Maybe flatscreen TV is ok, after all ...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hipjrf$3aj$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Who's talking about Europe? Not me. I'm talking about AMERICA.

You want "European",MOVE there. they have a long tradition of serfdom,too.

What a load of crap. "social justice" nonsense. If anything,socialism locks people into "institutional differences",whereas capitalism allows people upwards mobility,based on their own efforts. Socialism is "redistribution of wealth",benefitting those who determine who gets what.

Ah,the argument that any "gov't interference" is justification for massive interference. A false argument,to use Obama's words.

I said LIMITED government,not the absence of gov't.

The financial institutions are screwed up because Barney Frank(D) and Chris Dodd(D) blocked (Repub)legislation to correct other DemocRATs (Carter,Clinton) screwups.

AND,Dodd and Franks -personally benefitted- from it. It's become clear the DemocRATs are the Party of Corruption.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Oh, I do, too. I just feel the line of limitation falls a lot farther to the left.

I couldn't disagree more. The institutions were doing things that were not only stupid, but immoral. Had they not been so greedy, these things would not have occurred, regulation or not.

I believe in regulation where it is needed. And the banking industry needs more of it, badly.

I find it interesting to walk by the TV's in the showroom. At least it nice and warm. I can feel the heat comming off. Some are really warm. LED's seem to be the coolest.

I don't do plasmas since they have an idiotic shiny front screen.

My LCD Visio TV has a lip sinc control. For the most part its under control. Still idiotic that TV's don't have a selectable audio compressor or AVC.

greg

I am working on my new TV room. The real big problems now is trying to get more than one station, cause you need at least

2 channels at all times. I would really like to have at least 3 selectable channels to view at all times. Sure its a home theater, but its also a sports room.

In the old house we had two 32 inch CRTs set up in the living room. I can't think of one time where watching only one channel is any good, except for watching a special movie.

These cable boxes are getting out of hand. I should talk to my brother who has many channels in his resturant.

greg

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hiq5g6$b3c$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

That's an ABSENCE of limitation,what you postulate. Gov't control over as much as possible. Regulate here,regulate there;control,control,control.

So WHAT? you'd be wrong. It's called willful blindness.

"greed"? Is making a profit "greed"? First,they were forced into making questionable loans by DEMOCRATS.Then Democrats Frank and Dodd BLOCKED regulation proposed by Republicans,but BENEFITTED from their own corruption.

regulation that DemocRATs Dodd and Frank blocked.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Mine doesn't.

No. But making a profit, by whatever means possible, simply to make a profit, is. And grossly misrepresenting the nature of the securities you sell is absolutely wrong.

Oh come on, what's morally wrong about writing a loan to somebody who can't afford a house and lying in the application about their income, debts, or even if they have a job. Nothing wrong about writing the loan and punting it, right? It makes a nice profit and the short term is all that matters.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hiqben$qc$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

How did they(banks,I presume) "grossly misrepresent" the nature of the securities they sold? What securities?

exactly what are you referring to? Be specific.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

The bundling of shaky mortgages.

Wot, and CRTs didn't ? Many of the antiglare finishes on LCD screens serve only to further worsen the already fuzzy picture, caused by the horribly slow LC cells ... : )

Arfa

>

I just watched "Hellboy II" on a 59.58" plasma screen. Impressive.

I'm talking more the other way round where a 'standard' low res digital signal is being upscaled by the panel drive electronics, to make it display 'correctly' on a full HD 1920 x 1080 panel. The display driver seems better able to this in an artifact-free way on a plasma, than on an LCD. Downscaling is relatively easy. You just have to pick some H and V 'lines' to throw away, and then do it.

I have an expensive HP ws LCD monitor on the end of this computer, and it is very very good when operating in native res, but at lower resolutions, it is very poor. Likewise, I have a 32" LCD TV with VGA input, in my workshop, connected to both a TV antenna, and the computer attached to the weather sat receiver. When displaying a standard res TV signal, the picture is barely acceptable, but when it is switched over to its native V resolution of 720, and fed with an XVGA signal from the computer, the picture is like a fine quality photograph, which is exactly what I want for displaying weather sat pictures.

When the plasma TV that I now have is displaying a low res terrestrial DTV signal, the picture is very impressive - very nearly as good as my old Tosh CRT TV. The plas has a full HD panel, so considerable display drive processing is taking place to match that low res signal to the physical panel pixels, yet the picture is, as far as you can see, artifact-free. It was this factor which initially drew to me to this TV from the other side of the store. So convinced was I that it must be displaying an HD transmission, that I had the sales boy pull the antenna from the back of the TV to prove that the picture went away (it did!)

I don't like this 'con' in the way that most places are selling flatscreen LCDs. Almost everywhere that you go (as far as I have seen, true in the U.S. as well as here) these sets are displayed for sale with either an HD picture showing, or worse yet, a BluRay picture. Of course, they look excellent - LCD as well as plas. But when you ask to see them displaying a 'standard' res DTV signal, the store conveniently doesn't have one ...

John Lewis, where I bought my plas, were displaying the set with a standard res picture, and were able to also show me HD and BluRay, so they got the sale.

There has been quite a lot of bother this side of the pond with people buying LCDs based on what they saw in the store, and then being very disappointed when they got them home and stuck them on their own low-res antenna signals ...

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hir0rm$che$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

so how do you think the banks should have dealt with the shaky mortgages that they were FORCED to make? (by DemocRATs)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

display

better

I've compared the upscaling in my Sony BDP-S550 player with the upscaling in the Pioneer plasma set. There is no comparison! The player does an outstanding job, to the point where you sometimes wonder whether you're watching SD or HD, while the plasma is of, at best, mediocre quality.

Based on the reviews I've seen, the consensus is that both LCD and plasma sets do a poor job of upscaling SD.

Again, I don't see what motion artifacts have to do with the quality of upscaling.

Actually, the lines are averaged. Or they should be.

I've seen the same thing. But, again, that's due to poor scaling -- not that the display is LCD. (The fact you're watching a static image close up doesn't help, either.)

U.S.

picture

Few people buy flatscreen sets just to watch SD material.

No offense, but what did they expect? In the US, you can get digital SD and HD programming over the air. Except for low-powered "local" broadcasts, analog TV has been discontinued.

In the US, most people have cable service, and a set-top converter that supplies a fair amount of true HD adds $6 to your monthly bill (for Comcast). The image quality on SD is perfectly fine, and on HD is superb.

No one forced. Their broke their own rules.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hisefi$7t7$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

More willful blindness.

Again,you are mistaken. The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable loans.Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they had to make?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in the news. Specific evidence, please.

It's well known that the standards for mortgages were lowered so that more lower-income people (yes, and minorities) could become homeowners.

The Bush administration tried to tighten the rules (from the Clinton era) and were blocked by the (Democrat controlled) Congress.

This wasn't the only problem - there were many villians in this whole mess - on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in the private sector.

Mark Z.