I think they just want to die and get the virgins they were promised. Since the US only does precision strikes, ticking off Russia seemed like a good bet of a bigger bomb. That hasn't happened (yet), so now they attacked France.
Will someone nuke them already? Or will they have to go on TV and literally say "please nuke us, we want to meet allah but are forbidden to kill ourselves if it does not also kill infidels"?
Now of course, we don't deliberately target civilians, they are just an *inevitable* outcome from prosecuting a war/blockade, so that let's us off the hook for literally any number of civilian casualties we cause.
Because war is not the simplified version the West wants to believe in (now). The World Wars were won not by picking off soldiers by snipers (it was done though), but by bombing the factories, the supply lines and yes, the civilians in addition to killing soldiers.
And that was done in wars where there was a front line and clearly marked soldiers.
If you do not want to bomb civilians, then the terrorists will just try to be near civilians all the time, so you cannot bomb them, so you will have to pick them off with sniper rifles on by one. Slowly, since the terrorist fighters are not clearly marked as soldiers are. So you war is going to take a very long time (in WW2 took only 6 years to make Germany run out of tanks and soldiers and Germany was much stronger than ISIS is now). While the war is going on, more and more of the civilians you so much want to protect will join the ranks of the fighters (either by free will or they will be indoctrinated to join the "holy war" or just forced to), so, the war is going to take even longer.
Instead of using extremely precise (and small, but expensive) bombs, why not just lay waste to the territory? If you do not want to use nukes or gas, why not use hundreds of tons or conventional bombs and just carpet bomb the hell out of that place. You will destroy the terrorists you know about, the terrorists that were hiding and the future terrorists.
I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question.
There is a difference usually. I cannot speak for everyone, but if someone proved the existence of god (I do not really know how they would do that but let's say it can be done) to me I would start believing it. As it is now, there are thousands of different "the only correct one" religions, that I refuse to choose any of them. If bad things started to happen to the followers of all religions except one (and they were not caused by the actions of people) then I may start believing that "the one" religion may be correct. Or someone explained to me how all those different religions can exist without interfering with each other (for the most part) - maybe each location on Earth has its own god so that if I am in Italy, I have to pray to the Christian god (or the ancient Roman gods) but if I travel to, say, India, I now have to pray to their gods because the Christian/Roman gods have no power over India.
That is the same as my non-belief in aliens from other planets on Earth. If I ever see one (and can be certain I am not hallucinating) I will start believing in them. I can believe in the existence of an electron because the model works. It may not be perfect, but the CRT in my monitor and the vacuum tubes in my amp work like the model say they should. The model may not be perfect (and quantum theory says that electrons are not little spheres etc) but it is a good enough approximation with scientists trying to make it more precise.
On the other hand, at least in the past, whenever there was a war, both sides would pray to their gods for help and yet, one side would still lose. In addition, the side that won was not always with the same religion. So, I guess the prayer model does not work or nobody has found the right words yet.
In the USA, however, guns are easier to get ahold of than a driving license so try to imagine the possibilities.
However, the advantage of the US system is that more "normal" people have guns compared to France or Germany where only the criminals have them. So, if a terrorist started randomly shooting in the middle of a street (especially in the more gun friendly states), he would not live very long.
All those school shootings happened in places where normal people are forbidden to carry guns.
Best case scenario in Syria would be someone like Assad (but not necessarily him) to rule it with an iron fist and ensure that no terrorists are allowed to breed there.
Nuclear powers actively attacking in Syria at the moment: Russia, Israel, United States, France, UK. Near-nuclear-power Iran is heavily involved, as is Saudi Arabia, who is believed to have an agreement with Pakistan to be able to rapidly acquire nuclear warheads if desired in exchange for having funded over half of Pakistan's nuclear program. All sides have missiles that could hit all of their potential foes except Iran->US. Fun times...
So, they all need to just agree to nuke ISIS and not nuke each other. And since ISIS does not have any nukes there won't be a problem.
No, we will not. You do not exterminate cockroaches with a sniper rifle. You may shoot a few of them like that for fun, but they breed much faster than you can kill them. Gas or a nuke would be much more effective. It only took two nukes to impress Japan enough to abandon its "no surrender" policy. With ISIS it may take more, but either all the terrorists will be afraid or they all die - a good result anyways.
As for the refugees in Europe - drop the sanctions on Russia in exchange for sending all the refugees to Siberia - Russia can probably place them somewhere at least 1000km away from the nearest village and without cars or trains they will stay put (or become bear food).
Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive?
DVD cannot be rewound and recorded over to fix the "oh crap" moment of pressing the button too early. Also, I do not know what the latency between "pressing the button" and "recording" is for a DVD recorded. For a VHS recorded (the ones I have) it's about one second (or 3 seconds for the pro VCR I use now - to allow for seamless joining).
Also, recorded DVDs do not last as long as VHS tapes.
Flash or hard drive is better, however, are there any recorders that record the video and not add DRM to it, so I can play the recording on a PC or some other device? No, I do not want to use a PC with composite input card to record live video - too many problems led me to buy my first VCR in 2008.
If someone is using video tape it most likely is because the tape is "good enough" - the quality is good enough, they already have the VTR etc. The hybrid you propose would be expensive, then why not just replace the VTR with a digital recorder and be done with it? Well, maybe if the VTR is good enough, why spend money on replacing it?
I myself still use VHS and S-VHS, though not as much as I used a couple of years ago. I now mostly record TV shows to a server (ripping an IPTV stream), but if I want to be sure I record it, I will also record to a tape (from coax cable TV). Also, tapes last longer without "maintenance" (backups, copying to newer hard drives etc).
Which is why a lot of people do not install updates. Their car, fridge, radio, TV (if it is older than a few years) and typewriter do not need updates, so why should they update software?
I understand why, but the people who view a PC as a modern typewriter do not.
Aren't cars recalled more now than they were a couple of decades ago? Seems that the practice of "do whatever then patch it" of software design leaked into car hardware design.
Take games for example, in the past, there was no convenient way of updating it, so you either got it right the first time or the game was considered bad and you lost money. Now you can patch it on the go, so the companies started using their customers as playtesters that not only do not need to get paid, but pay the company for the privilege of beta testing the game.
I was talking about critical problems - like bursting into flames (or the PC being taken over by hackers). If I do not "update" my car (again, with the exception of mechanical parts that are worn out - same for a failed PC hardware) - most of the time I only encounter small problems. The design of my car was not updated in 30 years, I can still be safe on the road, sure, the newer cars may be better and safer, but my car is no less usable now than it was when new. Hell, a 50 year old car (assuming it is not rusted) can still be used now as it was when new - still with the same safety an all..
Compare that to old software - Windows XP (especially RTM version) is considered so unsafe as to be almost unusable because of the remaining bugs.that will not get fixed because Microsoft wants to sell a newer version. Since software does not rust or wear out (unlike a car), it should work the same all the time.
Compare the number of car recalls to the number of critical patches for software.
Yes, my car (Mercedes W123) has some design problems, however, those problems only showed themselves a long time after the car was made (various water leaks resulting in rust, bad plastic in the radiator, resulting in the part snapping off after 30 years of use, alternator not designed for using headlights all day (a bit too weak) etc).
My car was built properly the first time, it did not need continuous replacement of parts because the original ones had design/manufacturing defects. Due to being mechanical. some parts did wear out or failed in the years after the car was made though.
And if I replaced the tape deck with a radio that had internet connection, while the radio could be hacked, the rest of my car would not be. So why in modern cars you can use a hacked radio to hack the rest of the car?
Software, on the other hand, especially current one, is full of design/manufacturing defects - Microsoft was fixing Windows XP for 13 years and still did not manage to fix all defects. Also, unlike my car, software is not mechanical, it should not wear out or rust.
Being connected to the internet or not is not the reason why modern software is buggy, lazy programming is. After all, you can prevent all buffer overflow attacks by checking the length before writing to the buffer...
I understand open source software being buggy (since it is given away for free and usually is work-in-progress), but commercial software like Windows should not be buggy. However, seems that Linux is more secure than Windows...
Because updates are inconvenient and sometimes they contain something else beside the security patches.
Updating is a distraction, even if I am not using the program at the moment. Say, I am watching a movie and Java update pops up. Will I pause the movie to install a newer version of Java? Unlikely. After watching the movie, I will have forgotten about the update. It's even worse with updates that require a reboot. I pretty much never reboot my main PC because I "lose my place". Servers are a bit different - rebooting one only results in some downtime.
I update Firefox more often because Firefox crashes quite frequently, might as well update it.
Te other problem is that updates are not always just security patches. For example, the spy updates for Windows 7 or 8, the Windows 10 nag update and also the occasional BSOD update for Windows. Firefox is an odd example in that its stability alternates with updates: an update makes it (more) unstable, then another update makes it less unstable, and so on.
Oracle has overdid Java security. I only use Java for server management (remote KVM) and with new Java versions I have to click trough multiple security warnings (self-signed SSL cert on server, the applet is old and does not have the needesd security tags, Java version too old) and also add the IP to exceptions. Shouldn't "exceptions" mean "yes, I know it;s insecure, I still want to use it anyway"? Older Java versions have fewer such nags.
A better question wuld be why do software companies produce such buggy software? I do not have to "update" my car (made in 1982), tape deck or radio, unless some component wears out or just fails. Why does software come so unfinished and so full of defects?
My car is 33 years old and only two switches have failed in it - the ignition lock contacts (I had to move the key a bit to get the fan to turn on) and hazard blinker switch. The most problems in my car recently came from deteriorating rubber seals (looks like the rubber used is only good for 28 or so years) and rust (they use salt on roads in my country).
Tesla is quite a new car company and its cars are all quite new. I wonder what problems Tesla cars start to have when they are 15-30 years old. 15 years is the average age of a car in my country.
Since the motor with gear is easily swapped in a few hours (free)
Is this offer valid forever or just while the warranty is valid and after that it's $10k?
Switches? Almost everything is controlled by the huge touchscreen which means zero wear.
On the other hand, the touchscreen forces you to look at it to operate it and if if fails, then it fails completely (unlike, say, the rear window heat switch failing, but others working fine).
Any software problems can be fixed over the cell connection that is free for life and virtually always connected
Unless the company decides to EOL your car and updates the software to no longer work. Or someone hacks their server and uploads a malicious update.
I'm not saying the car is bad, it may be very good. Not for me though. I prefer a car with simple mechanical controls and no computers.
On a CRT: Black levels are better - the black part of the screen emits as much light as a monitor that's completely off. There is no input lag, at all. 1440x900 looks just as nice as 1920x1200, no scaling artifacts. The colors do not change, no matter the viewing angle.
Now, the last part is taken care of by the 8K display, now just the input lag and black levels remain.
"Contrast" is a bit different. Some monitors claim to have high contrast, but actually have really crap black levels, it's just that at full brightness it is as bright as a 60W lightbulb. I do not need that. I need the black color to be black, not gray.
Which is actually one of my complaints about my new plasma TV. I bought a plasma TV (one of the last) because the black levels are better on a plasma. Still, compared to my CRT TV the black levels are crap (so, an LCD would be even worse), however, it turns out that it is possible to adjust them by turning some potentiometers on the power supply board - I am waiting for the warranty to expire and I will adjust it.
120Hz is good, 8K native resolution is also good, even if I would not use the monitor at that resolution. One of my problems with LCDs is that they distort the image if the resolutions do not match. CRTs do not have this problem. An 8K 17" LCD also won't have this problem. Whether I would set it to 1920x1200, 1280x800 or 1152x864 (4:3 with pillarbox), the image would look just as nice as on a CRT.
120Hz means faster image update rate at any resolution (unlike my CRT which can do 160Hz at some low resolution but only 85Hz at 1920x1200, a LCD that does only 60Hz at its max resolution does not get any faster at lower resolutions).
I am only concerned now with the input lag and black levels, but it seems that one day I will be able to replace my CRT monitor with a similar size LCD (24") that will have higher resolution and none of the annoyances of current LCDs.
I bought a plasma because I wanted image quality comparable to that of a CRT. As for 4K - no point in that until the source material can handle it. Last time I checked, BluRay was still 1080.
The sad thing is that for a lot of people the image quality does not matter. What matters is the thickness, weight, features (fullHD, 4K, 3D , but not for everyone) and power consumption. The number of TVs set to stretch a 4:3 source proves it.
Burn-in happens locally - so, having the entire screen black except for a 2cm by 2cm completely white square would burn the square just as much as having half the screen completely white. But having half the screen completely white lowers the white level, unless it is set low enough in the first place (took me a while to figure that out when setting the picture parameters). As for eye strain - well, I could be watching TV in a lit room, I also doubt that LCDs do that (where the lamp has to be on anyway independent of the picture on the screen).
I do not know how it is whee you live, but in my country the energy class (A-G with some really efficient devices getting multiple As) is displayed on a sticker on the device and the sticker is quite large.
Also, isn't power consumption the reason plasma is less popular than LCD? It seems to me that plasma has better picture quality, but uses more power.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they just want to die and get the virgins they were promised. Since the US only does precision strikes, ticking off Russia seemed like a good bet of a bigger bomb. That hasn't happened (yet), so now they attacked France.
Will someone nuke them already? Or will they have to go on TV and literally say "please nuke us, we want to meet allah but are forbidden to kill ourselves if it does not also kill infidels"?
Now of course, we don't deliberately target civilians, they are just an *inevitable* outcome from prosecuting a war/blockade, so that let's us off the hook for literally any number of civilian casualties we cause.
Because war is not the simplified version the West wants to believe in (now). The World Wars were won not by picking off soldiers by snipers (it was done though), but by bombing the factories, the supply lines and yes, the civilians in addition to killing soldiers.
And that was done in wars where there was a front line and clearly marked soldiers.
If you do not want to bomb civilians, then the terrorists will just try to be near civilians all the time, so you cannot bomb them, so you will have to pick them off with sniper rifles on by one. Slowly, since the terrorist fighters are not clearly marked as soldiers are. So you war is going to take a very long time (in WW2 took only 6 years to make Germany run out of tanks and soldiers and Germany was much stronger than ISIS is now). While the war is going on, more and more of the civilians you so much want to protect will join the ranks of the fighters (either by free will or they will be indoctrinated to join the "holy war" or just forced to), so, the war is going to take even longer.
Instead of using extremely precise (and small, but expensive) bombs, why not just lay waste to the territory? If you do not want to use nukes or gas, why not use hundreds of tons or conventional bombs and just carpet bomb the hell out of that place. You will destroy the terrorists you know about, the terrorists that were hiding and the future terrorists.
I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question.
There is a difference usually. I cannot speak for everyone, but if someone proved the existence of god (I do not really know how they would do that but let's say it can be done) to me I would start believing it. As it is now, there are thousands of different "the only correct one" religions, that I refuse to choose any of them. If bad things started to happen to the followers of all religions except one (and they were not caused by the actions of people) then I may start believing that "the one" religion may be correct. Or someone explained to me how all those different religions can exist without interfering with each other (for the most part) - maybe each location on Earth has its own god so that if I am in Italy, I have to pray to the Christian god (or the ancient Roman gods) but if I travel to, say, India, I now have to pray to their gods because the Christian/Roman gods have no power over India.
That is the same as my non-belief in aliens from other planets on Earth. If I ever see one (and can be certain I am not hallucinating) I will start believing in them. I can believe in the existence of an electron because the model works. It may not be perfect, but the CRT in my monitor and the vacuum tubes in my amp work like the model say they should. The model may not be perfect (and quantum theory says that electrons are not little spheres etc) but it is a good enough approximation with scientists trying to make it more precise.
On the other hand, at least in the past, whenever there was a war, both sides would pray to their gods for help and yet, one side would still lose. In addition, the side that won was not always with the same religion. So, I guess the prayer model does not work or nobody has found the right words yet.
In the USA, however, guns are easier to get ahold of than a driving license so try to imagine the possibilities.
However, the advantage of the US system is that more "normal" people have guns compared to France or Germany where only the criminals have them. So, if a terrorist started randomly shooting in the middle of a street (especially in the more gun friendly states), he would not live very long.
All those school shootings happened in places where normal people are forbidden to carry guns.
Best case scenario in Syria would be someone like Assad (but not necessarily him) to rule it with an iron fist and ensure that no terrorists are allowed to breed there.
Nuclear powers actively attacking in Syria at the moment: Russia, Israel, United States, France, UK. Near-nuclear-power Iran is heavily involved, as is Saudi Arabia, who is believed to have an agreement with Pakistan to be able to rapidly acquire nuclear warheads if desired in exchange for having funded over half of Pakistan's nuclear program. All sides have missiles that could hit all of their potential foes except Iran->US. Fun times...
So, they all need to just agree to nuke ISIS and not nuke each other. And since ISIS does not have any nukes there won't be a problem.
No, we will not. You do not exterminate cockroaches with a sniper rifle. You may shoot a few of them like that for fun, but they breed much faster than you can kill them. Gas or a nuke would be much more effective. It only took two nukes to impress Japan enough to abandon its "no surrender" policy. With ISIS it may take more, but either all the terrorists will be afraid or they all die - a good result anyways.
As for the refugees in Europe - drop the sanctions on Russia in exchange for sending all the refugees to Siberia - Russia can probably place them somewhere at least 1000km away from the nearest village and without cars or trains they will stay put (or become bear food).
Ok, so use nerve gas to kill all the cockroaches
Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive?
DVD cannot be rewound and recorded over to fix the "oh crap" moment of pressing the button too early. Also, I do not know what the latency between "pressing the button" and "recording" is for a DVD recorded. For a VHS recorded (the ones I have) it's about one second (or 3 seconds for the pro VCR I use now - to allow for seamless joining).
Also, recorded DVDs do not last as long as VHS tapes.
Flash or hard drive is better, however, are there any recorders that record the video and not add DRM to it, so I can play the recording on a PC or some other device? No, I do not want to use a PC with composite input card to record live video - too many problems led me to buy my first VCR in 2008.
What would be the point of that?
If someone is using video tape it most likely is because the tape is "good enough" - the quality is good enough, they already have the VTR etc. The hybrid you propose would be expensive, then why not just replace the VTR with a digital recorder and be done with it? Well, maybe if the VTR is good enough, why spend money on replacing it?
I myself still use VHS and S-VHS, though not as much as I used a couple of years ago. I now mostly record TV shows to a server (ripping an IPTV stream), but if I want to be sure I record it, I will also record to a tape (from coax cable TV). Also, tapes last longer without "maintenance" (backups, copying to newer hard drives etc).
Which is why a lot of people do not install updates. Their car, fridge, radio, TV (if it is older than a few years) and typewriter do not need updates, so why should they update software?
I understand why, but the people who view a PC as a modern typewriter do not.
Aren't cars recalled more now than they were a couple of decades ago? Seems that the practice of "do whatever then patch it" of software design leaked into car hardware design.
Take games for example, in the past, there was no convenient way of updating it, so you either got it right the first time or the game was considered bad and you lost money. Now you can patch it on the go, so the companies started using their customers as playtesters that not only do not need to get paid, but pay the company for the privilege of beta testing the game.
I was talking about critical problems - like bursting into flames (or the PC being taken over by hackers). If I do not "update" my car (again, with the exception of mechanical parts that are worn out - same for a failed PC hardware) - most of the time I only encounter small problems. The design of my car was not updated in 30 years, I can still be safe on the road, sure, the newer cars may be better and safer, but my car is no less usable now than it was when new. Hell, a 50 year old car (assuming it is not rusted) can still be used now as it was when new - still with the same safety an all..
Compare that to old software - Windows XP (especially RTM version) is considered so unsafe as to be almost unusable because of the remaining bugs.that will not get fixed because Microsoft wants to sell a newer version. Since software does not rust or wear out (unlike a car), it should work the same all the time.
Compare the number of car recalls to the number of critical patches for software.
Yes, my car (Mercedes W123) has some design problems, however, those problems only showed themselves a long time after the car was made (various water leaks resulting in rust, bad plastic in the radiator, resulting in the part snapping off after 30 years of use, alternator not designed for using headlights all day (a bit too weak) etc).
My car was built properly the first time, it did not need continuous replacement of parts because the original ones had design/manufacturing defects. Due to being mechanical. some parts did wear out or failed in the years after the car was made though.
And if I replaced the tape deck with a radio that had internet connection, while the radio could be hacked, the rest of my car would not be. So why in modern cars you can use a hacked radio to hack the rest of the car?
Software, on the other hand, especially current one, is full of design/manufacturing defects - Microsoft was fixing Windows XP for 13 years and still did not manage to fix all defects. Also, unlike my car, software is not mechanical, it should not wear out or rust.
Being connected to the internet or not is not the reason why modern software is buggy, lazy programming is. After all, you can prevent all buffer overflow attacks by checking the length before writing to the buffer...
I understand open source software being buggy (since it is given away for free and usually is work-in-progress), but commercial software like Windows should not be buggy. However, seems that Linux is more secure than Windows...
Because updates are inconvenient and sometimes they contain something else beside the security patches.
Updating is a distraction, even if I am not using the program at the moment. Say, I am watching a movie and Java update pops up. Will I pause the movie to install a newer version of Java? Unlikely. After watching the movie, I will have forgotten about the update. It's even worse with updates that require a reboot. I pretty much never reboot my main PC because I "lose my place". Servers are a bit different - rebooting one only results in some downtime.
I update Firefox more often because Firefox crashes quite frequently, might as well update it.
Te other problem is that updates are not always just security patches. For example, the spy updates for Windows 7 or 8, the Windows 10 nag update and also the occasional BSOD update for Windows. Firefox is an odd example in that its stability alternates with updates: an update makes it (more) unstable, then another update makes it less unstable, and so on.
Oracle has overdid Java security. I only use Java for server management (remote KVM) and with new Java versions I have to click trough multiple security warnings (self-signed SSL cert on server, the applet is old and does not have the needesd security tags, Java version too old) and also add the IP to exceptions. Shouldn't "exceptions" mean "yes, I know it;s insecure, I still want to use it anyway"? Older Java versions have fewer such nags.
A better question wuld be why do software companies produce such buggy software? I do not have to "update" my car (made in 1982), tape deck or radio, unless some component wears out or just fails. Why does software come so unfinished and so full of defects?
I wonder why the Chinese government did not pass a law that if you abort your first child (excluding medical reasons) you do not get a second attempt.
My car is 33 years old and only two switches have failed in it - the ignition lock contacts (I had to move the key a bit to get the fan to turn on) and hazard blinker switch. The most problems in my car recently came from deteriorating rubber seals (looks like the rubber used is only good for 28 or so years) and rust (they use salt on roads in my country).
Tesla is quite a new car company and its cars are all quite new. I wonder what problems Tesla cars start to have when they are 15-30 years old. 15 years is the average age of a car in my country.
Since the motor with gear is easily swapped in a few hours (free)
Is this offer valid forever or just while the warranty is valid and after that it's $10k?
Switches? Almost everything is controlled by the huge touchscreen which means zero wear.
On the other hand, the touchscreen forces you to look at it to operate it and if if fails, then it fails completely (unlike, say, the rear window heat switch failing, but others working fine).
Any software problems can be fixed over the cell connection that is free for life and virtually always connected
Unless the company decides to EOL your car and updates the software to no longer work. Or someone hacks their server and uploads a malicious update.
I'm not saying the car is bad, it may be very good. Not for me though. I prefer a car with simple mechanical controls and no computers.
On a CRT:
Black levels are better - the black part of the screen emits as much light as a monitor that's completely off.
There is no input lag, at all.
1440x900 looks just as nice as 1920x1200, no scaling artifacts.
The colors do not change, no matter the viewing angle.
Now, the last part is taken care of by the 8K display, now just the input lag and black levels remain.
"Contrast" is a bit different. Some monitors claim to have high contrast, but actually have really crap black levels, it's just that at full brightness it is as bright as a 60W lightbulb. I do not need that. I need the black color to be black, not gray.
Which is actually one of my complaints about my new plasma TV. I bought a plasma TV (one of the last) because the black levels are better on a plasma. Still, compared to my CRT TV the black levels are crap (so, an LCD would be even worse), however, it turns out that it is possible to adjust them by turning some potentiometers on the power supply board - I am waiting for the warranty to expire and I will adjust it.
120Hz is good, 8K native resolution is also good, even if I would not use the monitor at that resolution. One of my problems with LCDs is that they distort the image if the resolutions do not match. CRTs do not have this problem. An 8K 17" LCD also won't have this problem. Whether I would set it to 1920x1200, 1280x800 or 1152x864 (4:3 with pillarbox), the image would look just as nice as on a CRT.
120Hz means faster image update rate at any resolution (unlike my CRT which can do 160Hz at some low resolution but only 85Hz at 1920x1200, a LCD that does only 60Hz at its max resolution does not get any faster at lower resolutions).
I am only concerned now with the input lag and black levels, but it seems that one day I will be able to replace my CRT monitor with a similar size LCD (24") that will have higher resolution and none of the annoyances of current LCDs.
Finally an LCD that will be able to display lower resolutions without (noticeable) artifacts, like a CRT. Now, fix the input lag and black levels.
I bought a plasma because I wanted image quality comparable to that of a CRT. As for 4K - no point in that until the source material can handle it. Last time I checked, BluRay was still 1080.
The sad thing is that for a lot of people the image quality does not matter. What matters is the thickness, weight, features (fullHD, 4K, 3D , but not for everyone) and power consumption. The number of TVs set to stretch a 4:3 source proves it.
Burn-in happens locally - so, having the entire screen black except for a 2cm by 2cm completely white square would burn the square just as much as having half the screen completely white. But having half the screen completely white lowers the white level, unless it is set low enough in the first place (took me a while to figure that out when setting the picture parameters). As for eye strain - well, I could be watching TV in a lit room, I also doubt that LCDs do that (where the lamp has to be on anyway independent of the picture on the screen).
I do not know how it is whee you live, but in my country the energy class (A-G with some really efficient devices getting multiple As) is displayed on a sticker on the device and the sticker is quite large.
Also, isn't power consumption the reason plasma is less popular than LCD? It seems to me that plasma has better picture quality, but uses more power.