I don't lock my iPhone or any other gadget in disfiguring covers, since I'm all about naked gadgets (almost entirely for aesthetic reasons), and I thought my bag's padded sleeve provided sufficient protection. Apparently it does not when you have a heavy DSLR on the other side of the stuffing and some guy slams into your bag.

A book made out of dead trees would've buckled and creased and returned to its original shape. So would a reader with a flexible display like Plastic Logic's, which at one point was said to withstand getting smacked by a shoe. Which actually takes it one step closer to emulating books than the more fragile Kindle or any other E-Ink powered reader—too bad Plastic Logic's reader is about a year away. (Though it says something about the Kindle that I'd sort of taken to treating it almost like a real book, and that this is the first time I'd actually materially felt the gap between it and paper.)

The story for other kinds of flexible displays, like bendy OLED, is actually even more depressing, since "progress" at this point means they're now 5 years away. Given how easy it is break screens, and how much we depend on them now—witness the slow recession buttons, though I'm sure they'll experience a retro counter-touch resurgence—rugged displays that we can treat like organic materials instead of delicate magic under the constant threat of destruction by mere everyday living might be more revolutionary than expected.

Or maybe I'll just have to learn to be more careful. [Giz's Kindle Review]

The massive display weighs 600 tons, is 180 feet long and 72 feet tall. It's made of 10.5 million LEDs. When replays are shown, they are automatically made into slow motion. More than ten minutes of direct exposure will render a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader sterile. Every fan featured on the screen will get a million dollars deposited into an account of their choice. You can see it in motion here. [Dallas News]

Seriously. By then you think they should have realized how the frak to get this whole video communication thing to work right. I'm not even asking for 4096p high definition holographic projections with Smell-o-rama™. Heck, even the holograms look like crap in Star Wars. But this is just wrong.

On one side you have the Federation, with technology capable of warp speed and tele-transportation and frikking photon torpedoes and phasers and generators that can create cheese-and-bacon burgers and fries and Guinness out of thin air. On the other, the Romulan Empire, which can do the same but wearing funky pants and eating tempura tofu instead of greasy burgers. And yet, the useless sons-of-Klingon-bitches can't get their communications to look half-way decent.

I mean, check this newly-released image from the film. Even my iChat AV works better—and that's crap on its own. Unless... unless they are telling me the Enterprise's screen is 3D and the image requires green-and-red eyeglasses, that is.

This 18.5-inch Samsung concept display is supposed to fix that. Just connect it to your Samsung laptop and Bob's your uncle: Almost-perfectly aligned cursor and image panning. [Samsung]

TechRestore replaces the entire screen and LCD panel—overnight, even—for $199. It comes with a one-year warranty. Here's how it works:

We remove the glass screen cover...then replace the glossy screen with a matte-finish screen that has the exact same specifications as the original; same resolution, same color depth, same LED backlight...you get the idea. We install a custom black bezel around the edge of the screen that matches the finish of the MacBook Pro and looks great. The bezel has all the required holes in it for the iSight and other items that sit at the top of the MacBook Pro screen housing.

Downside is that it's only for the MacBook Pro, and if you decide you wanna go back to glossy later on, you're stuck.

For a more temporary, but lesser quality fix, you can get an anti-glare cover, like the iVisor from Moshi, who'll be offering it for the MacBook and Pro. It'll be a lot cheaper, presumably:
[TechRestore, Moshi, Hat tip Macworld UK]

I was curious what it would be like. I mean, I had my reasons, but none of them were really great, to be honest.

Small TVs use less power, although not as much as you'd expect. For example, David Katzmaier, TV dude from CNet explained to me that in one example, comparing a 32-inch LCD by Samsung to its 52-inch equivalent, its power consumption jumps only 68% for 168% more real estate. Not bad.

Small TVs are cheaper. Average prices on Amazon for a set in the 22-29 inch range hover around 500 dollars; sets over 50 inches go for 5-10 times that much for about 4x the real estate. There's a lot of value in smaller sets. But in this economy, some analysts believe that small TV sets won't get any cheaper, while bigger sets will get a bit less expensive. So the relative value these days is somewhat diminished.

If I had a real reason to make the switch, it was social.

I always grew up with a TV as the overriding piece of furniture in my livingspace; the TV was and is the 800 pound gorilla, or elephant in the room, with all seating beholden to the screen. In a house arranged like this, it feels like the room belongs to the TV, standing over everything in its domain. A room like that looks like it belongs to an overgrown geek (true) and never feels like it belongs to an adult and I was starting to feel self conscious about it. A small TV would not dominate the room.

Still, using a 23-incher is quite a stretch down. My couch is about 8 feet back from the entertainment system, and excellent for slouching and watching. According to most sizing charts, the room I sit in should have a TV between 32 and 50 inches. I usually use a 52 or higher as I review sets.

Watching tiny TV was surprisingly good at first.

Standard definition TV looked perfect almost on every channel, because pixels were smaller. From 9 feet away, the 23-inch set made standard def look almost as good as HD on the 50+ inch sets. I could not differentiate between HD and SD at times, depending on the material. Wii also looked good, with its standard def output.

The same went for DVDs. Sorta. There is no doubt that the cinematic experience is diminished exponentially on a screen you have to squint to see finer detail on. This was less a resolution issue (res appeared great) than a size issue. I just didn't feel the impact of Batman base jumping off of Hong Kong skyscrapers in IMAX on a screen smaller than the monitor on some PCs, from across the room.

The opposite happened when I played Xbox 360. It is here where resolution is not used, as on blu-rays, to display finer gradients of hair and particles of rock or more detailed skin or exploding cars. Man made textures on a small TV are fine. But here's what you miss: The Xbox and most modern games make deliberate use of every pixel in two facets, which make it impossible to watch on a small screen, no matter if HD or not: perspective and interface. The fonts and menus and prompts and health gauges and reticules on most games are ridiculously detailed. And perspective was the defining drawback moment, especially when playing the zombie killing game Left for Dead: when you're sniping a zombie from 100 meters and the clouds roll over the moon, and the greys crush to black, can you see the zombie clearly enough as he runs towards you from the distance to make the shot your life depends on? On a small TV, like this, I pulled up a chair and sat 5 feet away, transforming the experience into a sort of PC gaming event. With split screen, we were all 3 feet away and very cozy, thank you.

Even with the eyesight of an eagle, there's only so much resolution the eye can take in from a distance, while looking at anything but a huge TV.

But rather than conclude that we all need bigger TVs, I'm going to say that PS3 and Xbox owners need them first. Second, movie buffs, but movie buffs might want to consider projectors. For most of us, just watching TVs and flicks, I can see how a smaller set would do well enough most of the time. Most of the time. For someone else.

All you need is $12 and you'll be able to get your own. Might we recommend two? You do have two wrists, and we know for a fact that you're a dirty guy with a dirty screen. Man, watermelons are so great. [Urban Couture NY via Nerd Approved]Yes

Traditional touchscreens, like that iPhone everyone's been talking about, can sometimes be tough to see and operate at the same time. After all, your fat hands are blocking the screen while you tap. If you've ever tried to film yourself using a touchscreen, you'll know how annoying it can sometimes be. This tech provides a translucent screen, and the touch sensors are actually on the back of the screen itself. You can see the outline or an impression of your fingers on the display, but the entire screen is now uncovered while you control it. This apparently allows for much smaller virtual buttons, since you can see exactly what you're touching.

LucidTouch, NanoTouch's predecessor, was a cool proof of concept but was far too bulky and ungainly to be of much use. The new NanoTouch has much the same tech, but in a slim 2.4 inch package that'd be perfect for phones, mp3 players, and other pocketable kit. The makers are excited about its use in wearable tech and fashion, but I'd be plenty excited to see any example of wearable touchscreens that aren't powerfully female-repellent. [New Scientist]

However, the new MacBook is a bit better than the old MacBook in terms of brightness, but the LED backlighting adds a bit of a blue tint to blacks. The Air doesn't have this problem, and neither does the MacBook Pro. Minor differences, but it should help the decision if you're trying to determine whether a MacBook is "good enough", or if you should go for a MacBook Pro.

As a reminder, here are the MacBook vs. MacBook Pro shots. It should be obvious which is which.

Samsung couldn't accomplish this with a normal glass substrate for obvious reasons, so they pioneered a new "sputtering" technique to coat the panel with a flexible membrane. Here's how it goes: a block of the coating material is blasted with an ion gun, causing it to eject bits of itself into an thermodynamically unbalanced cloud of atoms, which then cling to and form a film on anything else in the vacuum chamber — namely, this floppety panel.

This looks like it is just a one-off, unpriced expo unit, but at least we know it's possible. This tech come interesting close in capability to Samsung's other recently demonstrated ultra-thin color display, so we might have the beginning of an confusing display tech overlap. Cool, Samsung. Please sort that out, and wake me up when my shirt is a TV. [TechOn via OLED Display]

We tried these out on our quite dusty laptop screen and it did a better job than the 3M screen we get at trade shows. It's $16, but comes with one extra cleaner. Our quick verdict? It works, it's compact, and it isn't all that expensive, plus the material is machine washable so you won't have to get your hands all that dirty. [Aevoe via Product Page]

This plan first launched into action when a co-worker of the nameless woman at the Apple Store noticed her computer online and notified the woman. She was then able to log into her computer and the rest is history. So the moral of the story is this: If you steal a MacBook, please be sure to cover the iSight with some tape. Otherwise, you could also be charged with a second degree felony. [Iohud via TUAW]