HDTV Almanac - California Chooses Stick Over Carrot

[dadden]

Will you give Glen Beck a try? 2 nights. I will suffer through Olberman and Matthews if you agree to do that.

Let me know what you think.

I tried to watch GB and his screed was staggeringly offensive. I was stunned and alarmed by the level of hatred and racism I heard from him in his monologue.

I do find Matthews a bit all over the road and don't really get his "journalism".

I like Olberman's take on things most of the time but I am a Lefty and consider the previous political regime a bit of a wash (on a good day). Nonetheless, I don't always think he is completely accurate. Of course he is a Pundit as well as a Newsman. But at least I know when he is leaving things out and he will admit fault if he makes a big error.

BTW, the science data that I was referring to is in bound note books and isn't on the net and couldn't be hacked. I've seen them in the office of an actual scientist that I know who helped to do the measurements. He didn't believe in global warming at first either. It took years. Same for me.

Now, Can we please get back to what this forum is actually supposed to be about? There are other places for this sort of rhetoric. I don't believe that this forum is that place.

Thanks,
Brian.

[BobDiaz]

Let me go back and address alfredpoor's comment about many of the sets meet the requirements. If you look at the link, it is true that many of the sets do meet the requirement, but if you look closely at the data, the popular plasma models fall outside of the 2011, 2013 limits. The plasma offers a very high contrast ratio with very good color saturation.

http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2009/1 ... e-the-cec/

By the time we reach the 2013 limit, many of the regular LCD screens fail to meet the requirement. The more expensive LED back light units appear to be within the range or very close to meeting the requirement. If push comes to shove, a manufacturer will adjust the California units with less brightness in the backlight. Less brightness = less power, but it also results in an image that does not look as good.

... and why are we doing this? Because a bunch of tree-huggers on the CEC can feel like they did something good.

Now, it is a historic fact that the Earth's temperature has shifted up and down for millions of years and it's done it long before humans were on the Earth. The fact that the temperature is changing does NOT prove the CO2 theory. The other theory points to the changes in the sun's emissions causing changes in the Earth's cloud cover. More cloud cover = more cooling, less cloud cover = more warming. Just do a little bit of searching to see the scientific papers on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... oling.html

I know this is not a forum for debate on Global warming, but I wanted to point out that our selection of products is being hindered by "Big Brother" Government" that is going to decide for us.... even it it going to cost more and not be as good.



Bob Diaz

[alfredpoor]

I agree that this discussion is treading perilously close to political debate instead of technical. I don't have a problem with reasoned debate, and it's impossible to separate the political component from any discussion, especially technology. So let's just be careful whose sacred cows we shoot at -- left and right -- and avoid calling each other poopy-heads, okay?

As for government hindering our selection of products, isn't that part of the reason we put it there in the first place? We ask our government to make all sorts of decisions about products on our behalf, from prohibiting lead paint in children's toys to making rules about our food and water supplies. And it's not just the "Big Brother" federal government; for years, California had more restrictive emissions standards for cars. I'm not sure if they still do, but if they don't, it may be because the rest of the country caught up.

My problem is that my positions on many of these topics do not fall all to the left or the right. I sort of start with the premise that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts." And I do not have a problem in principle with the government making decisions about whether fireworks can be sold in my state, or how I buy my alcoholic beverages, or making sure that we all play by the same rules in order to try to reduce pollution of the environment.

Coming back to the specific topic of California's decision about TVs, I firmly expect the question to be moot by the time they are in force. The industry has been moving rapidly toward more efficient devices, and there's proof that the standards can be met using existing technology. I think it's a tempest in a teapot, and we'll find that it has little impact on the market.

[ccclvib]

I firmly expect the question to be moot by the time they are in force.

...and if you don't want to accept that, wait until the first limit year is here, and then complain! As of now it's a b-i-g waste of time!

[stevekaden]

Alfred - I heartily agree - except I think the industry will get the message that energy savings is a bit more serious than they thought- and innovation will ensue. I think we will marvel at the combinations of technologies ahead that will deliver us a steadily improved product.

Added: I really hope we end up with an OLED type TV, that is not only efficient but light. Big Screen are still injuries waiting to happen between lifts to hang, or sitting on stands to be tipped over by kids - it'd be nice to seem them down to about 20-30 lbs for a 60" panel.