When my colleague David Strom pointed it out to us here at ReadWriteWeb, I made one of my artificially erudite remarks: I wonder how many RWW readers, I said, would consider CNBC passé?

Two of the larger factors that inspired me to seek the profession I'm in now are, curiously and perhaps ironically, television and conferences. I grew up admiring - and trying to emulate - a man named David Brinkley, who during the 1960s read the news during the dinner hour for NBC, at a time when TV news was electronic news. My interest in computer technology derived partly because I wanted to make my own games, but also from my sincere belief that interactive journalism would supplant broadcast journalism. For that reason, I became attracted to, and a frequent attendee of, computer and electronics conferences, CES among them. (Though my wife used to be my editor, I met her in person at COMDEX.)

There is a plausible argument that, at a time when most viewers have already heard about each story, a broadcast news program has become somewhat antiquated. And there is an equally plausible argument that an annual electronics conference at any one city, at a time when most retailers and suppliers and manufacturers do business with one another electronically on a daily basis, has become quaint, old-fashioned, and maybe even a waste of money.

But I'm not certain the Internet has actually replaced either one as a venue. There is no "Huntley-Brinkley Report" for the Web, no single authority for reliable news. And while that does not bother everyone, it bothers me because it means most folks' view of the world is hodgepodge, aggregated, assembled from multiple accounts, with varying levels of accuracy and dependability. When I read "Michael Jackson is Dead," I did not believe it; and when I read "Jon Bon Jovi is Dead," I questioned myself as to why I should not believe it.

And there is no CES for the Web, although I know the CEA has tried. The Web cannot replicate the directness, the urgency, and yes, the excitement of bringing every major player together into the same square mile.

So I'm curious to learn your thoughts, and here is where I'll point out the handy little comments section at the end: If history truly is outmoding all sense of authority, regality, pomposity, and prominence from these two once-dominant sources of information, then which one leaves our midst first?

According to a Reuters report, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson says he doesn't expect the iPad's launch to lead to very many new AT&T service subscriptions. "My expectation is that there's not going to be a lot of people out there looking for another subscription," he was quoted as saying.

He may be right. As consumers, we're starting to hit a saturation point with how many times we have to pay - again and again - for access to the same Internet. We have our broadband bill for at home, a mobile broadband bill for our laptop's "air card" and a third bill for our phone's data plan. Layer on top of that the numerous subscription services for Internet-accessible content, like Xbox LIVE, Netflix (via their "Watch Instantly" service) and premium music streaming sites like Pandora, Spotify or Last.fm, and it's clear that we've become overloaded. Will anyone out there be able to afford yet another wireless data plan? Apparently, AT&T isn't counting on it.

Will You be Missing Out?

If you plan to use the iPad mainly as an eBook reader and portable media device for streaming iTunes-purchased content, then you won't miss out too much when you go offline, which - let's face it - when you leave the house, that will be most of the time. The majority of iPhone games, all of which will work on the iPad out-of-the-box, won't be affected either. But what about when you want to read the newspaper or a magazine via the iPad? Without an Internet connection to download the latest, you'll be stuck with yesterday's news or last month's edition of Wired. And if you wanted to quickly share something you read on Facebook or Twitter, you would be out of luck, here, too.

However, many people may be willing to live with these limitations. Just as we've learned to sync our iPods and iPhones before we leave the house, we may soon need to remember to update our online newspaper and magazine apps, too. For this minor inconvenience, there's a major payoff: the monthly savings, of course, but also hundreds of dollars off the retail price of the iPad.

In any event, we wonder if AT&T's CEO has any insight into this situation or if he will be surprised by how popular the 3G iPad ends up being. Do you agree with his prediction? Lets find out! Take our poll (linked below) to tell us what iPad you'll buy. (If you're not buying an iPad, then just skip it!)

NY Times readers, click here to access the poll.

While it's true that the poll results do support these findings, they contradict what tech analysts have been saying about the device's potential. With sales expectations that range anywhere from 1 million to 6 million units over the course of this year, the iPad is predicted to do quite well. So is the survey wrong? Or is it the analysts?

The Apple iPad has the dubious glory of being one of the most over-hyped, hotly anticipated tech products of the year. Rumors surrounding the device prior to its launch had the tablet computer offering everything from OLED to multiple cameras to an innovative multi-touch enabled back. The reality was a much simpler device that looked more like a big iPod than the revolutionary product so many had built up in their minds.

But will this let-down in expectations actually lead to fewer sales? If you believe the Retrevo survey, that could easily be the case. The percentage of consumers who had heard about the iPad but were not interested in buying one jumped from 26% prior to Apple's announcement to 52% afterwards. Also, people who claimed they don't need an iPad went from 49% to 61%. That certainly sounds like bad news for Apple, doesn't it?

Survey Says: Marketing Stunt!

Well not so fast. Let's keep in mind that Retrevo likes to put out these sorts of link-baiting surveys from time to time. For example, a prior survey found that iPhone owners were materialistic and fickle people. (Who couldn't write about that?) We probably should just ignore these publicity stunts... err... surveys, but this one was begging to be shot down... or shored up, we suppose. After all, their survey phrases questions in a way that almost guarantees a negative response. Case in point: "do you need an iPad?" No one really needs an iPad. Not surprisingly, many people said "no." We need water, food, shelter and clothing. Once our basic needs are met, we then focus on obtaining other "needs" like a job, a car, an education, etc. The iPad, however, is something we want. We already have a computer. Maybe even a computer, a netbook and an iPod or iPhone. We can't in all honesty say we need an iPad. It may seem like a simple turn of phrase, but when crafting survey questions, word choice is important.

Will You Buy an iPad?

So instead of going by Retrevo's findings, we'll ask you instead. Will you buy the iPad? Will you rush right out and get one as soon as it hits store shelves? Or will you wait patiently for iPad 2.0? Or are you not interested at all? Now's your chance to weigh in and prove Retrevo's numbers wrong... or right, as the case may be. Just answer the question in the poll below:

The new logos are just a preview of AOL's revamped look and are meant to replace AOL's swoosh triangle for good. The AOL "running man," however, will stick around the brand in some form, although the company isn't saying exactly where he will show up.

But the updated logos are a little off-putting to some. Noted technology blogger Om Malik of GigaOM posted his gut reaction Sunday night, calling them out as "lame," "ambiguous at best," and "as sexy as the obese, shapeless humans living on Axiom, the flagship of the BnL fleet in Pixar movie WALL-E." Ouch!

But it's easy to see where he's coming from. After all, some of the logos look more like the sorts of doodles you would find gracing high-schoolers' notebooks - like the hand doing the "sign of the horns" hand gesture. Really. "Rock on!," shouts the logo, but it reminds us more of a middle-aged heavy metal fan reminiscing about their youth than the young, hip company AOL desperately hopes to become.

Then there is the pink glob. The best way to describe this logo is a fluffy wad of bubble gum. A green scribble looks like someone had trouble getting their ballpoint ink pen going and a generic blue swirl seems to signify nothing but a lack of imagination. What content sites are these logos even associated with? Your guess is as good as ours.

CNET calls the goldfish logo "cute" (sarcastically?), but AOL isn't trying to build the next LOLcats empire, so maybe they should have forgone "cute" for something a little more meaningful and modern.

But that's just our opinion. What's yours? Let us know in the poll below.

My documents are spread out across Google Docs, Office Live, SkyDrive, and Box.net. My photos are on flickr and Facebook. My music and video collections are backed up locally to multiple external drives (since I'm too cheap to pay for the hundreds of gigs of online storage needed), but one thing that wasn't backed up anywhere but on my own PC was the thing that may be the most important of all: my iPhone.

How Do You Backup Your Contacts? The Results of the Twitter/FriendFeed Poll

Is an iTunes backup stored off-site the most efficient way to go? Is that how most people handle this issue? Curious, I did what any social media addict would do: I asked Twitter and FriendFeed. The answers I received have me pondering my options. After receiving nearly 30 responses, I was surprised to find how many people rely on Google as their address book (14 responses). In fact, keeping your addresses and phone numbers in Google and syncing that address book to your iPhone is actually what a lot of people consider a "backup" these days.

But as much as I trust in Google, the old I.T. girl in me can't help but think "single point of failure, single point of failure!" Truth be told, several folks must feel the same because they also used another method on top of the Google solution, often MobileMe.

MobileMe wasn't as popular as I would have expected, though. Only five people said they used it. That number would probably be higher if it wasn't a paid service.

Seven people counted on iTunes to do the backup for them, but a few were careful to also make sure their PC was backed up as well.

I'm hesitant to sync my Google contacts to my iPhone for reasons I've stated before, but it couldn't hurt to make sure that my iPhone contact information also exists in my online address book...something that I know isn't the case as I recently found out when the phone's battery died during a phone call and I frantically searched for my friend's number on the web.

iPhone Contact Backup: Yep, There's An App for That

I also recently happened across an additional solution which you could add to your backup routine with ease. Called iDrive Lite, this free iPhone application will quickly backup all your contact info to your device in case you ever accidentally delete an important address or phone number. You'll also want to activate the app's "Web Enable" feature which backs up your contact data to the web where you can access it anytime at idrivelite.com. Not bad for a free service.

Your Turn! RWW Poll

If you didn't have a chance to participate in the Twitter poll, please participate in this one below. Now, we know not everyone is an iPhone user here at RWW, but we know that a lot of you are, so let us know how you backup your contacts! If you find yourself marking "other," feel free to comment and explain.

Vote in our poll below and let us know your thoughts about Technorati's relevance in the comments below.

Though the shift toward the PC for video watching is more pronounced among the younger set, Ipsos said the trend was "relatively consistent across all age groups and genders." Even though the study only looked at the viewing habits of those who have streamed or downloaded video content, previous Ipsos MediaCT studies have found that is a rapidly growing segment of the population.

"Today, about half of all Internet users aged 12 and up have streamed a video file online in the past 30 days," said Adam Wright, Director at Ipsos MediaCT. "We really see these share gains in non-traditional video channels as not simply an isolated, generation-driven market effect, but rather a large macro-trend in the way consumers want their video content delivered that those in the entertainment industry should increasingly be paying attention to as we look forward to the rest of 2008 and beyond."

Last week, 28% of ReadWriteWeb readers indicated that they prefer online TV to cable. Now we'd like to ask you where you're watching most of your video these days? Bear in mind that a DVD watched on your television, is still video consumed via TV. (We realize this is not the same type of poll conducted by Ipsos MediaCT -- though it was clearly inspired by their study.) Let us know in the comments the different places you're watching video these days.

Zogby International and 463 Communications released the results last night of an interesting and well executed poll about the attitudes US adults have about the internet. Nearly 10,000 respondents were included and I presume the companies did not seek out the craziest 10,000 people in America (only 20% were from the West Coast, for example) - so these are probably pretty valid results.

To summarize: an alarming percentage of respondents are open to brain implants that allow them to access the internet with their minds and that allow their children's locations to be tracked, they think government censorship of online video content is acceptable, the internet makes them feel closer to God and less close their significant others - but their own identities on the internet are not very important to them. This is frightening stuff.

* 24% of respondents said the Internet could serve as a replacement for a significant other, including 31% of single people, 31% of self described political "progressives" and 18% of those who consider themselves "very conservative."

* More than 1 in 4 respondents have a profile on a social networking site, including 78% of those ages 18-24, 32% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans. Only 14% of respondents said the internet is an important part of what they consider to be their identity. That's the aggregate number, I'd like to see what percentage of 18-24 say it's an important part of their identity. These numbers may or may not be important for those of us watching digital identity controversies involving data and identity portability and control.

* Brain Implants. Thank you Zogby for asking about brain implants. "How likely would you be to implant a device into your brain that enabled you to use your mind to access the internet if it could be done safely?" 11% of respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to do so. Only 4% said they were not sure! 3 out of 4 said they were not at all likely, but that's not very reassuring.

* Kid tracking chip implants. 18% said they would feel better being able to track their child's where about more than they would feel uneasy putting a device in their child for that purpose. Children do become adults and just imagine if that tracking device could also be used to access the internet! Oh the future, how exciting it is.

* Tracking implants are probably most appropriate for people who generally trust authority figures to watch out for their best interests. If you ever took serious issue with the authorities you'd probably regret having a tracking implant in your arm. How do respondents feel about government control in regard to all this stuff?

More than half of respondents believe that internet content, like video, should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 36% said the blocking of internet video would be unconstitutional. Since uncensored internet video so far has brought our society to the brink of absolute ruin, I can understand those beliefs.

* God. When you're putting a web-enabled tracking microchip implant in your child's brain and calling for government control of online content - how does all of this make you feel about God? So far, 10% of respondents said the internet has made them feel closer to God, including 20% of Born Again Christians. Wait until you get that brain implant that lets you access the internet with your mind - you'll feel like God. Until you fall on the wrong side of that government regulation you were so excited about and are easily tracked by the same chip in your head. Then you'll feel like you're in hell.

You will be, we all will be - thanks in no small part to the beliefs captured in this survey. Mine is just another voice, from someone who spends too much time in the hive mind already, urging you to say no to the implant (and go hug your significant other).