This is why they’re lower priced. The company makes revenue from selling your viewing habits.
Here’s the thing. I’ve got plenty of video input sources. I don’t want a “smart television.” I don’t even want to waste money on audio amp and speakers. I just want to pour all of my television money into a good-quality picture. But it’s very hard, if not impossible, to find just monitors in the large-screen class.
A story on the current state of play, at the WaPo.
…getting its wings clipped?
The program has never made any sense to me. And I weep when I think of the better ways Allen’s money could have been/could be spent.
Welcome to the new web site. It does seem to be a cleaner load.
Kim Stanley Robinson says they’re impossible.
I call Clarke’s Law about distinguished scientists, even though he’s just a fiction writer.
When they said they couldn’t bid GPS without RD-180s, they meant it.
I’m completely unsurprised that he is clueless about the purpose of NASCAR. Does he really think that people would come to watch Prius’s toottling around the track?
Google is committing $50M to conquering it. Considering how much it costs (as the article points out), this is chump change.
Thoughts from Bob Zimmerman on the tremendous uncertainty.
The models are worse than worthless as a guide to policy.
Over at Space News, from the usual suspect.
And then there’s this: SLS rocket could help scientists answer big questions.
Big questions like "Why is this monstrosity chewing up so much budget we can't afford to do any actual science?" https://t.co/q4VgWDs9lo
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) November 16, 2015
#ProTip To space-telescope aficionados. SLS is the most expensive possible way to put up a space telescope. https://t.co/q4VgWDs9lo
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) November 16, 2015