Tuesday, July 4, 2006
$1297
That's the price for a 37" 1080p LCD HDTV screen at Fry's, according to the full page ad on the back page of yesterday's LA Times sports section. Details: 1920x1080 progressive scan (as opposed to interlaced, which is 1080i — a lesser version), HDMI Input, 8m/s (G/G) response time, 3D Comb filter, 3D noise reduction. No brand name.
Perspective: 1080p is the top level of the original HDTV definition. Most of the "HD" flat screens we've seen over the past few years have had vertical resolutions of 480, 720 or 768 pixels.
Guys at a Korean electronics booth told me at CES in January that we'd see 1080p screens for under $1000 at Costco by the end of the year. That's looking like a good bet.
I'm looking forward to Canon's SED technology. Be interesting to see what happens when that comes to market.
Still tied
At 42 minutes, it's still tied zip-zip between Deutchland and Italia. The advantage in possession and shots on goal goes to Italy. But... somebody's gotta score.
Later... 94 minutes into the game. First of two extra 15-minute periods. Still scoreless.
120th minute, at the wire: Italy scores. Then scores again. Wow. Done.
Line extension
New:
Great radio for a 4 July afternoon.
Pete Seeger: I believe there are more good things going on in this world than at any time in history. That's from Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions special, which just concluded on KCRW.
They're getting ready to do one on Roy Orbison now. Nice.
Compare and contrast
Loose links
I found those three via PubSub, by the way. I don't know how they do it, but they still find a few things the other guys miss.
Quote du jour
Ethan Kaplan, reflecting on Gnomedex:
Age matters. Dave Winer, Marc Canter, et al lived through an era I did not, and dealt with political, social, technological and epistemological situations that I never had to. They can be curmudgeonly bastards, but they still actually bought Patti Smith’s Horses on RELEASE. I did not.
So... never mind?
I was this close to switching to Verizon so I could use EV-DO.
BoingBoing had me going gaga too.
Then I saw this.
Guess they're gone
Here are the distribution of Searls in the U.K. in 1881.
There were no results for 1998. There needed to be at least 100 people with the name on the Electoral Register in 1998 to be in the database, it says. Oh well.
Thanks to Geoff Jones for pointage to the Center for Advanced Spacial Analysis and Spatial-Literacy.org, which makes the Surname Profiler possible.
To profile your (or anybody's) surnames in Great Britain, go here.