Those crazy Engineers ...

[Defender_16]

What an age we live in. Now if only we can hold off on Nuking each other we might really get somewhere.

 

Holy crap, the guy's confident that this new TV will kill the Plasma?

[DarthTofu]

I still don't see the huge differences in picture quality people claim that there are- I look at the TV we use which is from I think 1994, and the picture looks very similar to the TVs you see at, say, Radio Shack, on Circuit City. I think most electronic companies just go on about the picture to get you to buy something that is infintesimally better than its predecessor... But that's just me.

[Evaders99]

You need both the high def TV and the high def signal

It is so much better.

[JediHunter]

my work just got a new HDTV in the conference room... and man... it is sweet!.. there is a difference there Tofu.. between HD and regular.. but as to regular TV on a plasma versus CRT.. my eyes arent good enough to notice a large difference.. but there is a slight one i think.. i got this huge pdf file from the I.T. guy here at work.. there are many different types out there.. just not sure if i can tell them all apart.. or notice the difference itself..

[DarthTofu]

Say what you will. The "High Deffinition" TVs I have seen have very few differances from our own older model (Which, truth be told, has high def cable...)

[JediHunter]

Tofu, I hate to break it to you.. but high def channels wont come in high def on a regular tv... they'll look regular. And that stuff at the store, its possible (though doubtful) that they arent playing a high def channel for demo. Go to Best Buy and check out the tv's again man... and make sure you ask the dude if they have high def tv's and if its playing a high def channel... screw movies.. im not sure anyone will be able to tell the difference there... especially since they are not filmed in high def.. (blueray is a rip off).. check out like.. discovery science HD with that tv... i KNOW you will be able to tell the difference.

[Mad78]

I don't think HD channels are yet opular enough to make the purchase of such a TV necessary for the moment.

[JediHunter]

now that i will agree with.. its not worth paying 3000 dollars US for a TV then on top of that another 50 bucks a month for the digital cable plus the 5 dollars per month for HD service plus 8 per month for the HD box thats required.. it adds up way too fast.. and you only get a limited amount of channels which you probably will never watch anyway... and wont come in true HD either...

[DarthTofu]

...Thus why you say "Screw it" and stick with an older model TV that still works...

[Defender_16]

Everyone keeps talking about 'high def.'

 

For the last time, I'm not high!

[Krytos]

Why settle for HD TV, when you can get an HDR HD LCD TV?

 

 

... that's High Dynamic Range High Definition Liquid Crystal Display TV

 

------

 

EDIT: In my haste, I forgot to point out a few key features for those who don't want to read the article.

First, the TV has a contrast ration (theoritically) of invinity, due to the back light system being capable of pure blacks.

It has a colour range of 48bit

Modern CRTs are 8 bit colour, most LCDs are 6bit colour with the more expensive ones being the full 8 bit.

Oh, and it costs US$39,000 and has tones of problems

Still cool though

Edited October 15, 2006 by Krytos

[Evaders99]

Note that television stations in the United States will all have to switch to high def by 2009. These are the free stations you are use to and most of them have a high def signal already available. More modern TVs can pick up the high def signal, while older analog TVs may need a box to do it.

[JediHunter]

  DarthTofu said:

...Thus why you say "Screw it" and stick with an older model TV that still works...

 

Yes... but saying that... compared to saying this

  DarthTofu said:

I still don't see the huge differences in picture quality people claim that there are

 

  DarthTofu said:

Say what you will. The "High Deffinition" TVs I have seen have very few differances from our own older model.

Is very different.

@Evaders: You serious?! They are forcing us to HD in '09?.. i didnt know that..

[DarthTex]

  JediHunter said:

@Evaders: You serious?! They are forcing us to HD in '09?.. i didnt know that..

I believe the original plan was for 2006, but it seems to have been pushed back, and again, and again, and ...

 

One of the original issues was that the TV Corporations had to relinquish their original TV frequencies to get their HD band. But they (the TV Corps) wanted to "sell" their old bands for $. The US Gov't then pointed out the "fine print" that the gov't owned those bands and that they were given to the TV Corps for free use and the gov't retained ownership. Without the $ from selling the old bands, the TV Corps then went on the delay saying they needed extra time to purshase equipment & such, since they were tight on $.

 

Cable companies are going to make some good $ in the near future: 1) they'll provide HD signals for those with HD TV's, & 2) they'll provide converted signals (from HD down to analog) for those who don't have an HD TV or some kind of "box" to convert for them. Of course, the people making converter boxes will make some quick $, but as more people eventually switch to HD TV, they won't need the converter boxes (basically a "niche" market with a relatively short lifespan). The first converter boxes will probably be expensive, and it'll be cheaper to get cable & let them do the converting. By the time the boxes become cheap enough, either people will be on cable or will just decide to bite the built & get HD TV. Analog is a dinosaur; it just hasn't realized it's dead just yet.

[DarthTofu]

And on a completely new note in Science: We created a new element!... for all of one millisecond

 

I vote that we name it "Tofutium," but that's just me, of course.

[Defender_16]

Lol. Well atleast they actually did it this time instead of just saying they did.

 

 

  JediHunter said:

*blows off dust* i miss this thread... and all the posts we had lost.. but im trying not to dwell.. so.. through the magic of Google caching (haha) i am reposting one that Tex put in here to revive this thread on May 3, 2006

 

Scientists gain insight into invisibility through a complex superlens

Is this related?

 

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Invisibility.png

[DarthTofu]

It casts a faint shadow in strong light, but still makes things invisible... it would fit on your finger- They've created the One Ring!

[Mad78]

Very cool... So when can i have my invisibility cloak?

[Defender_16]

In 50-100 years depending on how many resources were put into it I bet.

 

 

You'd need a compuer system capable of continiously recomputing the shape of the object you want made invisable if you were to use something flexible like cloth. Give the computing and nanotech requirements for that 150 years say.

 

Hard, not truely impossible I would say.

 

EDIT:

A Power Armour Exoskeleton would be hard enough and move predictably enough that it would be much easier to make an invisibility system for it.

 

I could see this stuff being used on aifcraft to make them invisible to radar within 20-30 years. It's just a slightly diffrient wavelength from what they've already done for.

[DarthTofu]

We already have a sort of cloaking device. I saw an article on it a long time ago. I believe that it consisted of a small box of flatscreen transmitters (Lightweight TVs, essentially) and a camera for each side. When one looked at it they saw a live image of what was on the other side of the person or object. It was hailed as an invisibility cloak at the time. I think it was in Popular Science...

[Defender_16]

That doesn't do anything for radar reflection however.

[DarthTofu]

Fair point- by 'cloaking device' I meant 'indistinguishable to the naked eye.' It would be more effective to call it highly evolved camo. than to call it a cloaking device.

[Defender_16]

A solution -and source of- several problems.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1755908,00.html

 

 

I've already been thinking about technologies similar to this for some time now since I'm anti-abortion.

 

I'm trying to decide on weather I should tell my 'Super Christian' Uncle about it or not.

[JediHunter]

I would think that those who are pro-life due to religious ideals (at least the ones i know) would never accept this... its just as much an abomination as abortion is...

[DarthTofu]

I'm actually pro choice when it comes to abortion. Provided that the child has only been developing for a month at most, granted. Call me crazy, but I'd really say that's when "life" begins (On a spiritual level, that is. This is based primarily upon the conception of the brain.)

 

I see this new technology as a boon to those who lack the abilities to reproduce, but would still want to. There is, however, the issue that A) Our population around the world has already skyrocketed and B) This is going to make getting adopted for an orphan all the more difficult. Give it enough time and this may well turn into "A Brave New World."

 

I'd say that I'm for this, but only if it's for those with special needs as opposed to those who just don't want to go through childbirth, though are perfectly capable. There needs to be an ethics draft on the matter, I guess.