Every programming language leads to its own types of laziness. I.e., there are unique types of laziness associated with assembly programming.
I've noticed this in the projects I've worked on in assembly. In several cases, I've later done a C version of the project targeting more powerful hardware, and the result is more robust. Yes, you could argue that the experience gained doing the assembly version aids the later development of the C version, and you would probably be correct. But it's just so much easier to do things in C, and this includes error checking!
Every assembly programming task is time consuming, and this can lead people to take shortcuts. Think there aren't any buffer overrun issues? Why? In C, all you might have to do is type something like "if (index>=length) {/*don't write to buffer or whatever*/}" There! Buffer overrun issue solved! In assembly, the same fix takes longer, and you might be less likely to implement it before the problem surfaces.
One thing I think assembly programming does give you is a very intuitive understanding of how a processor works, which in turn will help you avoid errors when programming in higher-level languages in the future. It helps to understand, for example, the sheer number of instructions required to perform extended precision floating point arithmetic on a fixed-point 8-bit processor!
Programming in assembly is not productive. It is educational, it is sometimes necessary, and I think it can be fun, but it is definitely not productive. I'd like to see a variant of C that exposes more of the low-level capabilities of the typical microcontroller (and that explicitly supports Harvard architecture processors, for that matter), but even in its current form, C seems to me an appropriate compromise between performance and productivity for low-level and bare metal programming.
We once bought 30 micro-SD cards for a project at work, which came packaged in annoying, hermetically sealed plastic clamshells. I used our laser cutter to slice around the actual card in each package. Voila!
I use Chrome. I like the current placement of the tabs above the location bar very much. I and most people who agree with me would never have thought to comment on this "bug" because we don't consider it a bug. If 99% of people (for the sake of argument) like the status quo, should you really be up in arms because a company ignores the 1% of people who complain?
On the other hand, perhaps an option to change the arrangement for those who want the tabs below...
Does one really save weight by transmitting laser power through an optical fiber versus using a lightweight electrical cable (maybe silver?) at a relatively high voltage? Even after the losses involved with converting the light back to electricity at the copter (probably about 50%)?
Serious question, is the power density of optical fiber really that high?
I've seen this technique used for sensors (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/electricity-over-glass), wouldn't have thought it would work well for something like this.
To be fair, the name of the app is "Wi-Fi Sync", and the icon is arrows in a circle (used for the Time Machine icon, for example) with Apple's own wi-fi icon in the middle. I'm thinking there's some sampling going on in both directions. Ironically, if Mr. Hughes' app hadn't been around, Apple might have come up with a more creative name and icon.
Apple may have ripped him off to some degree, but they may have already been planning this feature. As other posters have pointed out, also, they rejected his app because it didn't meet their guidelines, which is a separate topic.
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we stop acting like ready access to TV shows and movies is an inalienable right? Or like we're being repressed as a people when movie and TV studios make watching their content more difficult or comcast decides to limit access to the latest episode of your favorite show?
Really? When I find a solution to a Windows problem that requires use of the command line, I usually consider it an annoying oversight. For example, having to use the command line to configure IPV6 in XP strongly suggests that IPV6 support is an incomplete hack in XP.
Totally off-topic, but I find the Pilot G-2 gel ink pen (I like the 0.7 mm) to be as good as any fountain pen I've ever used. Inexpensive, writes beautifully, and consistently works until the ink runs out, which, incidentally, is about 20x as long as a cartridge fountain pen.
I watched about half of his presentation. I was amused because on a lot of the slides he says something like "except on really low end embedded CPUs." I spend a lot of my time programming (frequently in assembly) for these exact very low end CPUs. I haven't had to do much with 8-bit cores, fortunately, but I've been doing a lot of programming on a 16-bit microcontroller lately (EMC eSL).
I suspect the way I'm programming these chips is a lot like how you would have programmed a desktop CPU in about 1980, except that I get to run all the tools on a computer with a clock speed 100x the chip I'm programming (and at least 1000x the performance). I am constantly amazed by how little we pay for these devices: ~10 Mips, 32k RAM, 128k Program memory, 1MB data memory and they're $1.
But they do have a 3-stage pipeline, so I guess some of what Dr. Cliff says still applies.
This is a neat piece of technology. It looks to me like they've used a grid of electrodes + FSR ink to create an array of force sensing resistors.
I'm guessing: isolate a pair of electrodes (an X and a Y), and measure the resistance between them to get a reading of the pressure applied at that point. Scan the entire pad to get a pressure map.
This would be really cool for a touch screen interface, except for the fact that IT WOULD BE TOTALLY OPAQUE! The FSR ink is black. Maybe a thin enough layer could be used to be transparent and ITO electrodes could be used. I'm not sure. Sounds more expensive.
It's been a while since I've used linux. I don't particularly care for XP, but I use it on a daily basis because everything supports it. As an engineer, it's a lot more important to get the job done than to have a great OS and support the open source community. I've looking at buying an Apple laptop, and I may do that. Worst case, I could dual boot XP.
After reading through some of the comments, however, I became interested in giving it another go. The comments suggest that Ubuntu would be a good one to try. I downloaded the appropriate Ubuntu distro CD (x64 for my 64-bit AMD machine here at home) and tried to install it. I have already had enough time to completely evaluate Ubuntu on my machine, because the install CD will not get past the loading screen. When the progress bar is complete, the screen goes black. I let the machine sit there for half an hour: black screen. Different monitor: black screen. Built-in video (previously disabled) instead of video card: black screen.
In the past I've found linux to be such a pain in the ass that I considered it to be not just not user-friendly, but actively user-hostile. Ubuntu may be a great distro and perfect for beginners, but since I can't get it to install, it's about par for the course with my past linux experiences.
This is why linux hasn't spread. The user experience--for people who aren't linux hobbyists--is terrible. Free has nothing to do with it, and the author's pop psychology conclusion is horse shit.
This article is deserving of ridicule. Only if the total system cost of a computer were the cost of the CPU would the testers' performance rations (MHz/$, FPS/$, etc.) mean anything, but that's not the case.
Take for example the X2 3600+ and 6000+ at $73 and $241, respectively. They test these chips in identical systems whose only cost difference would be the price of the processor. The 6000+ costs 3.3x as much as the 3600+, but if you used the system cost, you might be looking at $900 vs. $1068, for example, a difference of ~19%.
The testers aggregate performance index shows the 6000+ at 150% the performance of the 3600+. With my two example systems, I get 50% more performance for only 19% more dollars. That makes the 6000+ seems like a pretty good value to me.
The article points out that a system based on the FX-72 or FX-74 would suffer in value from the requirement of using an expensive motherboard. This tends to make my point, that the total system cost is a much more reasonable number to use in calculating value. If you're building an otherwise outrageously expensive system, skimping on the processor saves you very little. In a bare-bones budget computer, it makes sense to use a cheaper processor because it reduces the system cost by a much larger percentage than in a high-end box.
"In today's news, a terrorist bombing in Boston killed 300 people. The bombing was apparently planned in part by a man using a library computer to communicate with other conspirators over the internet.
"Local authorities want to reassure the public that, thanks to security upgrades at the library, we can be sure that the bomber's fingerprints match the name on his fake driver's license."
As chance would have it, I just read James P. Hogan's latest book, Kicking the Sacred Cow, in which he touches on alternative (and often scoffed at) theories that seek to explain some of these mysteries.
Hogan's list of recommended reading on Astronomy, Cosmology and other subjects is here. I picked up Eric J. Lerner's and Tom van Flandern's books (The Big Bang Never Happened and Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, respectively), and they make for some fascinating reading.
Lerner, for example, proposes (or perhaps expands upon) a completely different set of theories for the formation of the universe in which plasma electrodynamics is one of the primary shapers and the universe is much older than suggested by the big bang theories. This theory eliminates the need for inflation, dark matter and energy, etc., and I think it's worth taking a serious look at.
Another interesting area that more people here may be familiar with is the research of Immanuel Velikovsky, whose most well know and controversial theory is that Venus was formed very recently and may have actually been thrown off by Jupiter. Some of Velikovsky's books are also listed on Hogan's site.
One of the things that I think is most important to realize about science is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ANY OF IT! It's not religion; if something doesn't quite work, and there are other theories out there, we should be willing to consider them.
For just a second, I thought, "Impossible!", but then I really started to think about it. If your projector uses narrow enough band pass filters for R, G, and B (and the narrower the better for color reproduction), then you could probably increase contrast pretty well by eliminating all ambient light outside of those bands.
A black body source (like an incandescent light bulb) puts out a continuous spectrum of light, and a lot of it would be outside of those three relatively narrow bands. Flourescent lights have a very different spectrum, but might work about as well.
Of course, if you use red, green, and blue LEDs to illuminate your room, the screen will reflect almost all of the ambient light. This is pretty uncommon, but there's a dance club here that uses such a system so that they can arbitrarily vary the color and brightness of the ambient light.
So, it's a base station, and you can stream music to it from your computer, and it can be used to extend an existing wireless network, and you can share a printer with it?
This does to many things without doing any of them well. My base station has a WAN port and a 4-port switch as well as wireless. If you want to plug any LAN machines into this, you can't. You'd need a switch/hub upstream, I guess, as well as a firewall. It makes a good base station only for those who only have wireless connections.
Of course, you'd probably have trouble plugging this into your LAN anyway, since you'll want it next to your stereo in order to stream music to it...and I guess you'd put your printer next to your stereo in the living room as well?
I actually think it's a cool idea to have an inexpensive, wireless device for streaming music from iTunes, but this seems like a case of feature creep. "Hey, it's already got the wireless chips, why not make it work as a base station too? Yeah, and if we added ethernet and USB, you could use it as a base station! Cool!"
Perhaps people have said this too many times in similar discussions, but if you think the RIAA and its member companies are being ridiculous (which is my position), don't buy their music.
Where my position might differ is on the subject of file sharing. I think the only thing that will ever get the attention of the publishing industry (book, CD, DVD manufacturers and distributors, etc.) and politicians is an honest boycott, and this would have to include file swapping.
When I read an article like this one, my first impression is that these people are out of their #*(@ing minds. Require finger prints in order to listen to music? Is this an April fool's joke? My calendar must be wrong. It is only the incredible demand for these people's products that makes such a plan remotely conceivable.
An actual boycott of RIAA/MPAA products would send this message: we don't want your products if you are going to engage in this type of sleazy business practice; change your ways or you won't get our custom. Swapping files says (to people with a completely skewed world view) people really want our product, and if we lock it up tightly enough, we can get more business.
For the pity's sake, people, this is not quashing of political dissent; it's not banning controversial books or manipulating the stock market. We're not talking about politicians lying for personal gain. This is music.
It's important, it's part of our culture, and we're talking about the livelihood and creative freedom of musical artists; but we're not talking about life or death (yet), and I think we could do a lot of good, perhaps even help to bring about copyright reform by simply saying, "RIAA, Fuck You!"
When I was a kid, our family lived in a hole in a highway median. For breakfast, all we had to eat was sand, and at night when we got home we had to have a bowl of cold poison and go straight to bed.
We didn't have enough money to go school, and I had two jobs. In the mornings I worked in a coal mine. They beat us before we went down the shaft just for the fun of it, and we were forced to toil ceaslessly in the mine wearing only loin cloths while standing in freezing water up to our waists.
After working in the mine, I went to my second job in a Chicago meat packing plant. Fortunately, I only had to haul buckets of entrails and excrement; I still have most of my fingers!
Samsung's international website lists the following specs for this model:
Wide format
Progressive scan
6.8M pixels
350 cd/m2
500:1 contrast ratio
170'/170' viewing angle
1900 X 1200 resolution
Virtual Dolby sound
Detachable speaker
PC capable
PIP & Double screen
AV wireless solution(option)
6.8 million clearly refers to sub-pixels. The US website, on the other hand, lists these:
HDV Monitor
Wide aspect ratio
Built-in NTSC tuner
DVD/DTV/PC capable
Split PIP with side-by-side feature
High resolution panel (1280 x 768)
600:1 contrast ratio
Brightness 450 cd/m?
20-watts audio total
Viewing angle 170(H)/170(V)
Response time: 22ms
Lamp life: 60,000hrs
Built-in swivel base
I'm wondering if they are selling two or more versions of this monitor in different places with the same name. I would much rather have the 1900 x 1200, myself.
Several online retailers I've found list the first set of specs. It makes me wonder if they're lazy and didn't do their homework, or if they're actually selling a higher resolution version of the panel.
Slashdot Mirror
Every programming language leads to its own types of laziness. I.e., there are unique types of laziness associated with assembly programming.
I've noticed this in the projects I've worked on in assembly. In several cases, I've later done a C version of the project targeting more powerful hardware, and the result is more robust. Yes, you could argue that the experience gained doing the assembly version aids the later development of the C version, and you would probably be correct. But it's just so much easier to do things in C, and this includes error checking!
Every assembly programming task is time consuming, and this can lead people to take shortcuts. Think there aren't any buffer overrun issues? Why? In C, all you might have to do is type something like "if (index>=length) {/*don't write to buffer or whatever*/}" There! Buffer overrun issue solved! In assembly, the same fix takes longer, and you might be less likely to implement it before the problem surfaces.
One thing I think assembly programming does give you is a very intuitive understanding of how a processor works, which in turn will help you avoid errors when programming in higher-level languages in the future. It helps to understand, for example, the sheer number of instructions required to perform extended precision floating point arithmetic on a fixed-point 8-bit processor!
Programming in assembly is not productive. It is educational, it is sometimes necessary, and I think it can be fun, but it is definitely not productive. I'd like to see a variant of C that exposes more of the low-level capabilities of the typical microcontroller (and that explicitly supports Harvard architecture processors, for that matter), but even in its current form, C seems to me an appropriate compromise between performance and productivity for low-level and bare metal programming.
No.
I have a pair of these Open-It shears, and they're one of my more frequently used tools. Work great:
http://www.amazon.com/Zibra-ZPCOPEN-OR-Universal-Package-Opener/dp/B000IHHOVI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1338583772&sr=8-3
We once bought 30 micro-SD cards for a project at work, which came packaged in annoying, hermetically sealed plastic clamshells. I used our laser cutter to slice around the actual card in each package. Voila!
I use Chrome. I like the current placement of the tabs above the location bar very much. I and most people who agree with me would never have thought to comment on this "bug" because we don't consider it a bug. If 99% of people (for the sake of argument) like the status quo, should you really be up in arms because a company ignores the 1% of people who complain?
On the other hand, perhaps an option to change the arrangement for those who want the tabs below...
Does one really save weight by transmitting laser power through an optical fiber versus using a lightweight electrical cable (maybe silver?) at a relatively high voltage? Even after the losses involved with converting the light back to electricity at the copter (probably about 50%)?
Serious question, is the power density of optical fiber really that high?
I've seen this technique used for sensors (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/electricity-over-glass), wouldn't have thought it would work well for something like this.
To be fair, the name of the app is "Wi-Fi Sync", and the icon is arrows in a circle (used for the Time Machine icon, for example) with Apple's own wi-fi icon in the middle. I'm thinking there's some sampling going on in both directions. Ironically, if Mr. Hughes' app hadn't been around, Apple might have come up with a more creative name and icon.
Apple may have ripped him off to some degree, but they may have already been planning this feature. As other posters have pointed out, also, they rejected his app because it didn't meet their guidelines, which is a separate topic.
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we stop acting like ready access to TV shows and movies is an inalienable right? Or like we're being repressed as a people when movie and TV studios make watching their content more difficult or comcast decides to limit access to the latest episode of your favorite show?
Form of...oh, just a bigger car.
Really? When I find a solution to a Windows problem that requires use of the command line, I usually consider it an annoying oversight. For example, having to use the command line to configure IPV6 in XP strongly suggests that IPV6 support is an incomplete hack in XP.
Totally off-topic, but I find the Pilot G-2 gel ink pen (I like the 0.7 mm) to be as good as any fountain pen I've ever used. Inexpensive, writes beautifully, and consistently works until the ink runs out, which, incidentally, is about 20x as long as a cartridge fountain pen.
I watched about half of his presentation. I was amused because on a lot of the slides he says something like "except on really low end embedded CPUs." I spend a lot of my time programming (frequently in assembly) for these exact very low end CPUs. I haven't had to do much with 8-bit cores, fortunately, but I've been doing a lot of programming on a 16-bit microcontroller lately (EMC eSL).
I suspect the way I'm programming these chips is a lot like how you would have programmed a desktop CPU in about 1980, except that I get to run all the tools on a computer with a clock speed 100x the chip I'm programming (and at least 1000x the performance). I am constantly amazed by how little we pay for these devices: ~10 Mips, 32k RAM, 128k Program memory, 1MB data memory and they're $1.
But they do have a 3-stage pipeline, so I guess some of what Dr. Cliff says still applies.
The toshiba micro-nuclear reactor sounds like a neat idea. Too bad it was a hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_Micro_Nuclear_Reactor
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/185/Toshiba-nuclear-reactor-hoax.html
I can imagine a similar discussion in 1875: "What will telegraphs look like in the future?"
This is a neat piece of technology. It looks to me like they've used a grid of electrodes + FSR ink to create an array of force sensing resistors.
I'm guessing: isolate a pair of electrodes (an X and a Y), and measure the resistance between them to get a reading of the pressure applied at that point. Scan the entire pad to get a pressure map.
This would be really cool for a touch screen interface, except for the fact that IT WOULD BE TOTALLY OPAQUE! The FSR ink is black. Maybe a thin enough layer could be used to be transparent and ITO electrodes could be used. I'm not sure. Sounds more expensive.
In other news:
* $100 Car Downgraded By Reality; Now Used Bicycle
* $75 House Now Tent
* $1 GPS System Now Toy Compass from Box of Cracker Jack
It's been a while since I've used linux. I don't particularly care for XP, but I use it on a daily basis because everything supports it. As an engineer, it's a lot more important to get the job done than to have a great OS and support the open source community. I've looking at buying an Apple laptop, and I may do that. Worst case, I could dual boot XP.
After reading through some of the comments, however, I became interested in giving it another go. The comments suggest that Ubuntu would be a good one to try. I downloaded the appropriate Ubuntu distro CD (x64 for my 64-bit AMD machine here at home) and tried to install it. I have already had enough time to completely evaluate Ubuntu on my machine, because the install CD will not get past the loading screen. When the progress bar is complete, the screen goes black. I let the machine sit there for half an hour: black screen. Different monitor: black screen. Built-in video (previously disabled) instead of video card: black screen.
In the past I've found linux to be such a pain in the ass that I considered it to be not just not user-friendly, but actively user-hostile. Ubuntu may be a great distro and perfect for beginners, but since I can't get it to install, it's about par for the course with my past linux experiences.
This is why linux hasn't spread. The user experience--for people who aren't linux hobbyists--is terrible. Free has nothing to do with it, and the author's pop psychology conclusion is horse shit.
-podom
This article is deserving of ridicule. Only if the total system cost of a computer were the cost of the CPU would the testers' performance rations (MHz/$, FPS/$, etc.) mean anything, but that's not the case.
Take for example the X2 3600+ and 6000+ at $73 and $241, respectively. They test these chips in identical systems whose only cost difference would be the price of the processor. The 6000+ costs 3.3x as much as the 3600+, but if you used the system cost, you might be looking at $900 vs. $1068, for example, a difference of ~19%.
The testers aggregate performance index shows the 6000+ at 150% the performance of the 3600+. With my two example systems, I get 50% more performance for only 19% more dollars. That makes the 6000+ seems like a pretty good value to me.
The article points out that a system based on the FX-72 or FX-74 would suffer in value from the requirement of using an expensive motherboard. This tends to make my point, that the total system cost is a much more reasonable number to use in calculating value. If you're building an otherwise outrageously expensive system, skimping on the processor saves you very little. In a bare-bones budget computer, it makes sense to use a cheaper processor because it reduces the system cost by a much larger percentage than in a high-end box.
-podom
"In today's news, a terrorist bombing in Boston killed 300 people. The bombing was apparently planned in part by a man using a library computer to communicate with other conspirators over the internet.
"Local authorities want to reassure the public that, thanks to security upgrades at the library, we can be sure that the bomber's fingerprints match the name on his fake driver's license."
Hogan's list of recommended reading on Astronomy, Cosmology and other subjects is here. I picked up Eric J. Lerner's and Tom van Flandern's books (The Big Bang Never Happened and Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, respectively), and they make for some fascinating reading.
Lerner, for example, proposes (or perhaps expands upon) a completely different set of theories for the formation of the universe in which plasma electrodynamics is one of the primary shapers and the universe is much older than suggested by the big bang theories. This theory eliminates the need for inflation, dark matter and energy, etc., and I think it's worth taking a serious look at.
Another interesting area that more people here may be familiar with is the research of Immanuel Velikovsky, whose most well know and controversial theory is that Venus was formed very recently and may have actually been thrown off by Jupiter. Some of Velikovsky's books are also listed on Hogan's site.
One of the things that I think is most important to realize about science is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ANY OF IT! It's not religion; if something doesn't quite work, and there are other theories out there, we should be willing to consider them.
-podom
exploring the solar system, sending probes, taking pictures, and what do we find out? God loves rocks.
podom
For just a second, I thought, "Impossible!", but then I really started to think about it. If your projector uses narrow enough band pass filters for R, G, and B (and the narrower the better for color reproduction), then you could probably increase contrast pretty well by eliminating all ambient light outside of those bands.
A black body source (like an incandescent light bulb) puts out a continuous spectrum of light, and a lot of it would be outside of those three relatively narrow bands. Flourescent lights have a very different spectrum, but might work about as well.
Of course, if you use red, green, and blue LEDs to illuminate your room, the screen will reflect almost all of the ambient light. This is pretty uncommon, but there's a dance club here that uses such a system so that they can arbitrarily vary the color and brightness of the ambient light.
-podom
So, it's a base station, and you can stream music to it from your computer, and it can be used to extend an existing wireless network, and you can share a printer with it?
This does to many things without doing any of them well. My base station has a WAN port and a 4-port switch as well as wireless. If you want to plug any LAN machines into this, you can't. You'd need a switch/hub upstream, I guess, as well as a firewall. It makes a good base station only for those who only have wireless connections.
Of course, you'd probably have trouble plugging this into your LAN anyway, since you'll want it next to your stereo in order to stream music to it...and I guess you'd put your printer next to your stereo in the living room as well?
I actually think it's a cool idea to have an inexpensive, wireless device for streaming music from iTunes, but this seems like a case of feature creep. "Hey, it's already got the wireless chips, why not make it work as a base station too? Yeah, and if we added ethernet and USB, you could use it as a base station! Cool!"
-podom
Perhaps people have said this too many times in similar discussions, but if you think the RIAA and its member companies are being ridiculous (which is my position), don't buy their music.
Where my position might differ is on the subject of file sharing. I think the only thing that will ever get the attention of the publishing industry (book, CD, DVD manufacturers and distributors, etc.) and politicians is an honest boycott, and this would have to include file swapping.
When I read an article like this one, my first impression is that these people are out of their #*(@ing minds. Require finger prints in order to listen to music? Is this an April fool's joke? My calendar must be wrong. It is only the incredible demand for these people's products that makes such a plan remotely conceivable.
An actual boycott of RIAA/MPAA products would send this message: we don't want your products if you are going to engage in this type of sleazy business practice; change your ways or you won't get our custom. Swapping files says (to people with a completely skewed world view) people really want our product, and if we lock it up tightly enough, we can get more business.
For the pity's sake, people, this is not quashing of political dissent; it's not banning controversial books or manipulating the stock market. We're not talking about politicians lying for personal gain. This is music.
It's important, it's part of our culture, and we're talking about the livelihood and creative freedom of musical artists; but we're not talking about life or death (yet), and I think we could do a lot of good, perhaps even help to bring about copyright reform by simply saying, "RIAA, Fuck You!"
-Philip
When I was a kid, our family lived in a hole in a highway median. For breakfast, all we had to eat was sand, and at night when we got home we had to have a bowl of cold poison and go straight to bed.
We didn't have enough money to go school, and I had two jobs. In the mornings I worked in a coal mine. They beat us before we went down the shaft just for the fun of it, and we were forced to toil ceaslessly in the mine wearing only loin cloths while standing in freezing water up to our waists.
After working in the mine, I went to my second job in a Chicago meat packing plant. Fortunately, I only had to haul buckets of entrails and excrement; I still have most of my fingers!
Samsung's international website lists the following specs for this model:
Wide format
Progressive scan
6.8M pixels
350 cd/m2
500:1 contrast ratio
170'/170' viewing angle
1900 X 1200 resolution
Virtual Dolby sound
Detachable speaker
PC capable
PIP & Double screen
AV wireless solution(option)
6.8 million clearly refers to sub-pixels. The US website, on the other hand, lists these:
HDV Monitor
Wide aspect ratio
Built-in NTSC tuner
DVD/DTV/PC capable
Split PIP with side-by-side feature
High resolution panel (1280 x 768)
600:1 contrast ratio
Brightness 450 cd/m?
20-watts audio total
Viewing angle 170(H)/170(V)
Response time: 22ms
Lamp life: 60,000hrs
Built-in swivel base
I'm wondering if they are selling two or more versions of this monitor in different places with the same name. I would much rather have the 1900 x 1200, myself.
Several online retailers I've found list the first set of specs. It makes me wonder if they're lazy and didn't do their homework, or if they're actually selling a higher resolution version of the panel.
-podom