and Monsanto sues him for using "their property" without paying them for it.

The main question is who drafted such laws that allow for crimes without intent. It goes against every principle of the US penal law. And it's far fetched even in civil court.

No need to ask why.

Let's say you plant ordinary soybeans, not Monsanto's product. Your neighbor plants their product and pays the costs. Afterwards seeds from his property blow onto your property and begin to grow. You haven't paid Monsanto for that right and they haul you into court and sue you. The law now allows th...

While the prior statement is true, what we are seeing is the methodology used ends up profiting very few people while enslaving the masses to them.

If Monsanto had it's way anything and everything we plant would require paying them a fee. That's the road we're on.

So let's thank Obama for behaving like Mitt Romney.

Monsanto:

http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsa ... ption.html

"We The People?" Get to the back of the bus.

"Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' written by Monsanto-sponsored senator"

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/

Well, after further examination I deemed the 720p sets not worthwhile. The Samsumg PN43E450, this year known as the PN43E4500, 1024 by 768 at $400. The Samsung PN51E530, at $650, obviously wins not only with a 51 inch screen, but with 3 times as much resolution at 1920 * 1080. Both have plain glass ...

I haven't seen a Plasma TV with rectangular pixels in ages. My uncle runs a 1080p model with 56", which he bought quite cheaply (~600 Euro or so). If you can live with the high power consumption, I thought the colours were brilliant and the viewing angles beyond critique. None of the 1080 models ha...

The 1024 * 768 plasmas cost $400.

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P42X5?t=specs

Click on tech specs, 4:3 pixel resolution, physical aspect ratio 16:9.

Bogus? You decide.

washu wrote:Don't think of it in terms of stretching, it's still a 16:9 image but with less horizontal resolution.

Like the stepper motors in Epson inkjet printers. 5760 x 1440 dpi, no change in overall size or shape, but different levels of resolution horizontally versus vertically. Color me not impressed.

Okay, all the TV I've ever looked at have the proper proportions of pixels to correspond with the screen size. I've certainly heard of problems with HD TV's doing worse that regular TV's on regular broadcasts because of poor down sampling, though. I would ask for a demo that you provide the disk fo...

NeilBlanchard wrote:But it would look stretched? Or truncated.

No, just less resolution horizontally.

I was at BB today, had to shake my head at the high def "demos."
Everything was still or slow moving.

The picture isn't stretched in the conventional sense, descaling is embedded with the horizontal resolution. The screen's 4:3 pixel aspect ratio no longer defines the viewing aspect ratio, by using rectangular pixels. It's a cheat.

Non-square pixels. So I learned in one of the most bizarre methods of selling a "wide screen TV" the resolution is 1024 * 768, normally a 4:3 format, but stretched out. The widescreen signal (1280*720) is downscaled and then displayed on the rectangles. It's the biggest farce I've ever seen, next t...

OK, now I'm starting to lose my mind. Looking at 2 720p plasmas, supposedly 16:9 screens, they are both spec'd out as 1024*768, which is 4:3 Examples used: The Samsung PN43E450 and this one http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P42X5?t=specs You need 1366 * 768 to get 16:9, so what's going on here?

Even today to a smaller extent, when you researched buying a pc monitor you could obtain specs for dot pitch.

I wonder what the dot pitch of a 42" 720P screen is versus the dot pitch of a 65" 1080P screen?

CA_Steve wrote:Curse you, Pythagoras! Curse you, Euclid!

So why buy a large TV? Get a Kindle with 1600 * 1200 resolution and hold it up against your eyeballs.

NeilBlanchard wrote: Where are you finding 42" plasma screens for 1/2 the price of an LED LCD? Why are they so inexpensive?

Bottom line LEDs are not twice as expensive, but top of the line LEDs are big bucks. Direct lighting versus edge versus full array.

Local dimming is a joke, it is too indiscriminate.

A video card's refresh rate was always limited by the bandwidth of its RAMDAC, a chip that is no longer in the equation. Sorry I don't have a more complete answer. I think response times for LCDs are a bigger issue.

It "seems" today's plasma is fine after a burn-in period. Avoiding tape banners, static logos, and letterbox format for about 150 hours, then you're OK. Also running decreased brightness and contrast during this time.

There was an interesting review about a Panasonic Plasma on Amazon. Seems the guy experienced burn-in. Called and complained to Panasonic support, they said he did something wrong, displayed static items for extended periods of time. Yeah he has certain symbols and emblems that remained imprinted on...

Ain't nobody got a screen that W - I - D - E.

xan_user wrote:

CA_Steve wrote:Crap.

x2.
sad news. scythe is disappearing and thermaltake is still around... WTF?

X3.

There is a lot of different LCD screens, and the newest LED backlit models have "full backlight" that use a large number of LED's and this gives one big advantage to the image quality: dynamic contrast ratio. Getting charged an arm and a leg for that priviledge, twice the going rate for plasma. A c...

It must have been a very small splash, still I would have liked to have seen it.

http://store.vizio.com/news/VizioXVTPro ... nemaWideTV

Still available:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9 ... n_LED.html

A 300 watt CRT, I doubt power factor is present, just a huge transformer. I'm using the PC for a player, as it doesn't truncate the format at all. I don't believe CRTs ever had low contrast ratios. Tim851, only plasma sets are made at 720p anymore. I can't stand SD softness on an HD set, looks like ...

I have a 32inch 4:3 HDTV, it uses 300 watts. I only use it for DVDs, and even at that wattage it works out to 4 cents an hour, with some winter heat as a freebie. The upper end full array LED sets are so expensive I doubt one would ever recoup the initial investment.

200 watt usage doesn't amount to a huge cost over the course of a year. Lots of times frankly there's nothing on worth watching. And I use a smaller analog TV for casual viewing and background noise. Last year's Panny ST50 would probably suffice just fine. But customer ratings even on budget 720p 42...

Am considering a plasma set. New models just becoming available, should see mark downs on last year's models. One thing I went back to is viewing from further away. Prefer to get the entire picture in the center of attention. Yeah you do see things happening in the edges of your vision, but then you...

Looking at 42 inch TVs. Yeah I can stand in front of TVs for a bit at chain stores, but it's annoying/distracting and the viewing material is seldom reference quality.

This is a common poor programming trait. You stop testing once the function works. Testing needs to include that the program does not do what it is not suppose to do. That can be very time consuming, but look at what happens with inadequate testing.

Idiots.