|
|
Posted by TokaMundo on 08/29/05 21:54
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:11:00 +0100, "Java Jive" <java@evij.com> Gave
us:
>
>"TokaMundo" <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote in message
>news:h935h11c4io2ao76fk9j2r9grel457n0u1@4ax.com...
>>
>> >An LCD monitor isn't necessarily a digital monitor -
>>
>> It essentially is as it reprocesses the video, and the result is a
>> digital rendering. DLP suffers even worse from this affliction.
>>
>> >many still use the
>> >same analogue connector
>>
>> So.
>
>But I was addressing the person to whom I was replying, not you, and I don't
>think that's how he meant it ...
You're an idiot.
>
>> > - but taking your point as I think you meant it,
>> >LCDs have the potential to provide as good a picture as any CRT,
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>For the second time in this thread, insulting others doesn't make you right.
Grow the fuck up, Chuck. You make me want to upchuck.
>
>> They never will.
>
>They already have.
You're an idiot.
>> OLED will usher in first. Illuminated
>> pixels will ALWAYS be better than backlit or cast pixelations.
>
>That may be true, time will tell
As if you would know.
>> > but as with
>> >anything else, there are bad ones and good ones. Getting a bad one
>doesn't
>> >make the whole technology bad.
>>
>> The technology isn't bad.
>
>So why are you carrying on what reads to others like an irrational crusade
>against it?
You're an idiot. You spout off bullshit about CRTs and then get mad
at me for telling you that you are full of shit. Get used to it.
>
>> But it will still never catch up to a CRT
>> in quality.
>
>For most people, it already has ...
> http://news.designtechnica.com/article6097.html
Sales numbers in no way reflect a demographic's ability to assess
quality. Read the declaration again. QUALITY was the key word.
Sales of LCD displays do NOT center around quality.
> http://www.desktoppipeline.com/news/56900380
Yet another article that centers around sales figures and price,
which in no way determines quality. Do you KNOW anything about what
you are spewing about?
>
>... basically, it's turned exactly as I thought a few years ago when I first
>bought an LCD.
You're an idiot as it relates to video quality.
> Now that they are more affordable, they are taking over,
No. Manufacturers are taking over your wallet.
>because their advantages in terms of safety,
What safety issue, asswipe?
> picture quality,
100% wrong.
> power
>consumption,
Whoopie fuckin' doo.
> and convenience
Sorry that you lard asses cannot lift a CRT.
> are obvious to most people, if not you.
You're a retard that does nothing more than follow the flock. Your
knowledge of quality is so bad you have to spout off crap like
"safety" as being an issue.
>
>> Keep current... Think OLED.
>
>It will be interesting to see how they do in a world where most people may
>have already recently bought an LCD.
If those people are satisfied with shit, they'll keep their shit.
If they want quality displays, they'll get the best. Right now, CRTs
are the best as it relates to video quality. LCDs are lame, and OLED
WILL most certainly take over.
You need to get a bit more current.
> Will the improvements be considered
>worthwhile enough to upgrade again?
This coming from an idiot that thinks that LCD displays outperform
CRTs. You downgraded, dumbass.
OLED is an order of magnitude better than LCDs.
> Perhaps, perhaps not,
How old are you?
> or maybe they'll
>just replace LCDs silently, in that next time you need a new monitor, you'll
>find that you can only get OLEDs, not LCDs. Time will tell.
Do you actually KNOW anything?
>> > One should always research one's purchases.
>>
>> That's why I still buy CRTs.
>
>Again, I was addressing the poster to whom I was replying, who had had to
>return a monitor. I wasn't canvassing any one else's opinion, least of all
>an irrational one such as yours.
This is a public forum, you absolute Usenet retard. If you want a
private discussion, take your crap opinions to e-mail. You spout shit
in public, and you'll get it slung back in your face... dumbass.
>
>> >A very good reason for buying an LCD is that, as an inevitable
>consequence
>> >of the technology, CRTs are low-level X-ray sources.
>>
>> You're a wussy.
>
>For the third time in this thread, insulting others doesn't make you right.
>
>Three strikes and you're out.
>PLONK!
Like your filter edit announcements mean any fucking thing at all.
You're an ass. Like I give a fat flying fuck what you decide to hide
from.
>
>> > This is particularly
>> >important wrt monitors because, depending on eyesight, screen res, etc,
>one
>> >puts one's face relatively close to it compared with a TV.
>>
>> Show me all the blindness stats since the advent of TV, a
>> considerably higher level source. Where are all those old men that
>> have been blinded from decades of CRT viewing?
>
>I didn't need glasses until I lost control of my deskspace at work for a
>period of about 18 months, and had to sit much closer to a CRT than I wanted
>to.
You are so full of shit that your eyes must be brown, and there is a
stench emanating from your ears.
> Ever since I've needed glasses to read small print such as maps and CD
>covers.
It's called age, dipshit. You'll get heavier hairs in your nose
too. What are you gonna blame that on, retard boy?
>
>[snip crap]
YOU are crap, asswipe.
>
>> > My eyes used to
>> >tire with CRT monitors, they don't with LCDs
>>
>> You probably had cheap shit then, driven by a cheap card.
>
>I had what a top-flight international financial firm provided for its staff,
>but the point is that cheap LCD shit driven by a cheap card *doesn't* tire
>my eyes.
You are tiring my brain, dumbass.
>> > - I can work at them happily
>> >for hours.
>>
>> Funny since eye strain has historically been reported as higher from
>> LCDs than from CRTs. Particularly with constantly moving imagery.
>
>Despite extensive research on the web today, I have been unable to find a
>single hit from any even remotely reputable source - I was looking for
>medical reports or at least a journalistic write up quoting one - that
>bears out your claim that LCDs produce more eye strain than CRTs. However,
>I did find *countless* anecdotal hits concerning problems with eye strain
>and CRT refresh rate,
Cheap shit monitor driven by cheap shit cards makes for a cheap shit
viewing experience.
> which taken together with the complete absence of any
>concerning eye strain caused by LCDs, strongly indicate that you are talking
>rubbish.
Oh boy... I have to go tell somebody that you said "rubbish". Isn't
that an insult? In your book, yes. You saying "rubbish" is no
different than me saying "bullshit".
Make up your mind, asswipe.
> Amongst these I also chanced on this, the 4th and 5th posts of
>which show that my own experiences are not unique:
> http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=557187
Yeah, you and "idjiit" are both idiots than can't handle CRTs. That
STILL doesn't make them poorer in quality. Get a clue.
>
>> >Also, I have sometimes found houses where children sit right in front of
>CRT
>> >TVs, and have explained to the parents why this is not a good idea.
>>
>> You're an idiot. Millions of folks in this country and around the
>> world would have ALREADY been affected by your supposed danger.
>>
>> Show me the stats, liar.
>
>Stats, that's rich in the light of your unsubstantiated claims above.
>However, I can do better than that - I can do laws of physics ...
You're an idiot. YOU claimed they were unsafe. I SAID that you
need to show me the millions of damaged eyes on the generations of
folks that have been in front of CRTs for decades.
Come on boy. Show me the stats. Oh... that's right... you can't.
>
>All CRTs produce X-rays as an inevitable consequence of their technology.
Something you read, but do not actually KNOW the first thing about.
>There has to be at least a theoretical risk from their use.
I just love theory twits. NOT.
> The parameters
>which CRT designers have to counteract are:
>1) Frequency ('hardness') of, and therefore potential danger from,
>X-radiation is proportional to the intensity of beam (ie: the brightness
>control level)
Whoopie doo.
>2) Colour produces more than monochrome (three guns, or a more powerful
>one split into three)
Nope. Three lower strength guns add up to the same level as one
higher strength gun.
>3) Quantity of radiation received is proportional to refresh rate, 25Hz
>for UK PAL TV but 60Hz or more for a monitor
Not proportional. The window of emission is about the same for all.
The main factor is tube size.
>4) Distance from the screen (once you're far enough away for the CRT to
>be considered a point source, radiation will fall in inverse-square: each
>doubling of distance quarters the radiation received)
Wrong. X-rays do not get depleted in air. Also, they do not
radiate off the face of the screen unidirectionally. It is VERY
diffuse. So even a foot or so away. the amount received is very small.
Still don't see any blind old men walking around that were blinded by
their TVs.
>
>As result of public debate first in the 70s with the advent of colour TVs,
Color TVs have been around since the 60's not the 70's.
>and then in the 80s and 90s with increasing monitor use, the risks were
>considered real enough to give rise to three radiation standards for CRT
>monitors, each more stringent than the last: MRP-2, TOC-92, & TOC-95. I
>don't know of any corresponding TV standards, but the technologies are
>essentially the same.
In other words. They are safer now than they ever have been. The
radiation standards were adopted as a matter of engineering. They
were unable to implement such things in the 60's 70's and 80's. It
has nothing to do with risk, and much to do with engineers having more
technology available to them, such as special coatings, etc.
>
>So there is every justification for advising people to sit as far as
>practicably possible, commensurate with good vison and comfortable posture,
>away from CRT monitors and TVs, and to keep children at least a metre,
>preferably two or more, from the latter.
Show me the stats on damage cause by this "hazard".
When you can do that, you MIGHT get a little closer to proving there
is a danger.
Oh yeah... screw you and your stupid filter announcement, and if you
want a private discussion, do it in email. Don't piss and moan when
someone else responds to your crap.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|