DISQUS

Free? I'm guessing Sony has a few compromising pictures of Epson executives? Otherwise... why?

And in other news Sony today announced a combination Blu-Ray player/SuperBeta VCR...

I understand the appeal of "thin". When I went looking for a new cel phone the thinness of the device was one of the main factors. That's because I knew I was going to put it in my pocket. However, when most flat-panel TVs are already 'thin', when compared against a CRT TV, then striving for (ironically said) increasing levels of thinness Does Not Compute. It does not contribute to the TV's functionality. Sure, it's a fashion statement and I understand this as well, as looks were also important when I picked out my phone, but who sits in front --IN FRONT-- of a TV and muses that this TV would be a hell of a lot better if it were just a smidgen thinner on a dimension that has no bearing on its overall performance?

I suppose it gives the engineers something else to do, as though the Holy Grail of perfect picture quality has already been attained (um, Not!).

I have a KDS-50XBR1. It is 19 inches deep. It wouldn't matter if it was 10X skinnier as it sits on an entertainment center that is sized to house devices that are not and never will be skinny (receiver, DVR, DVD changer), so for me it is all academic. Even if this skinny LCD TV was mounted on a wall, only the most anal person would know the difference between a one-inch TV and a two-inch TV.

Seems to me that the electronics firms have hit the proverbial "sound barrier" when it comes to picture quality. All of the improvements of the past couple of years have been incremental at best --darker blacks, 120Hz "line doubling" (call it what you will), LED backlights for improved contrast, etc.-- but nothing that could be considered truly innovative.

Maybe 3D is the next big step, but I'd rather see the companies focus on reducing costs and chopping energy consumption.

What is the point of a computer? To look at the "industrial design" or to accomplish something? Fact is, you are paying more for Apple hardware do the same things you can do on cheaper, more expandable and more flexible PC hardware. You are in fact paying an Apple Tax because the guts are largely identical, from Intel Core 2 chips to the iMac's LCD displays --nothing here is especially novel or exclusive to the Apple world. Any possible benefits of OS X are lost on me, as money is still an object.

Of course people are free to buy whatever they want and if they like paying more for Apple products "just because they want to", well, it's their money and Apple is happy to accept it. Even if the HP/Vista combo I currently run isn't quite as "pretty" or "elegant" (or, really, as elitist) as the Apple Way, I prefer to keep my money to spend on something else.

Mele Kalikimaka and Hauoli Makahiki Hou... it's Hawaiian for something you can easily figure out.

Any news on the 400-disc Blu-Ray changer? I'm "almost" ready to bite... price it to sell, please, say under $350.

According to the article it's not Ferrari but some outfit called Moller. If they didn't ask to use the 599GTB, then a Ferrari lawyer will be calling them soon to tell them to pick another car, as Ferrari is very protective of its image, copyrights, etc.

Besides, all Ferrari need do is reshape the wings on Massa's F1 car and it could go flying very easily. Problem is, it couldn't do it in a controllable fashion --and landings are problematic. Not even Michael Schumacher would want to chance it.

You might see better, but I'm guessing this thing might blind drivers coming in the opposite direction. Front-end collision bait, anyone?