The missing element from ordinary monitors(CRT or LCD) is a lens that makes it all work. The lens sits in front of the screen and lets your left eye see the odd columns of pixels, and lets your right eye see the even column of pixels. This lets the monitor display different pictures to each eye. Its similar to how those 3D posters at the movie theater work. You would need to buy the lens as an add-on(which would probably be near impossible since the placement needs to be so exact.
You haven't bought the ATA-186 from Vonage, you are only borrowing it. You will need to return it when you cancel the service or you will get a $200 charge to the credit card they have for billing.
I'm going to have to challenge you on that claim that Motorola's OLED screen was viewable in sunlight. OLEDs give off light, some of different colors(i.e. red, green, blue to make a full color display). They do not, however, absorb or transmit external light differently when an electric current passed through them. That would be necessary for them to be viewable in sunlight. They would need to absorb wavelengths of the sunlight(similar to how ink works) instead of emitting wavelengths of their own. Also the reason they don't require a backlight, is because they ARE the backlight. They still are viewable only because they give off light, not because they transform it. The brighter the ambient light, the more washed out the display. Maybe they are so bright that even sunlight can't wash them out. That would be impressive.
This technology still has the problem that transmissive LCDs(Laptop/Flat screen LCDs) have in that it's unreadable in sunlight. So this will replace Laptop LCDs while E-Ink still corners the market with replacing reflective LCDs(Gameboy Advance, m505, new iPaq) and "static print technology"(ink on paper).
The MTV 2002 Movie Awards isn't live and was filmed this past weekend. After the filming, the winners were never a secret. I read the winners earlier this week on Yahoo. Here's a June 3 article on E!Online.
TI just recently released it's highest resolution DLP chip yet at 1920x1080(HDTV). I'm not sure there are DLP Cinema units shipping with that chip yet(though a quick search on Google came up with plenty of $10K Comsumer HDTVs). I agree that the resolution still does not rival 35mm, but I've seen HDTV and I bet that it will hold up well on the big screen.
That's the charge, final bill, every month. I don't know what the two charges you mentioned are but they don't apply, probably because VoIP is not regulated like land lines...yet:-( There is no 911 fee because there is no 911 support as everyone and their mother has posted.
Re:Better Business Bureau?
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 1
Was it a large corporation that paid large "dues"? If it wasn't, then I'm not surprised the BBB was on your side. Concerning Best Buy, they aren't about to "bite a hand that feeds them".
Re:Better Business Bureau?
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
On the linked page you'll see the "saga" that Steve has gone through with the BBB. They are nothing but an organization that collects large "dues" from corporations and does nothing about complaints. The BBB contact that Steve spoke with outright lied about people getting the cards at $129 even AFTER being confronted with undeniable evidence! Its been a real eyeopener for a lot of people.
You can't pick your exchange so you won't be listed in the local phone book either. The exchanges are ones owned by Vonage. So someone who signs up with a 914 area code will get an exchange of 461 even though they might live where everyone has an exchange of 921. For me its not a problem.
Talk to people who were in Manhattan on 9/11 about how well the phone lines and cell phones worked compared to Instant Message. I think if VoIP was in place, it would have been able to handle the load.
Latency: no noticeable. When I say the quality is indistiguishable from a land line I mean it. I've used plenty of computer based things like Internet Phone, DialPad and Net2Phone and there was always a noticable quality difference. With this there is NO difference.
Gateways into local exchanges: Vonage maintains the gateways and is also smart enough to direct VoIP to VoIP calls directly to each other. It saves THEM money to do that.
But isn't this just an expensive hardware implementation of transparent windows? Something like MacOSX/Aqua offers in software? How is this worth spending $6000 when you can buy a Mac and get this feature "included" with ANY monitor you buy?
It seems to me that you wouldn't be able to get true stereoscopic vision from this monitor only a two-layer 2D setup. Is this really any more useful than having 2 monitor's side-by-side? You can read about a true stereoscopic 3D monitor here. This uses an LCD behind a "vertical-blinds"-type lens to allow each eye to only see alternate columns of pixels. So it displays the left eye's image on "even" columns and the right eye's image on "odd" columns. Sounds cool, works on the same principle as those 3D posters at your local theater, and is only around $1500 compared to $6000. It's made my DTI.
Slashdot Mirror
Light travels at 186,000 mile per second.
The missing element from ordinary monitors(CRT or LCD) is a lens that makes it all work. The lens sits in front of the screen and lets your left eye see the odd columns of pixels, and lets your right eye see the even column of pixels. This lets the monitor display different pictures to each eye. Its similar to how those 3D posters at the movie theater work. You would need to buy the lens as an add-on(which would probably be near impossible since the placement needs to be so exact.
You haven't bought the ATA-186 from Vonage, you are only borrowing it. You will need to return it when you cancel the service or you will get a $200 charge to the credit card they have for billing.
I'm going to have to challenge you on that claim that Motorola's OLED screen was viewable in sunlight. OLEDs give off light, some of different colors(i.e. red, green, blue to make a full color display). They do not, however, absorb or transmit external light differently when an electric current passed through them. That would be necessary for them to be viewable in sunlight. They would need to absorb wavelengths of the sunlight(similar to how ink works) instead of emitting wavelengths of their own. Also the reason they don't require a backlight, is because they ARE the backlight. They still are viewable only because they give off light, not because they transform it. The brighter the ambient light, the more washed out the display. Maybe they are so bright that even sunlight can't wash them out. That would be impressive.
This technology still has the problem that transmissive LCDs(Laptop/Flat screen LCDs) have in that it's unreadable in sunlight. So this will replace Laptop LCDs while E-Ink still corners the market with replacing reflective LCDs(Gameboy Advance, m505, new iPaq) and "static print technology"(ink on paper).
The MTV 2002 Movie Awards isn't live and was filmed this past weekend. After the filming, the winners were never a secret. I read the winners earlier this week on Yahoo. Here's a June 3 article on E!Online.
TI just recently released it's highest resolution DLP chip yet at 1920x1080(HDTV). I'm not sure there are DLP Cinema units shipping with that chip yet(though a quick search on Google came up with plenty of $10K Comsumer HDTVs). I agree that the resolution still does not rival 35mm, but I've seen HDTV and I bet that it will hold up well on the big screen.
His name is Ray not John.
That's the charge, final bill, every month. I don't know what the two charges you mentioned are but they don't apply, probably because VoIP is not regulated like land lines...yet :-( There is no 911 fee because there is no 911 support as everyone and their mother has posted.
If I could mod you up to 6, I would. Well done.
Was it a large corporation that paid large "dues"? If it wasn't, then I'm not surprised the BBB was on your side. Concerning Best Buy, they aren't about to "bite a hand that feeds them".
On the linked page you'll see the "saga" that Steve has gone through with the BBB. They are nothing but an organization that collects large "dues" from corporations and does nothing about complaints. The BBB contact that Steve spoke with outright lied about people getting the cards at $129 even AFTER being confronted with undeniable evidence! Its been a real eyeopener for a lot of people.
My broadband is 3M downstream and 1M upstream so the 90k for VoIP is a tiny fraction of my broadband. Cablevision knows how to do it right!
They state that you need at least 90kbps up/down.
The short answer, Yes. The long answer, Yeap.
You can't pick your exchange so you won't be listed in the local phone book either. The exchanges are ones owned by Vonage. So someone who signs up with a 914 area code will get an exchange of 461 even though they might live where everyone has an exchange of 921. For me its not a problem.
$19.99 turns into $20.59 because of some FET tax. That's what my monthly bill will be.
Talk to people who were in Manhattan on 9/11 about how well the phone lines and cell phones worked compared to Instant Message. I think if VoIP was in place, it would have been able to handle the load.
I've had my cable modem for almost a year and it hasn't gone down once. Cablevision is my provider and I haven't had any problems.
It supports faxing but not PPP modems at this time.
Latency: no noticeable. When I say the quality is indistiguishable from a land line I mean it. I've used plenty of computer based things like Internet Phone, DialPad and Net2Phone and there was always a noticable quality difference. With this there is NO difference. Gateways into local exchanges: Vonage maintains the gateways and is also smart enough to direct VoIP to VoIP calls directly to each other. It saves THEM money to do that.
My Cablevision cable modem hasn't gone down, not even once, since I got it almost a year ago. So for me its worth it.
They say you need at least 90kbps up and down. I haven't run any test to verify that that is what it uses.
But isn't this just an expensive hardware implementation of transparent windows? Something like MacOSX/Aqua offers in software? How is this worth spending $6000 when you can buy a Mac and get this feature "included" with ANY monitor you buy?
It seems to me that you wouldn't be able to get true stereoscopic vision from this monitor only a two-layer 2D setup. Is this really any more useful than having 2 monitor's side-by-side? You can read about a true stereoscopic 3D monitor here. This uses an LCD behind a "vertical-blinds"-type lens to allow each eye to only see alternate columns of pixels. So it displays the left eye's image on "even" columns and the right eye's image on "odd" columns. Sounds cool, works on the same principle as those 3D posters at your local theater, and is only around $1500 compared to $6000. It's made my DTI.