Slashdot Mirror

Resolution is NOT by definition pixels; the context must be understood to infer what is meant by "resolution". Traditionally, resolution is measured in lines per millimeter, or more properly "line pairs" (cycles) per millimeter. If you speak to an optical engineer about resolution, he will be thinking in these terms or similar, a linear measure.

Step 1 - Ignore obvious context of remarks.
Step 2 - Assert remarks must be understood in context.

Pixel count is related to the square of what is normally thought of as resolution.

The crazy thing about language is everyone gets a vote. Marketing departments *ALL OF THEM* count pixels.

https://www.sony.com/electroni...
https://www.usa.philips.com/c-...
https://www.samsung.com/levant...
https://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-t...
https://www.vizio.com/picture-...
https://hisense.com.au/uhd/

When someone says a display has twice resolution majority of people in the real world understand it to say display can display twice the number of pixels.

You are free to develop specialized terms or understanding that only apply to specific group or industry yet in terms of the public you are squarely on the losing side.

I thought USA introduced "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007", the "Incandescent ban". While Compact Fluorescent meet the requirements (along with halogen), good manufacturers had given way to cheap Chinese CFL manufacturers, which people bought because they were cheap, then complained when they wouldn't work upside down in enclosed dimmer fixtures. As well concerns over mercury waste gives LED an advantage.

Right now LED still seems to be in the realm of quality manufacturers, though I'm sure cheap manufacturers will flood the market with garbage before too long.

I'm currently satisfied with the performance of my Philips LED screw in bulbs, as I was 15 years ago with my Philips screw in CFLs. First the Philips "flat" LED bulbs, now this lamp which is one of the best 2700K bulbs I've seen, and has run in my enclosed (but not recessed) ceiling fixtures. The other benefit of LED over CFL is they don't yellow shades from UV emissions.

It also doesn't hurt that my electrical utility gives away rebates twice a year for LED lights (but stopped a few years back for CFL).

We also are approaching diminishing returns: Incandescent-CFL-LED: 60W-13W-9W. I am amazed in the commercial world where a 400W Metal Halide can be replaced with a 200W LED with three times the life.

One thing that LEDs aren't emulating (yet) is the nature of a dimming incandescent where the color gets more yellow-red as you dim the light.

They are now. Introducing Philip's "warm glow."

Personally, I want a white light during the daytime, but a yellower light in the evening. It does less to mess with my circadian rhythm that way. So I want white lights at work, but my lights at home should be warmer (in the color sense, meaning lower color temperature).

I think Phillps has just what you need.

solar is cheaper than coal now

Bzzt. Wrong. Not if you include the cost of inverters, backup storage, and other little things like that.

You are right about city farming being increasingly possible though. You can increasingly see industrial farming and livestock facilities around the world. One good example is fish farming:
http://www.theglobaleducationp...

If the trend continues pretty soon most consumed fish will be farmed rather than caught in the wild.

Then there's Vertical Farming or City Farming:
http://www.gelighting.com/Ligh...
http://www.lighting.philips.co...

http://www.research.philips.co...
Roll your own:
https://learn.adafruit.com/ada...

Although I haven't seen them in stores yet, there are also high effeciency incandescents that are souped-up "traditional" incandescents.

Both HE incandescents and halogen bulbs are "incandescent" light bulbs. They produce typical blackbody radiation. They don't contain mercury.

Well, here I have mostly CFL's everywhere with some 'experimental' LEDs here and there too.

When they were on sale I bought 4 of these : http://www.usa.ecat.lighting.philips.com/l/professional-lamps/led-lamps-and-systems/led-lamps/a-shape-led/929000201804_na/
I replaced 2 21W CFL's with 1 of the above and the general 'complaint' was that the new light is way too bright. In reality it probably is less bright but it ramps up to 100% pretty much instantaneously while the CFL's would take some warming up thus giving your eyes time to adjust and hence being subjectively dimmer. I very much doubt the energy savings will ever make up for its price (I paid 35 euro) but given its location it's quite useful that they are full power right-away because people usually only light it for about 2 minutes and then are out again. AND I'm hoping they'll last (a lot) longer than the CFL's which I've had to replace too often in that location; probably because of the fact they get lit quite frequently but only for a short while which is deadly for that technology. I know LEDs don't mind switching on and off but off course I have no clue about the electronics that drive them.... time will tell.

An ICU ward is a room of patients in critical condition staffed by dedicated personnel who can quickly run to any patient when their monitoring equipment starts to sound a loud alarm.

Agreed. My point still stands. Those dedicated personnel can't do it all without a computer and a network. In some cases, it is even a WAN.

Yeah, my second example wasn't so great. But I didn't make this up. :-) Here is one example of I am referring to:
Philips EICU

As much as I love CREE LEDs in general, I prefer Philips 10.5-watt bulb. The bulb itself it more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) and it diffuses the light better (the CREE focuses all the bulbs in one area and its very apparent from the very bright spot in the middle). I own six of them. Home Depot sells them for $27.97 for a two pack.

Are we talking about the same CREE LED bulbs?

I bought two of the new CREE bulbs, a 40W and 60W equivalent and the light distribution is very even, though if you look at the bulb it is slightly dim at the top. While I haven't tried the 10.5W Philips bulb you linked to, it looks like it would be darker than normal at the bottom of the bulb.

Now the Philips L-Prize bulb is awesome in performance - even more efficient than the other bulbs mentioned above industry leading CRI and light distribution - but it's even funnier looking at the funny looking Philips bulb you linked to above. The L-Prize bulb initially sold for $35-45 each. The price has been cut to $15 now at Home Depot, but they generally have very low quantities of these now, it's very apparent that the normal looking Cree at a lower price is killing it in sales.

As much as I love CREE LEDs in general, I prefer Philips 10.5-watt bulb. The bulb itself it more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) and it diffuses the light better (the CREE focuses all the bulbs in one area and its very apparent from the very bright spot in the middle). I own six of them. Home Depot sells them for $27.97 for a two pack.

Are we talking about the same CREE LED bulbs?

I bought two of the new CREE bulbs, a 40W and 60W equivalent and the light distribution is very even, though if you look at the bulb it is slightly dim at the top. While I haven't tried the 10.5W Philips bulb you linked to, it looks like it would be darker than normal at the bottom of the bulb.

Now the Philips L-Prize bulb is awesome in performance - even more efficient than the other bulbs mentioned above industry leading CRI and light distribution - but it's even funnier looking at the funny looking Philips bulb you linked to above. The L-Prize bulb initially sold for $35-45 each. The price has been cut to $15 now at Home Depot, but they generally have very low quantities of these now, it's very apparent that the normal looking Cree at a lower price is killing it in sales.

The cost per lumen of LEDs has held the technology back as a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs for all-purpose commercial and residential lighting.

Really? CREE started distributing LED bulbs a month or two ago through Home Depot for less than $10 each. I own two of them.

450 lumens for $9.97 is 0.0222 per lumen. It's rated to last 22.8 years. That's $0.0010 per lumen per year of use.

Let's compare that to an "equivalent" (the cree is a 40-watt equivalent bulb) incandescent bulb. $8.77 for a pack of 6 is $1.46 per bulb.

300 lumens for $1.46 is $0.0049 per lumen. But it's only rated to last 0.9 years. That's $0.0544 per lumen per year of use. It's more than 54 times more expensive than the CREE. That's before you look at the electricity you'll be saving (6 watts to get more light than you would out of a 40 watt incandescent).

Home Depot is also selling CREE's 60-watt equivalent:

800 lumens for $12.97 is 0.0162 per lumen.It's rated to last 22.8 years. That's $0.0007 per lumen per year of use. The incandescent is 77 times more expensive.

As much as I love CREE LEDs in general, I prefer Philips 10.5-watt bulb. The bulb itself it more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) and it diffuses the light better (the CREE focuses all the bulbs in one area and its very apparent from the very bright spot in the middle). I own six of them. Home Depot sells them for $27.97 for a two pack.

800 lumens for $13.99 is $0.0175 per lumen. Rated to last 18.3 years. That's $0.0010 per lumen per year of use. If I'm going to spent the next two decades with a bulb, I'll spend the extra three hundredths of a cent per lumen on something I really like. Still less than one fiftieth the cost of an incandescent per lumen.

The only things I see holding back LED bulbs are misinformation and lack of availability (Home Depot is the only major brick and mortar store I've found that carries them). That, and some freaky designs that don't look like light bulbs... I bought one of these out of curiosity, and its appearance, on or off, just irritates me for some reason... if I was redesigning my living room to look like Quark's, I'd go with these all the way, but since I'm not "that guy" it's in a lamp that I almost never use. Which means it will probably outlive me. It may even survive to the 24th century and end up in Quark's.

The cost per lumen of LEDs has held the technology back as a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs for all-purpose commercial and residential lighting.

Really? CREE started distributing LED bulbs a month or two ago through Home Depot for less than $10 each. I own two of them.

450 lumens for $9.97 is 0.0222 per lumen. It's rated to last 22.8 years. That's $0.0010 per lumen per year of use.

Let's compare that to an "equivalent" (the cree is a 40-watt equivalent bulb) incandescent bulb. $8.77 for a pack of 6 is $1.46 per bulb.

300 lumens for $1.46 is $0.0049 per lumen. But it's only rated to last 0.9 years. That's $0.0544 per lumen per year of use. It's more than 54 times more expensive than the CREE. That's before you look at the electricity you'll be saving (6 watts to get more light than you would out of a 40 watt incandescent).

Home Depot is also selling CREE's 60-watt equivalent:

800 lumens for $12.97 is 0.0162 per lumen.It's rated to last 22.8 years. That's $0.0007 per lumen per year of use. The incandescent is 77 times more expensive.

As much as I love CREE LEDs in general, I prefer Philips 10.5-watt bulb. The bulb itself it more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) and it diffuses the light better (the CREE focuses all the bulbs in one area and its very apparent from the very bright spot in the middle). I own six of them. Home Depot sells them for $27.97 for a two pack.

800 lumens for $13.99 is $0.0175 per lumen. Rated to last 18.3 years. That's $0.0010 per lumen per year of use. If I'm going to spent the next two decades with a bulb, I'll spend the extra three hundredths of a cent per lumen on something I really like. Still less than one fiftieth the cost of an incandescent per lumen.

The only things I see holding back LED bulbs are misinformation and lack of availability (Home Depot is the only major brick and mortar store I've found that carries them). That, and some freaky designs that don't look like light bulbs... I bought one of these out of curiosity, and its appearance, on or off, just irritates me for some reason... if I was redesigning my living room to look like Quark's, I'd go with these all the way, but since I'm not "that guy" it's in a lamp that I almost never use. Which means it will probably outlive me. It may even survive to the 24th century and end up in Quark's.

Philips had a concept called Microbial Kitchen a while back which included lights powered by methane as well as a stove that burns methane generated by composting kitchen waste. Devising appliances that cleave to that closed loop philosophy would be great.

I saw your comment, but I couldn't find your data. The only information I could find regarding expected life was 25000 hours. Some examples:

"Lasts at least 22.8 years", "22.8 years means rated average life based on engineering testing and probability analysis where the lamp is used on average 3 hours/day, 7 days a week"
22.8 years * 365.25 days/year * 3 hours/day = 24983.1 hours
- http://www.usa.philips.com/c/energy-saving-light-bulbs/ambientled-12.5w-a19-soft-white-dimmable-046677409906/prd/en/;jsessionid=2F0BBF3F454415D0EF4B126D0DAC020C.app102-drp4

"The unit that I am reviewing is warm-white (2700K) and has a CRI of 80. Warranty is 6 years, and Philips rates it at 25,000 hours of operation (it should last for decades if you take good care of it)."
On picture of the box: "Life 25,000 hours"
- http://www.treehugger.com/interior-design/philips-ambientled-125-watts-led-lightbulb-product-review.html

"The LED bulb will last 25,000 hours compared with the 1,000 hours that consumers normally get out of the average 60-watt incandescent bulb."
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004766-54.html

"The next question you need to ask yourself is would you pay $40 (around £25) for a light bulb? Answer is probably not but if that light bulb was to last as it is advertised for 25,000 hours then of course."
- http://www.solarkinguk.com/blog/new-philips-led-light-bulb-lasts-for-25000-hours

"Other features include: instant-on, dimming capability to 10% of maximum brightness, a 25,000 hour life and a 6 year warranty."
- http://www.polar-ray.com/Philips-AmbientLED-A19-LED-Bulb-12E26A60_p_235.html

Long-term lumen maintenance testing
Continuing to run; now > 12,000 hours
Lumen mainteance at 25,000 hours -> 99.3% (95% confidence, 200 units)
- http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lprize-webinar_01-18-12.pdf

My alarm clock actually has no Snooze button but has Slap! To snooze.

The Microsoft patent is 'interesting' but I do not really find it practical unless you have to start switching modes all day long: when running where the simple fact that you are running would make it misbehave, probably similar on my bike (SF streets are badly maintained), or worse on the train (I had to disable 'shake to skip' on my iPhone, CalTrain got to be the worse train tracks in the western world).

Something more useful would be to cross reference the ring mode with your calendar. If in a meeting, at the dentist, etc ... switch to silent mode. The calendar could even have an option to make the phone super silent and not even vibrate (meeting with CEO).

Should I patent this idea?

if you could work out the whole 'light uses AC, generator makes DC' issue while maintaining the cost advantage.

Incandescents work perfectly on DC. You other argument was important though.

Nice thought, but I just don't see that working. I like incandescent too because they are instant on, (I have yet to find a fluorescent that actually works like this)

fluorescents are slow, true. Try Leds for the instant-on places (like the bathroom, it's hard to aim in the dark), if your house wiring is good enough. Do you really need instant on in the living room? That blinding brightnes at the moment you flip the switch? I'd hate it. I love my slow dimmable fluorescents for those applications.

works in all temperatures (from -40 in winter for outside lights, fluorescent come on VERY slow in winter)

There are low temp fluorescents. They still contain a significant amount of mercury (normal fluorescents don't. The 1 milligram they have is neglectable). LEDs might help there to.

into ovens (plastic casing on fluorescents and LEDs would melt),

True. That's the only place I still have an incandescent light.

and do not have directionality (the LEDs I got did not shine peripherally, we had to put a CFL in the LED chandler for the kitchen or else the corners were dark).

Fluorescents can help you there. They shine all around. Leds are getting there, but I don't know if they are (haven't had to replace one in a while. Philips has LED candle shaped ones. I'd advise those in a chandelier.

Do you really need one type of bulb in all cases? If the power in your house is any kind of decent then these bulbs will last 5 times what the incandescents did. This means you don't have to have as many spares. If one breaks, insert the spare of that type that you do have (regardless of light output) and get a new one the next time you are at the shop. This'll happen once a year or so (if your power is decent) so the few days of to much or to little light in that one corner is no problem IMHO.

if you could work out the whole 'light uses AC, generator makes DC' issue while maintaining the cost advantage.

Incandescents work perfectly on DC. You other argument was important though.

Nice thought, but I just don't see that working. I like incandescent too because they are instant on, (I have yet to find a fluorescent that actually works like this)

fluorescents are slow, true. Try Leds for the instant-on places (like the bathroom, it's hard to aim in the dark), if your house wiring is good enough. Do you really need instant on in the living room? That blinding brightnes at the moment you flip the switch? I'd hate it. I love my slow dimmable fluorescents for those applications.

works in all temperatures (from -40 in winter for outside lights, fluorescent come on VERY slow in winter)

There are low temp fluorescents. They still contain a significant amount of mercury (normal fluorescents don't. The 1 milligram they have is neglectable). LEDs might help there to.

into ovens (plastic casing on fluorescents and LEDs would melt),

True. That's the only place I still have an incandescent light.

and do not have directionality (the LEDs I got did not shine peripherally, we had to put a CFL in the LED chandler for the kitchen or else the corners were dark).

Fluorescents can help you there. They shine all around. Leds are getting there, but I don't know if they are (haven't had to replace one in a while. Philips has LED candle shaped ones. I'd advise those in a chandelier.

Do you really need one type of bulb in all cases? If the power in your house is any kind of decent then these bulbs will last 5 times what the incandescents did. This means you don't have to have as many spares. If one breaks, insert the spare of that type that you do have (regardless of light output) and get a new one the next time you are at the shop. This'll happen once a year or so (if your power is decent) so the few days of to much or to little light in that one corner is no problem IMHO.

Ear buds never stay in my ears. These are hooks, so they stay put. They stay comfortable in my ears even after extended listening. They isolate noise well, and they have a great sound. For the price, they can't be beat!

http://www.usa.philips.com/c/headphones/shs8100_28/prd/

Here are the docs:

http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/pwc_li/us_en/connect/tools_literature/downloads/EnduraLED_A19-110726_2.pdf

From what I can tell big difference they are using phosphor codings to correct the normally crappy led spectrum.

Spectrum looks very clean but still a small spike around blue/purple.

http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/pwc_li/us_en/connect/tools_literature/downloads/EnduraLED_A19-110726_2.pdf

Still think I'm going to skip leds and save up for quantum dots and carbon nano tube lighting.

Don't worry, the LEDs will still have tens of thousands of hours left in them when a $.02 capacitor blows its guts out and terminates the driver board because a $.05 capacitor would have bloated the BOM too much...

Friending you for that comment, cause that's probably what will happen.

Hmm... digging around some more, I find this breathless press release that says the competition dictates a minimum three year warranty. Funny how they advertise 20 years but promise only 3. Keep that in mind when deciding to purchase.

Living in southern climes (N hemisphere), I personally look forward to cheaper LED bulbs, though I think the whoop-de-doo is overestimated for people who live in northern climes or for rarely used lights. This is one place where the Republicans were right... I want a 75-cent bulb for my coat closet, not a $3 one and certainly not a $25 subsidized one.

That's right.
Philips TV - this could well be iPad.

The Philips wood burning stove was way cooler than these looks good on paper solar contraptions. Not that this design would be suitable for these villages, but better wood stoves should have been first on the list.
http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/woodstove.html

I heat my cosy developed-world house using wood, and it's incredibly clean and efficient. And by clean I mean even "a little bit of dust" would be unacceptably dirty. The yearly chimney sweep shows that the combustion itself is very close to complete, and the fuel itself is free. Garden waste to most people.

In an interview with a beekeeper:

Phillips: I showed him some first phase renders of the Initial beehive concepts and asked him his opinion in general about the idea.

Beekeeper: It is actually not a bad idea. It is kind of an existing product for beekeepers. It is a one hive system in a glass box and they use it for educational purposes. Also as a show element in markets and so on to promote their products and increase awareness for the bees and beekeeping. These are not suitable for honey production in a large scale. Neither sustainable on the long run due to the low mass of bees.

http://www.design.philips.com/shared/assets/design_assets/pdf/portfolio/qa_beehive.pdf

It may also help to understand the way in which Phillips is pushing ideas like this. They're an exploration of ideas more than attempts to bring products to market.

The Design Probe projects carried out by Philips Design are part of a wider Philips strategy aimed at improving the innovation hit rate. While it is not intended that design concepts coming out of the Probes program are translated to marketable solutions, insights gained from debate around the concepts feed into future innovation for the company.

http://www.design.philips.com/about/design/designportfolio/design_futures/design_probes/index.page

In an interview with a beekeeper:

Phillips: I showed him some first phase renders of the Initial beehive concepts and asked him his opinion in general about the idea.

Beekeeper: It is actually not a bad idea. It is kind of an existing product for beekeepers. It is a one hive system in a glass box and they use it for educational purposes. Also as a show element in markets and so on to promote their products and increase awareness for the bees and beekeeping. These are not suitable for honey production in a large scale. Neither sustainable on the long run due to the low mass of bees.

http://www.design.philips.com/shared/assets/design_assets/pdf/portfolio/qa_beehive.pdf

It may also help to understand the way in which Phillips is pushing ideas like this. They're an exploration of ideas more than attempts to bring products to market.

The Design Probe projects carried out by Philips Design are part of a wider Philips strategy aimed at improving the innovation hit rate. While it is not intended that design concepts coming out of the Probes program are translated to marketable solutions, insights gained from debate around the concepts feed into future innovation for the company.

http://www.design.philips.com/about/design/designportfolio/design_futures/design_probes/index.page

If you look at the Phillips Urban Beehive page you'll see that the pull cord is simply a smoke release, not a honey extractor. Even with the smoke, I wouldn't want to be running beekeeping operations in my kitchen. In fact, I'd be willing to say that the only purpose of this design is decorative, not functional: it's for people that just want to look at bees and feel good about being "close to nature" in their homes. I'll let the beekeepers on the forum take care of the rest of the design's flaws, they've already got it covered.

How does breeding more bees solve the problem of having too many son's of bees in most cities?

More importantly (and more seriously), this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. And no landlord is going to like you cutting holes in your windowpanes (yes, I read the original press release, not just the stupid article).

Seems it would also violate rules against the number of "pets" you're allowed to have. Also, the honey produced in an urban setting would probably have too many contaminants to be healthy.

You are someone that has been fooled by propaganda. I hate to tell you, but you are believing a pack of lies

First, there are fluoresent dimmables that do work. They are rather expensive - around $10 a bulb.

Second, you can also get LED light bulbs. They are VERY expensive, ($40 a bulb) but work very well in dimmer outlets

Third, you can buy Halogen incandescent lightbulbs They are cheaper than fluorescents, with zero problems dimming, the same shape as you 'normal', the same kind of light as 'normal', have no mercury, but are effecient enough to qualify under the new law. As you appear to be rather easily fooled by propaganda, for your convenience, here are two links:

Link to Philips page explaining the bulb

Link to Home Depot where you can buy the lightbulbs in question.

Disclaimer: I'm a veteran of the touch industry

The authors and readers should understand that use of multiple beams with emitter/detectors distributed around the perimeter to address (but not solve) the occlusion problem (and to attempt to discriminate more than one "touch") is extremely old.

Method and apparatus for detecting the location of an object on a surface
Apparatus and method to improve resolution of infrared touch systems
Philips Entertaible
there's more, etc....

The apparatus has actually been revived in several products that have been shipping for quite some time already.

Common problem in academia... to mis-appropriately claim and celebrate each other's non-novelty.

I'll also add that discrete emitter/detectors are orders of magnitude more expensive than cmos cameras and asics, which is why the industry is trying (though I'm not saying successfully) to figure it with the latter way.

Look e.g. here: http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/home/index.page
You can buy them. Now.

Yup. Philips is going to take over the lighting market. 30% energy savings, Bright, white light (full spectrum), Fully dimmable, Instant-on, Lasts 2 years, and Contains NO mercury. 'Nuff said.

I know people who own one of these (they've got, in principle, an unlimited selection of colours): http://www.lighting.philips.com/microsite/living_colors/
Personally I think they're kinda cool but I think most people get bored after a while and just leave it on a shade they like.

The key is not to get tied into any particular vendor's "ecosystem" (hint on marketdroid newspeak: the consumer is never on top of these food chains, and overpricing companies do go out of business, and/or force customers into upgrade cycles every bit as much as in the unfree part of IT).

LIRC can actually drive RF transmitters as well (by simply turning off the software-generated carrier), but even for IR very few devices are more than simple receivers, though the code would allow for both recording and playback of commands for a gazillion appliances.

Factor in a few weather/proximity sensors (some can even be received by that very same hardware) and outputs such as LivingColors as an "Ambilight on steroids" (aside the usual suspects such as roller blinds, home entertainment gear and "conventional" lamps) for computer-generated scenarios based on age-old magic like the sunrise equation, and you get an idea of how much can be accomplished with minimal hardware.

Combining IR and RF puts within every hobbyist's reach the Holy Grail of integrating each and every remote-controlled device in the house, from high-end all the way down to the El-Cheapo DIY market.
The current crop of microcontrollers should provide a candidate that could do the trick sitting on an Ethernet plug - or piggybacked e.g. on the USB, "hidden" internal serial or GPIO port of some popular Wi-Fi router.

http://www.huitsing.nl/irftdi/ and http://www.mediola.com/products.htm are just a few of the places to look for inspiration.

What, you mean like the Philips Sensual Massagers? I do believe they use wireless charging as well ;-)

philips' 3D televisions (I think they are called WOW tv or something), is probably compatible with the broadcast.

http://www.business-sites.philips.com/shared/assets/3dsolutions/downloads/42Inch3dDisplayUserManual.pdf

The broadcast is probably done (last time I was at the international broadcasting conference) by adding a depth field to the standard 2D HD broadcast.

From what I understand, their TV creates 9 different stereoscopic views from the 2D+depth frames. Then using the old technology of vertical strip lenses they make those 9 views available at different viewing angles.

You don't need to wear any glasses to watch the TV. but there are view angles where it becomes a mess to watch (but that was a few years ago, so maybe they fixed it). Also like in the theater you need to keep your head vertical.

Philips already has production tungsten halogen bulbs with standard bayonet and screw fittings ('EcoClassic 50' here in the UK) that only use about 50% of the power required by conventional tungsten lamps:

http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/news/press/innovations/2008/home_ecoclassic.php?main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

Right now these are only available in lower wattages, and the 100W replacement still draws 70W like those in the NYT article ('EcoClassic 30' over here). But it looks like existing technologies should be able to bring down the power consumption of this class of bulbs across the board. Lots of details, teardowns of current devices and predictions of future developments here:

http://www.eceee.org/press/B_Class_lamps/BClassHalogens_and_beyond-eceeeReportDecember12.pdf

What I was really looking for was a weather map to see if the storms were close. Ironically, I was able to access the National Weather Service website and bypass television completely. My wife and I don't really watch broadcast TV, except for The Big Bang Theory, Mad Men, Desperate Housewives (my wife not me!) and occasional episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Ironically again, I receive better quality programming reception from my "jolly roger antenna" than on my TV, and with no commercials! I do enjoy laserdiscs on my 35" Sony Trinitron. I also have a DVD player that plays AVIs flawlessly from data DVDs and CDs. If I really need a TV news update I can tune into European news via the Livestation app installed on my Mac.

Basically, broadcast and CATV 2011 = newspapers 2010...

Wait for this : http://www.cinema.philips.com/

56 inch screen 21:9 screenratio and 2560 x 1080p
I saw one last weekend and it's COOL!

Widescreen is SO last year ;)

Of course a beamer is a whole lot cheaper.

This isn't the first product Philips have produced for developing countries.

See wood-burning stove: http://www.research.philips.com/newscenter/archive/2006/060227-woodstove.html

I wish they would make them available to buy in the developed world though. I'd love some of this gear for outdoor pursuits.

Ok, sick and tired of those who don't understand what is in a DAP:

iPods:
http://ipodlinux.org/wiki/Generations
Note they are all ARM processors with no hardware decoder.
Older ones are PortalPlayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PortalPlayer
Newer ones are Apple labeled ARM chips
Also note on the wikipedia page how many DAPs use these chipsets.
Again, not hardware decoders.

Latest Sansas:
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SansaE200v2
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/archives/2008/03/sandisk-sansa-fuze-disassembly.php
Note AMS SoC
http://www.austriamicrosystems.com/eng/content/download/7921/128739/version/1/file/AS3525_PB_1v0.pdf

Older Sansas:
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SandiskE200HardwareComponents
Note PortalPlayer Soc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PortalPlayer

Note when you see the word "codec" when referring to a chip it is the D/A converter, not a MP3 decoding chip:
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/datasheets/UDA1380_4.pdf
http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/WM8987/

Philips:
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GoGearHDD6330

Cowon:
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/CowonD2Info

Creative:
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/archives/2008/07/creative-zen-xfi-disassembled.php
look up the chip numbers - general purpose CPU, no hardware decoder.

Do you want me to link more?

I got one of these living colours lamps (big one with remote), and I must say it does a pretty decent job of lighting my room. Granted, it's no TL, but the 4 LEDs in it are way to bright to stare right into if the lamp is set to maximum output.

It hasn't been much more recent for you either, has it? 30fps (even at decent resolutions, like 1280x1024) is common. 60 fps is available, and you can even get 90 fps

Sorry to spoil the joke, but it's time to come up with a new one, don't you think?

Reminds me of the new Philips Ligt Blossom flower (pictures) running on sun- and windenergy. What is it that happy flowers - or actually, nature - are inspiring those designers? I think the future might be the a mixture of technology and natural looking devices.

>Sure, that's why you haven't touched a CD or a DVD in your lifetime either, right?

I don't get it. If you're implying these are Sony products, this may be why, since you're wrong.

The CD is a Philips invention. The idea of the CD was a Philips/Teldec invention. Sony's contribution: 2 more bits for audio, and error correction. The second being somewhat important, the former being nice-to-have. However, Philips unveiled the first working CD player before Sony got their hands in the product.

Sony had nothing to do with modern day DVDs. Sony pushed MMCD. Sony didn't even bring the problem of competing DVD standards up. The competition, pushing SD, brought it up, and the DVD was mostly based on SD. Sony and Philips (originally working on MMCD) decided to switch camps to join the DVD Consortium at this point and help out on the already defined SD standard and turn it into DVD.

I hope that helps clear it up. Philips invented the majority of the modern CD (and created the first working prototypes), and Toshiba, Time Warner, Matsushita Electric, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Pioneer, Thomson, and JVC created the first working approximation of the modern DVD.

So, care to share something else you believe Sony created? LP: Columbia Records. Compact Casette: Philips. Non Memory-Stick formats: Not Sony. Reel-to-reel: Germans. Hard disk: Shugart. Floppy disk: IBM. DAT, MD, Beta, Umatic: Sony. Powerglove: PAX.

>Sure, that's why you haven't touched a CD or a DVD in your lifetime either, right?

I don't get it. If you're implying these are Sony products, this may be why, since you're wrong.

The CD is a Philips invention. The idea of the CD was a Philips/Teldec invention. Sony's contribution: 2 more bits for audio, and error correction. The second being somewhat important, the former being nice-to-have. However, Philips unveiled the first working CD player before Sony got their hands in the product.

Sony had nothing to do with modern day DVDs. Sony pushed MMCD. Sony didn't even bring the problem of competing DVD standards up. The competition, pushing SD, brought it up, and the DVD was mostly based on SD. Sony and Philips (originally working on MMCD) decided to switch camps to join the DVD Consortium at this point and help out on the already defined SD standard and turn it into DVD.

I hope that helps clear it up. Philips invented the majority of the modern CD (and created the first working prototypes), and Toshiba, Time Warner, Matsushita Electric, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Pioneer, Thomson, and JVC created the first working approximation of the modern DVD.

So, care to share something else you believe Sony created? LP: Columbia Records. Compact Casette: Philips. Non Memory-Stick formats: Not Sony. Reel-to-reel: Germans. Hard disk: Shugart. Floppy disk: IBM. DAT, MD, Beta, Umatic: Sony. Powerglove: PAX.

>Sure, that's why you haven't touched a CD or a DVD in your lifetime either, right?

I don't get it. If you're implying these are Sony products, this may be why, since you're wrong.

The CD is a Philips invention. The idea of the CD was a Philips/Teldec invention. Sony's contribution: 2 more bits for audio, and error correction. The second being somewhat important, the former being nice-to-have. However, Philips unveiled the first working CD player before Sony got their hands in the product.

Sony had nothing to do with modern day DVDs. Sony pushed MMCD. Sony didn't even bring the problem of competing DVD standards up. The competition, pushing SD, brought it up, and the DVD was mostly based on SD. Sony and Philips (originally working on MMCD) decided to switch camps to join the DVD Consortium at this point and help out on the already defined SD standard and turn it into DVD.

I hope that helps clear it up. Philips invented the majority of the modern CD (and created the first working prototypes), and Toshiba, Time Warner, Matsushita Electric, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Pioneer, Thomson, and JVC created the first working approximation of the modern DVD.

So, care to share something else you believe Sony created? LP: Columbia Records. Compact Casette: Philips. Non Memory-Stick formats: Not Sony. Reel-to-reel: Germans. Hard disk: Shugart. Floppy disk: IBM. DAT, MD, Beta, Umatic: Sony. Powerglove: PAX.

Phillips 3D LCD monitor, no glasses, viewable from all angles.

Not only is solid state lighting more efficient, it's also more versatile. With one fixture you could change the feel of a room from bright and alert to cozy and romantic by using variable color temperature. RGB mixing fixtures could conceivably be hooked up to your entertainment and alter the room color to match the movie or video game.

I have found one (and only one) item that fits the bill: Philips DVDR3575H/37. It has a 160GB drive as well as a DVD burner, and it seems to support all the disc formats. I like it because it also has Firewire and USB inputs (NOT outputs), as well as an ATSC tuner. Pricegrabber turns up a couple of vendors in addition to Philips itself.

That said, I haven't bought one yet. Reviews are mixed on the usability of the features. I'm hoping Philips, or anyone, comes out with an improved model this year. Echoing your last line, it seems like HDD-DVD units come and go without a clear purpose.