Verizon allowed preorder, contract allowed re-upping / new device as of today, so I went ahead and pulled the proverbial trigger. S7 (not the edge) should be here early next month. Really looking forward to it.
Cost me $200 + 2 year contract, but as we have no other viable cell provider here... contract is the same as "I have a phone" $200 doesn't seem like a bad price for such a thing. Modern phones are amazing.
... melting ice from continental blocks pours into the sea... I would imagine such water, having recently changed state from ice, is colder than the sea, not warmer than it, and so the net effect would be to reduce the temperature of the water it hits.
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
2 out of three, pretty good. And the battery... the wireless charging means I can put wireless chargers everywhere I put the thing down and not have to mess with it otherwise. It's not optimum, but it's still pretty spiffy. Guess I know what my next phone is going to be.:)
o Replaceable / upgradable battery? o Memory card slot / bay? o Standard change connector (or better yet, wireless charging)?
And finally, as a Note III owner, did they fix the damned over-sensitivity / under-rigidity at the edges so you can hold it without feeding unintended input to the touchscreen?
...so their missions were of necessarily limited duration...
From TFS:
...$2.3 billion and should operate for at least six years...
Unless I've slipped a digit, that's about $43,000 an hour. That seems to me to be both limited duration and very expensive for what amounts to just more IR photos of the universe.
I am pro-space, and I make no bones about it. However:
I think that deployment of this kind of observation tool would make more sense at a later date when instruments like it (and of a certainty, better than it) could be produced outside our gravity well.
Right now, were it up to me, I'd be concentrating on trying to get a maintainable infrastructure established - living space, food production, manufacturing, mining.
I have the latest FF, and I update it whenever it says it's time to.
I almost always have a gmail tab open; a couple of slack tabs open; and it would be an unusual day if I didn't read at least one slashdot story. Aside from that, I browse Amazon, visit flickr, and google things. I'd say pretty much anything else I do would be exceptional, and so unlikely to be a specific culprit, assuming that there is one, other than FF itself or OS X. I rarely open large images in my browser.
I don't use FF plug-ins.
I don't think I have any really unusual FF prefs settings; I've looked at them many times, and other than setting the cache to 10 mb, they all seem pretty vanilla.
Sometimes simplicity can (somewhat non-intuitively) impede productivity
It's not non-intuitive at all.
Simplicity is great for two classes of users: power users who don't want to be power users of that particular segment of tech, and the broad swath of droolers out there. That's by far the largest chunk of market. Their version of productivity is "do the average thing without being bothered by anything." So for them, simplicity is productive.
Unfortunately, that leaves power users who do want, or even might need, sophisticated features, without the tools they need to be specifically productive. And it leads to the kind of brain-dead thinking that gives us "features" like hiding the URL and just showing the domain, non-standard (and broken) buttons because "oh, pretty", UI elements that migrate like addled geese, not to mention just up and disappear...
Every release of firefox, I hope again that they have fixed the memory leaks. They never have. I have to shut firefox down every day and run the OS X developer application "purge" to get my memory back so other programs don't stall like republicans in congress. FF is the only program that requires this. I've gone so far as to take a machine with a fresh OS install and then add FF... and it always acts the same - eats RAM like starving locusts at a newly discovered wheatfield. Lots of people have made suggestions, including one wag-er who told me "8 GB isn't enough"(!... I typically run with about 4 GB free if FF isn't chewing on my bits.)
When I run purge, I can see memory consumption drop by 4 gigs (!) that FF has chewed to shreds; I end up with my other apps still using what they usually use, I can start FF again, and by about 8 hours later... time to kill it and purge again.
I have over-ridden cache management and set it to 10 MB; but it seems nothing helps except killing FF.
On top of that, tabs hang and consume 100% CPU, scrolling is jerky and unreliable, and when I open new tabs, the others freeze and unfreeze several times. On 3 GHz, 8-core, 8 GB machines. Which is absurd.
The bad news is that Safari has even worse problems.
Everyone wants to rush into the future. Microsoft, Apple, the FF people... pretty much everybody. I wish they'd stop trying to add features and just FIX WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.
Best browser I ever used? Omniweb. By miles and miles.
Unfortunately, Omniweb's developers succumbed to Apple's "New! Shiny! Incompatible!" mantra and hooked into OS X features that are only in late versions of the OS, so it's unusable under the more functional versions of OS X (no busted "appNap", no "sandboxing", comprehensive PPC support, etc.). I sure do miss using that browser.
Vivaldi? Sure, I'll try it. I'll try anything. I'm desperate now. I would give a lot for a browser that actually worked smoothly. I've not seen one in years, though.
Scalia was a terrible jurist. And in no sense an:originalist, though the media would have you believe that. The decision he said he was most proud of, Heller, is a perfect example. The decision went the right way - but his reasoning was nothing short of bewildered. For example, he wrote:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on [...] laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings"
The constitution says zip about not being able to carry firearms (or other arms) in schools and government buildings. It says what amounts to the opposite, in fact, that infringing on the right to keep and carry arms (not just firearms, but arms in general) is forbidden to the government. There is no "except", no "although", and no "option." It's forbidden. Constitutionally, in any even remotely originalist reading, such restriction by the government is simply not allowed.
So the right way to go at Heller in terms of actual originalist thinking was simply this: Does the DC law infringe on the right to keep and carry? Answer: Yes, of course it did, and blatantly so. Therefore, it fails the test of constitutionality, and GTFO our legal system with your unconstitutional dungheap of a law.
Personally, I'm delighted Scalia is gone, though I would have much rather seen him impeached for outrageously violating his oath (along with most of congress and the rest of the bench-warmers on SCOTUS) than die.
As for Obama, I suspect he'll nominate a more-or-less centrist candidate. He will, as per usual, play chess against the constant offerings of angry checkers by the congress. He is not nearly as outright stupid as his opposition has shown themselves to be.
It seems that the Republicans simply cannot field a sane conservative candidate. That's why the liberals had 8 years of the presidency, and - frankly - it's why they are about to get (at least) 4 more. The entire Republican roster as is stands today is nothing short of miserable. Libertarians, as per usual, are the beggars at the door. And the door... the door is not open. Liberty is about the last thing on this society's mind at this time. I have no idea how that could be remedied.
BTW, don't mistake me for a pro-gun person. I'm not. I'm a pro-constitution person. If arms are not to be kept and carried, article five needs to come into play. That's exactly why it is there in the first place. Not so blowhards like Scalia can make crap up out of whole cloth.
PS: New leadership: Would you *please* consider hiring some editors that are at least somewhat technically competent? It would also be nice if, you know, they could... edit the written word competently. The best that can be said of slashdot's "editors" to date is that they have been a constant source of amusement for some. Wouldn't it be amazing if TFS's that actually hit the site were edited into well written presentations? Well, it would be for me. Reading most of them so far has been like being poked in the eye with a sharp stick.
Vacuum tubes work marvelously well with only electrons.
If by "marvelously well" you mean with high random noise levels, comparatively low current capacities, and comparatively huge volume requirements, sure.
And if by "only electrons" you mean "only electrons, neutrons, protons, electromagnetic fields and - of course - vacuum, sure.
N-type semiconductors... the materials have excess electrons, and leverage that.
P-type semiconductors... the materials have an electron deficit, creating "holes" in the structure, and the material leverages those deficits.
There are no "positive" electrons. Well, there are, sort of, but they have little to nothing to do with n-type and p-type materials. Unless physics has completely rewritten semiconductor theory while I wasn't looking, which I suppose is possible.
It's theoretically possible to have a democracy where the voters are informed.
TL;DR: Only in the sense that it's theoretically possible that all the air in the room could rush to one corner of it, leaving you sucking vacuum.
Until we can edit the genome and having dimwit, non-critical thinking kids is treated as profound child abuse, it isn't even remotely possible. It's not a matter of simply putting information out. Putting information in front of someone who, any or all of, has not the context to evaluate that information, the mental capacity to grasp the relevant issues, the historical perspective to understand the larger implications, is superstitious, does not grasp scientific method, does not fully understand the concepts of debt and interest, doesn't have an understanding of the way the government actually works, not to mention how the legal system is structured and the mechanisms that inform and structure the judiciary... it accomplishes nothing useful in terms of producing voting patterns that benefit the society at hand.
That's what the politicians leverage; they love having a clueless voting pool. It reduces the undertaking of campaigning for office to a puppet show for droolers. Look at the current republican and democratic presidential campaigns. Look at nearly everything any sitting congresscritter has said; they clearly and consistently assume those consuming the drivel they spew lack the ability to successfully parse it; and those consumers keep re-electing them at a 90+% rate, so again clearly, they are not at all wrong in that assumption.
In the case of the US, the original concept was so good that even a cursory implementation of it (and make no mistake, that's the closest we've ever gotten to actually implementing the governing mechanism the constitution told us to implement) resulted in a working government. We're about as far from the constitution's constraints as we've ever been today, and that is largely a consequence of consistently electing unqualified, wealthy people into positions of power; they, in turn, consistently select appointed officials that will serve their agendas, which would be fine, if those agendas were actually designed to serve the people, rather than the politicians and those who line up to fill their pockets and lives with favors. Fun fact: The average congresscritter's net worth was about a million dollars as of 2015.
So far, every governing system has crashed or mutated beyond recognition of its original form, most of them in a few hundred years or less. Ours is no exception. It has degenerated from a (best case) weak implementation of a constitutional republic into an oligarchy. As a constitutional republic, if you can successfully argue that it ever was one (doubtful, frankly, but...) it has completely crashed. The government does what it wants, when it wants to, sans constitutional restraint on almost every front. SCOTUS is a (bad) joke. Legislation production is a matter of "let's see how sophist we can be today" and the court system in general... a ludicrous parody of justice that dances to the tune of the nearest open wallet in the vast majority of cases. Voting, courtesy of the rigid lock the two political parties have on candidate selection, consists of choosing between a shit sandwich and a turd croissant. Sometimes you can select a cow pie instead, such as when an independently rich person runs, the most obvious example being Trump. But usually not.
Informed voters? No, not possible. Not yet. The majority is variously uninformed, misinformed, confused and bewildered. They utterly lack the cognitive tools and resources to rise above that. Even assuming we got around that (which absolutely would require genetic modification) our entire society would have to be completely revamped from the educational system on up; religion and all the other various forms of superstition and inculcated cognitive failure would have to go away, etc. It would take many decades, if not centuries, to undo
Your TV could compromise other devices on your network, such as your net-connected thermostat, or the very computer you are typing on, either directly or via another "smart device" you've allowed to access your computer. Hence neatly stepping around your mac ID block. Your firewall will simply go "oh, ok, it's Lumpy's computer, out you go."
And if you're going to say "but you can actively allow / disallow every network request on your computer, then yes, I agree (and do in fact, even though my main computer isn't on the net at all and this one is just a surfing platform) but (a) a safe network request long-term approved today (ok, thermostat, you can talk to my machine) may not be safe tomorrow, and (b) most people won't know what they are looking at anyway. The nature of intentional compromise is to be a subtle as possible and to look as innocent as possible.
If you want privacy, you need to educate yourself in the use of technology that empowers and compromises you.
A separate, wired network is the only decent answer at present. That's generally quite secure until / unless you have physical intrusion issues. For that, you need the 2nd amendment -- arms.
The constitution constrains the government as to requiring warrants. It does not constrain the citizen or the corporate pseudo-person in like manner. Something similar (probably still not requiring warrants) requires specific legislation. There isn't much of that at present, either.
The Firestick (and Fire) both include Alexa; which is voice-to-cloud and thence to...
Of course, you have to press a button so that it will obey your commands. There's no particular reason to assume you have to press a button for it to listen to you without pressing a button.
Other than... Amazon says no. Amazon is a corporation that has chosen many times over the years to do the thing that earns them money instead of the right thing. They're right up there with Google for being extremely disingenuous with the consumers that interact with them and their products. So you might want to take that "no" with at least one grain of salt. Also keeping in mind that what they do today with their hardware does not in any way predict the future employment of said hardware.
Projectors are still in the running. Perhaps not for much longer, but I have a recent one that produces a stupendous image and has no provision for "connectivity" at all (I say that as an obscenity, btw.) Plus, I pretty much run in the front of the pack in the "big TV war." Not a lot of 204" displays out there...:)
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon allowed preorder, contract allowed re-upping / new device as of today, so I went ahead and pulled the proverbial trigger. S7 (not the edge) should be here early next month. Really looking forward to it.
Cost me $200 + 2 year contract, but as we have no other viable cell provider here... contract is the same as "I have a phone" $200 doesn't seem like a bad price for such a thing. Modern phones are amazing.
From TFS:
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
Perhaps I'm missing something here.
2 out of three, pretty good. And the battery... the wireless charging means I can put wireless chargers everywhere I put the thing down and not have to mess with it otherwise. It's not optimum, but it's still pretty spiffy. Guess I know what my next phone is going to be. :)
Thank you!
Key tech not mentioned in TFS:
o Replaceable / upgradable battery?
o Memory card slot / bay?
o Standard change connector (or better yet, wireless charging)?
And finally, as a Note III owner, did they fix the damned over-sensitivity / under-rigidity at the edges so you can hold it without feeding unintended input to the touchscreen?
From TFS:
Unless I've slipped a digit, that's about $43,000 an hour. That seems to me to be both limited duration and very expensive for what amounts to just more IR photos of the universe.
I am pro-space, and I make no bones about it. However:
I think that deployment of this kind of observation tool would make more sense at a later date when instruments like it (and of a certainty, better than it) could be produced outside our gravity well.
Right now, were it up to me, I'd be concentrating on trying to get a maintainable infrastructure established - living space, food production, manufacturing, mining.
Yes, OS X 10.6.8.
I have the latest FF, and I update it whenever it says it's time to.
I almost always have a gmail tab open; a couple of slack tabs open; and it would be an unusual day if I didn't read at least one slashdot story. Aside from that, I browse Amazon, visit flickr, and google things. I'd say pretty much anything else I do would be exceptional, and so unlikely to be a specific culprit, assuming that there is one, other than FF itself or OS X. I rarely open large images in my browser.
I don't use FF plug-ins.
I don't think I have any really unusual FF prefs settings; I've looked at them many times, and other than setting the cache to 10 mb, they all seem pretty vanilla.
Thanks for the interest. Appreciate any insight.
Yeah, it certainly could be OS X <--> FF interaction. I just wish they'd fix the thing.
It's not non-intuitive at all.
Simplicity is great for two classes of users: power users who don't want to be power users of that particular segment of tech, and the broad swath of droolers out there. That's by far the largest chunk of market. Their version of productivity is "do the average thing without being bothered by anything." So for them, simplicity is productive.
Unfortunately, that leaves power users who do want, or even might need, sophisticated features, without the tools they need to be specifically productive. And it leads to the kind of brain-dead thinking that gives us "features" like hiding the URL and just showing the domain, non-standard (and broken) buttons because "oh, pretty", UI elements that migrate like addled geese, not to mention just up and disappear...
Sigh.
Every release of firefox, I hope again that they have fixed the memory leaks. They never have. I have to shut firefox down every day and run the OS X developer application "purge" to get my memory back so other programs don't stall like republicans in congress. FF is the only program that requires this. I've gone so far as to take a machine with a fresh OS install and then add FF... and it always acts the same - eats RAM like starving locusts at a newly discovered wheatfield. Lots of people have made suggestions, including one wag-er who told me "8 GB isn't enough"(! ... I typically run with about 4 GB free if FF isn't chewing on my bits.)
When I run purge, I can see memory consumption drop by 4 gigs (!) that FF has chewed to shreds; I end up with my other apps still using what they usually use, I can start FF again, and by about 8 hours later... time to kill it and purge again.
I have over-ridden cache management and set it to 10 MB; but it seems nothing helps except killing FF.
On top of that, tabs hang and consume 100% CPU, scrolling is jerky and unreliable, and when I open new tabs, the others freeze and unfreeze several times. On 3 GHz, 8-core, 8 GB machines. Which is absurd.
The bad news is that Safari has even worse problems.
Everyone wants to rush into the future. Microsoft, Apple, the FF people... pretty much everybody. I wish they'd stop trying to add features and just FIX WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.
Best browser I ever used? Omniweb. By miles and miles.
Unfortunately, Omniweb's developers succumbed to Apple's "New! Shiny! Incompatible!" mantra and hooked into OS X features that are only in late versions of the OS, so it's unusable under the more functional versions of OS X (no busted "appNap", no "sandboxing", comprehensive PPC support, etc.). I sure do miss using that browser.
Vivaldi? Sure, I'll try it. I'll try anything. I'm desperate now. I would give a lot for a browser that actually worked smoothly. I've not seen one in years, though.
Scalia was a terrible jurist. And in no sense an :originalist, though the media would have you believe that. The decision he said he was most proud of, Heller, is a perfect example. The decision went the right way - but his reasoning was nothing short of bewildered. For example, he wrote:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on [...] laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings"
The constitution says zip about not being able to carry firearms (or other arms) in schools and government buildings. It says what amounts to the opposite, in fact, that infringing on the right to keep and carry arms (not just firearms, but arms in general) is forbidden to the government. There is no "except", no "although", and no "option." It's forbidden. Constitutionally, in any even remotely originalist reading, such restriction by the government is simply not allowed.
So the right way to go at Heller in terms of actual originalist thinking was simply this: Does the DC law infringe on the right to keep and carry? Answer: Yes, of course it did, and blatantly so. Therefore, it fails the test of constitutionality, and GTFO our legal system with your unconstitutional dungheap of a law.
Personally, I'm delighted Scalia is gone, though I would have much rather seen him impeached for outrageously violating his oath (along with most of congress and the rest of the bench-warmers on SCOTUS) than die.
As for Obama, I suspect he'll nominate a more-or-less centrist candidate. He will, as per usual, play chess against the constant offerings of angry checkers by the congress. He is not nearly as outright stupid as his opposition has shown themselves to be.
It seems that the Republicans simply cannot field a sane conservative candidate. That's why the liberals had 8 years of the presidency, and - frankly - it's why they are about to get (at least) 4 more. The entire Republican roster as is stands today is nothing short of miserable. Libertarians, as per usual, are the beggars at the door. And the door... the door is not open. Liberty is about the last thing on this society's mind at this time. I have no idea how that could be remedied.
BTW, don't mistake me for a pro-gun person. I'm not. I'm a pro-constitution person. If arms are not to be kept and carried, article five needs to come into play. That's exactly why it is there in the first place. Not so blowhards like Scalia can make crap up out of whole cloth.
Hah. Moderating fact as flamebait. Hilarious.
Perhaps you shouldn't have been carrying curry in your backpack, newb.
PS: New leadership: Would you *please* consider hiring some editors that are at least somewhat technically competent? It would also be nice if, you know, they could... edit the written word competently. The best that can be said of slashdot's "editors" to date is that they have been a constant source of amusement for some. Wouldn't it be amazing if TFS's that actually hit the site were edited into well written presentations? Well, it would be for me. Reading most of them so far has been like being poked in the eye with a sharp stick.
If by "marvelously well" you mean with high random noise levels, comparatively low current capacities, and comparatively huge volume requirements, sure.
And if by "only electrons" you mean "only electrons, neutrons, protons, electromagnetic fields and - of course - vacuum, sure.
n-type (negative) electrons
ha
ha ha ha
blargh hah ha hah ha
N-type semiconductors... the materials have excess electrons, and leverage that.
P-type semiconductors... the materials have an electron deficit, creating "holes" in the structure, and the material leverages those deficits.
There are no "positive" electrons. Well, there are, sort of, but they have little to nothing to do with n-type and p-type materials. Unless physics has completely rewritten semiconductor theory while I wasn't looking, which I suppose is possible.
TL;DR: Only in the sense that it's theoretically possible that all the air in the room could rush to one corner of it, leaving you sucking vacuum.
Until we can edit the genome and having dimwit, non-critical thinking kids is treated as profound child abuse, it isn't even remotely possible. It's not a matter of simply putting information out. Putting information in front of someone who, any or all of, has not the context to evaluate that information, the mental capacity to grasp the relevant issues, the historical perspective to understand the larger implications, is superstitious, does not grasp scientific method, does not fully understand the concepts of debt and interest, doesn't have an understanding of the way the government actually works, not to mention how the legal system is structured and the mechanisms that inform and structure the judiciary... it accomplishes nothing useful in terms of producing voting patterns that benefit the society at hand.
That's what the politicians leverage; they love having a clueless voting pool. It reduces the undertaking of campaigning for office to a puppet show for droolers. Look at the current republican and democratic presidential campaigns. Look at nearly everything any sitting congresscritter has said; they clearly and consistently assume those consuming the drivel they spew lack the ability to successfully parse it; and those consumers keep re-electing them at a 90+% rate, so again clearly, they are not at all wrong in that assumption.
In the case of the US, the original concept was so good that even a cursory implementation of it (and make no mistake, that's the closest we've ever gotten to actually implementing the governing mechanism the constitution told us to implement) resulted in a working government. We're about as far from the constitution's constraints as we've ever been today, and that is largely a consequence of consistently electing unqualified, wealthy people into positions of power; they, in turn, consistently select appointed officials that will serve their agendas, which would be fine, if those agendas were actually designed to serve the people, rather than the politicians and those who line up to fill their pockets and lives with favors. Fun fact: The average congresscritter's net worth was about a million dollars as of 2015.
So far, every governing system has crashed or mutated beyond recognition of its original form, most of them in a few hundred years or less. Ours is no exception. It has degenerated from a (best case) weak implementation of a constitutional republic into an oligarchy. As a constitutional republic, if you can successfully argue that it ever was one (doubtful, frankly, but...) it has completely crashed. The government does what it wants, when it wants to, sans constitutional restraint on almost every front. SCOTUS is a (bad) joke. Legislation production is a matter of "let's see how sophist we can be today" and the court system in general... a ludicrous parody of justice that dances to the tune of the nearest open wallet in the vast majority of cases. Voting, courtesy of the rigid lock the two political parties have on candidate selection, consists of choosing between a shit sandwich and a turd croissant. Sometimes you can select a cow pie instead, such as when an independently rich person runs, the most obvious example being Trump. But usually not.
Informed voters? No, not possible. Not yet. The majority is variously uninformed, misinformed, confused and bewildered. They utterly lack the cognitive tools and resources to rise above that. Even assuming we got around that (which absolutely would require genetic modification) our entire society would have to be completely revamped from the educational system on up; religion and all the other various forms of superstition and inculcated cognitive failure would have to go away, etc. It would take many decades, if not centuries, to undo
No. Because the memory of the latter deserves respect. Scalia's memory... does not. At all.
Yes, excellent, if you were prescient enough to establish an isolated network.
Your TV could compromise other devices on your network, such as your net-connected thermostat, or the very computer you are typing on, either directly or via another "smart device" you've allowed to access your computer. Hence neatly stepping around your mac ID block. Your firewall will simply go "oh, ok, it's Lumpy's computer, out you go."
And if you're going to say "but you can actively allow / disallow every network request on your computer, then yes, I agree (and do in fact, even though my main computer isn't on the net at all and this one is just a surfing platform) but (a) a safe network request long-term approved today (ok, thermostat, you can talk to my machine) may not be safe tomorrow, and (b) most people won't know what they are looking at anyway. The nature of intentional compromise is to be a subtle as possible and to look as innocent as possible.
If you want privacy, you need to educate yourself in the use of technology that empowers and compromises you.
A separate, wired network is the only decent answer at present. That's generally quite secure until / unless you have physical intrusion issues. For that, you need the 2nd amendment -- arms.
I don't want to be "fair." I want privacy. I clearly don't want a Samsung TV. I appreciate the post as it made that crystal clear.
The constitution constrains the government as to requiring warrants. It does not constrain the citizen or the corporate pseudo-person in like manner. Something similar (probably still not requiring warrants) requires specific legislation. There isn't much of that at present, either.
But keep yelling. I like it and agree in spirit.
The Firestick (and Fire) both include Alexa; which is voice-to-cloud and thence to...
Of course, you have to press a button so that it will obey your commands. There's no particular reason to assume you have to press a button for it to listen to you without pressing a button.
Other than... Amazon says no. Amazon is a corporation that has chosen many times over the years to do the thing that earns them money instead of the right thing. They're right up there with Google for being extremely disingenuous with the consumers that interact with them and their products. So you might want to take that "no" with at least one grain of salt. Also keeping in mind that what they do today with their hardware does not in any way predict the future employment of said hardware.
Projectors are still in the running. Perhaps not for much longer, but I have a recent one that produces a stupendous image and has no provision for "connectivity" at all (I say that as an obscenity, btw.) Plus, I pretty much run in the front of the pack in the "big TV war." Not a lot of 204" displays out there... :)
My fellow slasher, computer technology is the shark. :)
Dammit, I can't keep track any more. I was just getting used to the idea that we were all cows.