Tested with the Gretag Eye-One Display 2, the PW191 wasn't all that impressive. The panel's color range covered the sRGB color space and no more. Looking at the curve on the left, you can see a characteristic S pattern, indicating a gamma problem. That also explains the results of the previous LaCie Blue Eye test.
...
Asus didn't use overdrive technology for this panel. The result is that it's not really a contender as far as responsiveness is concerned. The latency reached 25 ms in the worst case.
...
I was waiting to see how the PW191 would perform screening movies. And sad to say, video noise was still much too evident. A lot of sparkling was visible. Note that Asus offers a sharpness adjustment (which is rare on an LCD monitor) that lets you soften the focus slightly. That helped a little, but the sparkling didn't disappear completely. You'll need to be a good five feet from the screen for it to become imperceptible.
...
We hate to harp on this issue, but the optical filter means that you'll have to watch your movies in total darkness, especially if the film tends to be dark (e.g. Sin City or The Matrix).
Conclusion:
First the bad news. The touch-sensitive buttons...are a problem. And why did Asus have to use the glare-filter technology?...The same monitor without the filter would perform much better.
The selling price, around $400, is far from excessive for a monitor of this quality...it's obvious that the panel was poorly chosen. It's slower than its competitors, yet doesn't solve the video-noise problems that plague them...
This monitor stinks!
And why aren't there more reviews of bigger monitors. It was almost impossible to find any reviews of the Acer AL2416W that I ended up buying. The Dell 24" had more reviews but half the performance. The other competitors cost more but the Viewsonic 23" might be worth that few hundred extra.
Agree. Clearly many of these changes are marketing-related -- if you don't change car styles and dress styles annually people complain. Change them often and people notice you more.
By the standard of this article, AOL should be shown great respect for their wonderful mailers, currently in irregularly shaped tin foil at Staples.
In my experience there were almost never any extras on Netflix DVDs (and this has tended to be true also at video stores). If the video store rents you a disc with extras, you may keep it longer. Since few stores reward early return, there is profit in the consumer returning DVDs early. Netflix, on the other hand, saves by buying cheaper DVDs instead of Special Editions, etc. This was one of two reasons I stopped Netflix. The other was their non-delivery on the "unlimited rentals" promise.
The rule in the food business was to mark up your biggest volume item the most -- for us (University concessions) that was coffee. That would suggest the USPS marks up bulk mail (or business mail) the most.
This may not be such a deal for the average Chinese person.
This article http://www.business-in-asia.com/china_wages.html states: "To give an example of the spread in salaries in a foreign firm in China, a professional employee could earn an annual salary of approximately 100,000 RMB (approx. US$12,000) while a factory worker or an ordinary employee could expect about 36,000 RMB (approx US$4,340).
So, one "cheap" DVD costs 12RMB, or 1/362nd of their yearly salary. In our terms, say with a salary of $30,000, that would be $82.95.
The ten disc Matrix pack has, for each movie, philosopher's and critic's commentaries. Also great.
Sometimes you don't know what parts are good until you listen to them. Generally I favor just the Director (the CPU of a movie). Throw in a second person, even the writer and they start to agree with each other too much -- Terminator 1, the writer totally sucks up to Cameron. Worst for me are the cast commentaries recorded with everyone in the room together, drunk -- k, maybe that was just the Boogie Nights commentary.
Instead of going for bigger TV and more speakers, I've gone for more extras on the (few) movies I really like.
Nothing is cheaper than extras to film/make, and they help the studios justify making Special Editions so that they can sell the same movie twice (or more).
If the average person couldn't care about extras, why are even the bottom-of-the-barrel quality DVDs at Hollywood Video containing extras on new films?
It is typical for new "sure to be blockbuster" movies to come out in a plain first DVD -- Batman Begins came out first in just-a-movie form and soon I will be picking up the 2 disc version from the local library. Then a DirComm version with many a small extra. Then a loaded 2 DVD set. Then even 3 (Gladiator or PiratesOTC) or 4 (WizOfOz, GoneWTW, etc).
The Criterion collection is the pinnacle of a very lucrative (and interesting) extras market.
I am positive we will see more extras on HD DVDs. And I look forward to them.
and stick more extras on it. I am a big fan of Director's / Writer's Commentaries, and of a hefty 30 to 60 minute making of for films I really like. Sometimes I will get a movie only for the extras. If the new Hi Def formats take extras to the next level, that will tip the scales for me, at least a bit.
The free wifi for all movement could be for not if BT crushes it. Are there plans to deal with BT on free wifi networks? My mother-in-law could be affected and that would be, well, ok either way I guess.
Give Opera a try. I did about a month ago now and have not looked back. Once in a while some site won't render with anything but IE but by and large it is fast (much faster than IE), filters ads and I am totally pleased with it.
And largely a hands-free operation. Versus having to surf around, dig up disks, download stuff, try it, repeat cycle. [Not that I am in this category, I always tend to fix rather than reinstall -- fix = learn, reinstall = nothing learned so it will happen again and/or to other machines I maintain]
Downsides of the reinstall approach are data loss, suboptimal reconfig and applications that need to be reinstalled. Not that this bothers outfits like Geek Squad, they get paid for extras or shrug at data loss.
So your premise is that lung cancer happens to 10 people per million.
No. That's a typo. I hit an extra 9. You'll note that said 10 people 100,000.
Of course it is your typo. And when "corrected", as you did later, it is still wrong by at least a factor of 20 -- which you chose not to comment on. Rule 137, when on the losing side of an argument, change the focus...
(3) 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.
This is simply false. There is no known cause for most kinds of lung cancer. Asbesteosis is the rare exception. There is a correlation between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. I have, however, not only agreed with that percentage of incidence, but I was a bit more pessimistic, positing 90%. You would appear to be one of those people who does not understand what is meant by the word risk.
Every single thing in human life is a "risk" (i.e. probability). Heisenberg saw to that. Your hair-splitting proves nothing.
Your next effort of fact subversion in that sentence is directed at the American Lung Association -- is that your arrogance, love of argument or denial-is-the-best-policy talking?
In another effort at a trifecta you throw in a bit of fact splitting -- 87% vs 90% -- without realizing that I threw that in to
give you credit and to show that the facts I cited also deserve respect. Repeat after me, "Arguing about a 3% difference in a stat
is not a great way to spend a Thursday".
(4) your pipe is doing you no favors
there is no known correlation between pipe smoking and lung cancer. Even the Surgeon General's report specifically notes this.
The American Lung Association doesn't agree with you. Who ya gonna trust, Denial Meister, the one that plays into your pipe smoke, or the one that says you will die of lung cancer, period, if you continue? Someone so in love with the word "risk" needs to apply it to the person they see in the bathroom mirror in smoke filled morning.
...the people who do not have lung cancer. There are about 999,990 of them.
So your premise is that lung cancer happens to 10 people per million. So right now in the US there are 280*10 = 2,800 people with lung cancer. [In a later post, you say it is 100 per million.]
(1) An estimated 173,700 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 160,440 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2004.
(2) Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women.
(3) 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.
(4) Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.
My comments:
(1) translates to 573 dying per million (notice how I am skipping right over those who just get lung cancer). Assuming only 25% are smokers, who represent 90% of those who get lung cancer, then that is about 2,000 smokers per million smokers who die every YEAR (at least 20 times more than your 10 per million, or 100 per million, figures). So lets say the average smoker smokes for 40 years (probably optimistic) then a smoker's chance of dying of lung cancer in their lifetime is about 1 in 1.
(2) "the leading cancer killer" + 90% of the people with it are smokers translates to smoking being the worst cancer creating thing of all -- pretty hard to minimize the connection between smoking and killer cancer now.
I'm smoking right now too, although I'm smoking a pipe without inhaling (didn't take it up until I was in my 20s), an act whose only demonstrated connection to cancer is a ten times reduction in the risk of stomach cancer
KFG, you are a justifying miracle.
You are also falling into the trap of equating lung cancer risk with the risk of cancer.
This may appear non-sensical but is not, really. Our bodies can fight things, or give up and lose. If we start a battle on multiple fronts, we have less chance of winning. So, smoking inhibits our ability to be healthy, while also increasing our cancer risk, while also increasing our lung cancer risk. Think of it as the smoker's trifecta.
In this age when every weather report is delivered with a phrasing to imply that the spring shower on the way is going to kill you it isn't really surprising that something as serious as cancer also gets way overhyped as a risk.
How did you conclude that cancer risks are overhyped? In your post you did battle with a few studies, but they cause cancer too. IMHO you are a doctor's dream, soaking up the latest B.S. right up until you need a room full of doctors.
Just to be crystal clear about this, I care about you KFG. I hope you have no wife or children. And I hope the thrill of argument eventually loses to the thrill of being smoke-free.
The TRS Model III worked pretty well also, with its 48K RAM and the obligatory 2 floppy fully decked out configuration. These BBSes were the first Internet. You could surf, download and argue, all without paying CompuServe a penny.
RBBS by any chance? Not every day do you see ten lines of code compressed onto one line, but such were the "fit it all in less than 64K" times back then.
Not true. Win 3.x brought task switching. You could load MultiEdit in one session, your app ran in a second DOS box, and you compiled or did whatever else in a third. I watched one developer doing all this on a 1MB RAM laptop -- comical, but it worked.
Even writing printer drivers can lead to great things.
Andy Hertzfeld converted an apple printer into a scanner. More Apple brilliance. I saw the guy talk once...impressive in person as well, probably just as human/personal as The Woz.
I'd settle for someone explaining why a list of extensions that has been around for who knows how long makes the news on slashdot. A week or two ago I checked out that very page, actually the first 15 of them. There wasn't a single extension I wanted enough to use Firefox. So yeah my question was legit.
If I had that top post to do over again, I'd change one thing. I'd say I've heard that Firefox is a memory hog and that these very extensions make it more unstable than Windows 3.1. I use Opera and like its lightweight design -- pages load fast, ads are blocked and ram usage is low. Does Firefox trump this?
Oh well, I hear that work is progressing on the next Firefox extension: a Vista sidebar emulator.
[I had to reconfigure Acrobat to be used by default for PDFs in IE, so I only did this on my oldest computer, a 320MB RAM machine running XP.]
IE Acrobat plugin uses 22MB used, Acrobat plugin stays in memory when IE is closed
By comparison on my main machine, a 1GB RAM machine running XP,
FoxIt plugin uses 7.9MB, Foxit plugin removes itself when IE is closed
Comparing both plugins on the same machine would make things look even worse for Acrobat -- IIRC, it will use about 32MB of RAM on a 1GB machine.
Slashdot Mirror
And why aren't there more reviews of bigger monitors. It was almost impossible to find any reviews of the Acer AL2416W that I ended up buying. The Dell 24" had more reviews but half the performance. The other competitors cost more but the Viewsonic 23" might be worth that few hundred extra.
By the standard of this article, AOL should be shown great respect for their wonderful mailers, currently in irregularly shaped tin foil at Staples.
In my experience there were almost never any extras on Netflix DVDs (and this has tended to be true also at video stores). If the video store rents you a disc with extras, you may keep it longer. Since few stores reward early return, there is profit in the consumer returning DVDs early. Netflix, on the other hand, saves by buying cheaper DVDs instead of Special Editions, etc. This was one of two reasons I stopped Netflix. The other was their non-delivery on the "unlimited rentals" promise.
The rule in the food business was to mark up your biggest volume item the most -- for us (University concessions) that was coffee. That would suggest the USPS marks up bulk mail (or business mail) the most.
This article http://www.business-in-asia.com/china_wages.html states: "To give an example of the spread in salaries in a foreign firm in China, a professional employee could earn an annual salary of approximately 100,000 RMB (approx. US$12,000) while a factory worker or an ordinary employee could expect about 36,000 RMB (approx US$4,340).
So, one "cheap" DVD costs 12RMB, or 1/362nd of their yearly salary. In our terms, say with a salary of $30,000, that would be $82.95.
Sometimes you don't know what parts are good until you listen to them. Generally I favor just the Director (the CPU of a movie). Throw in a second person, even the writer and they start to agree with each other too much -- Terminator 1, the writer totally sucks up to Cameron. Worst for me are the cast commentaries recorded with everyone in the room together, drunk -- k, maybe that was just the Boogie Nights commentary.
Instead of going for bigger TV and more speakers, I've gone for more extras on the (few) movies I really like.
If the average person couldn't care about extras, why are even the bottom-of-the-barrel quality DVDs at Hollywood Video containing extras on new films?
It is typical for new "sure to be blockbuster" movies to come out in a plain first DVD -- Batman Begins came out first in just-a-movie form and soon I will be picking up the 2 disc version from the local library. Then a DirComm version with many a small extra. Then a loaded 2 DVD set. Then even 3 (Gladiator or PiratesOTC) or 4 (WizOfOz, GoneWTW, etc).
The Criterion collection is the pinnacle of a very lucrative (and interesting) extras market.
I am positive we will see more extras on HD DVDs. And I look forward to them.
Check out the Tron special edition with a 90 minute making of extra.
Or the one hour extra in Lawrence of Arabia.
etc.
and stick more extras on it. I am a big fan of Director's / Writer's Commentaries, and of a hefty 30 to 60 minute making of for films I really like. Sometimes I will get a movie only for the extras. If the new Hi Def formats take extras to the next level, that will tip the scales for me, at least a bit.
The free wifi for all movement could be for not if BT crushes it. Are there plans to deal with BT on free wifi networks? My mother-in-law could be affected and that would be, well, ok either way I guess.
Can anyone think of a way to override the override? I'd install a patch that overrode MS's latest "trust me" hack.
Give Opera a try. I did about a month ago now and have not looked back. Once in a while some site won't render with anything but IE but by and large it is fast (much faster than IE), filters ads and I am totally pleased with it.
And largely a hands-free operation. Versus having to surf around, dig up disks, download stuff, try it, repeat cycle. [Not that I am in this category, I always tend to fix rather than reinstall -- fix = learn, reinstall = nothing learned so it will happen again and/or to other machines I maintain]
Downsides of the reinstall approach are data loss, suboptimal reconfig and applications that need to be reinstalled. Not that this bothers outfits like Geek Squad, they get paid for extras or shrug at data loss.
No. That's a typo. I hit an extra 9. You'll note that said 10 people 100,000.
Of course it is your typo. And when "corrected", as you did later, it is still wrong by at least a factor of 20 -- which you chose not to comment on. Rule 137, when on the losing side of an argument, change the focus...
(3) 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.
This is simply false. There is no known cause for most kinds of lung cancer. Asbesteosis is the rare exception. There is a correlation between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. I have, however, not only agreed with that percentage of incidence, but I was a bit more pessimistic, positing 90%. You would appear to be one of those people who does not understand what is meant by the word risk.
Every single thing in human life is a "risk" (i.e. probability). Heisenberg saw to that. Your hair-splitting proves nothing.
Your next effort of fact subversion in that sentence is directed at the American Lung Association -- is that your arrogance, love of argument or denial-is-the-best-policy talking?
In another effort at a trifecta you throw in a bit of fact splitting -- 87% vs 90% -- without realizing that I threw that in to give you credit and to show that the facts I cited also deserve respect. Repeat after me, "Arguing about a 3% difference in a stat is not a great way to spend a Thursday".
(4) your pipe is doing you no favors
there is no known correlation between pipe smoking and lung cancer. Even the Surgeon General's report specifically notes this.
The American Lung Association doesn't agree with you. Who ya gonna trust, Denial Meister, the one that plays into your pipe smoke, or the one that says you will die of lung cancer, period, if you continue? Someone so in love with the word "risk" needs to apply it to the person they see in the bathroom mirror in smoke filled morning.
You are arguing your beliefs, not what I said.
Cite a single "belief" of _mine_ above.
So your premise is that lung cancer happens to 10 people per million. So right now in the US there are 280*10 = 2,800 people with lung cancer. [In a later post, you say it is 100 per million.]
Dodge these stats...(source)
(1) An estimated 173,700 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 160,440 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2004.
(2) Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women.
(3) 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.
(4) Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.
My comments:
(1) translates to 573 dying per million (notice how I am skipping right over those who just get lung cancer). Assuming only 25% are smokers, who represent 90% of those who get lung cancer, then that is about 2,000 smokers per million smokers who die every YEAR (at least 20 times more than your 10 per million, or 100 per million, figures). So lets say the average smoker smokes for 40 years (probably optimistic) then a smoker's chance of dying of lung cancer in their lifetime is about 1 in 1.
(2) "the leading cancer killer" + 90% of the people with it are smokers translates to smoking being the worst cancer creating thing of all -- pretty hard to minimize the connection between smoking and killer cancer now.
(3) corresponds with your previous citation
(4) your pipe is doing you no favors
KFG, you are a justifying miracle.
You are also falling into the trap of equating lung cancer risk with the risk of cancer.
This may appear non-sensical but is not, really. Our bodies can fight things, or give up and lose. If we start a battle on multiple fronts, we have less chance of winning. So, smoking inhibits our ability to be healthy, while also increasing our cancer risk, while also increasing our lung cancer risk. Think of it as the smoker's trifecta.
In this age when every weather report is delivered with a phrasing to imply that the spring shower on the way is going to kill you it isn't really surprising that something as serious as cancer also gets way overhyped as a risk.
How did you conclude that cancer risks are overhyped? In your post you did battle with a few studies, but they cause cancer too. IMHO you are a doctor's dream, soaking up the latest B.S. right up until you need a room full of doctors.
Just to be crystal clear about this, I care about you KFG. I hope you have no wife or children. And I hope the thrill of argument eventually loses to the thrill of being smoke-free.
The TRS Model III worked pretty well also, with its 48K RAM and the obligatory 2 floppy fully decked out configuration. These BBSes were the first Internet. You could surf, download and argue, all without paying CompuServe a penny.
RBBS by any chance? Not every day do you see ten lines of code compressed onto one line, but such were the "fit it all in less than 64K" times back then.
Not true. Win 3.x brought task switching. You could load MultiEdit in one session, your app ran in a second DOS box, and you compiled or did whatever else in a third. I watched one developer doing all this on a 1MB RAM laptop -- comical, but it worked.
And how big a pipe would you need to share it with the world?
With apologies to BadAnalogyGuy, here goes...
Gates is like Tiger Woods: tenancious, win-at-all costs mentality and dominating his field.
Jobs is like Don King: promoter extraordinaire but not universally loved.
Woz is like Muhammad Ali: innovative, a hero to millions, able to perform miracles.
Ballmer is like Mark Cuban: mouthy, driven, get your kneepads ready.
RMS is like John Rocker: constantly in the media, but for the wrong reasons.
Phillippe Kahn is like Pele: brilliant, miles ahead of the competition, but peaked before his field did.
Linus Torvalds is like Phil Mickelson: "just having fun", happy to be number two, looking mighty good in 2006.
Andy Hertzfeld converted an apple printer into a scanner. More Apple brilliance. I saw the guy talk once...impressive in person as well, probably just as human/personal as The Woz.
If I had that top post to do over again, I'd change one thing. I'd say I've heard that Firefox is a memory hog and that these very extensions make it more unstable than Windows 3.1. I use Opera and like its lightweight design -- pages load fast, ads are blocked and ram usage is low. Does Firefox trump this?
Oh well, I hear that work is progressing on the next Firefox extension: a Vista sidebar emulator.
IE Acrobat plugin uses 22MB used, Acrobat plugin stays in memory when IE is closed
By comparison on my main machine, a 1GB RAM machine running XP,
FoxIt plugin uses 7.9MB, Foxit plugin removes itself when IE is closed
Comparing both plugins on the same machine would make things look even worse for Acrobat -- IIRC, it will use about 32MB of RAM on a 1GB machine.