Nearly a decade ago, I built a 100" fabric screen, and a home-theater. I've gone through projectors at 1024x768, 1366x768 (ie 720p), and now 1920x1080. I'm one of these guys who kinda likes the IMAX experience, so I sit 6' away from this 100" screen (and love the sense of immersion it brings!!!).

Let me be the first to say that the best BluRay discs (~33Mb/s) look really, really nice. But, they don't knock my socks off, and it's rare that I say "wow". When this is digested down to satellite / cable / over-the-air at the best ~17Mb/s, the image still can look good, but compression is a huge annoyance, and resolution has degraded enough that I cannot imagine "wow".

What does look *stunning* is some of my own content, run straight up the HDMI cable at 6Gb/s, for brief moments. So, I suppose that 1080 *can* look "wow", but it's a very, very uncommon experience.

So we may as well go to 4k, and once the compression/distribution has chewed on the content, it may finally look off-the-shelf "wow" to me :-)

But, I'm with everyone else, as far as YouTube is concerned - utter crap! It's gotta be big, it's gotta be clear, and I'm also on-side with Cameron, when he calls for higher frame-rates. And, the IntarWeb pipes of today certainly won't be a viable delivery-medium for this :-)

hehe... here's the thing: with a *real time keylogger* they catch your password/passphrase/passcode *before* you hit ENTER. Then, they use your info, and hit ENTER *before* you manage to... effectively stealing your session right out from under you. YOU are the one that is now locked out.

I'm waiting for someone to come up with an input-device modelled on a Rubik's Cube. Man, *that* would prevent computing-whle-drunk. Or, in my case, I would probably never get the letters I wanted, in the right order :-O

Our University moved to a new campus a few years ago, and the architectural firm tossed in some LED lighting. I thought it would be efficient and trendy, and I wanted to see first-hand how it performed (hey - I'm an engineer :-) ).

The result: Disappointment :-(

You know those air-deflectors on the back of cars, with an LED-third-taillight, and how many of them seem to have a few dead LED's? Well, that's what our trendy-and-cool LED lighting is like, now.

Each fixture was comprised of about 10 individual white (ish) LED's, and I am estimating that about 50% are not working now, after only 3 years!

Sure, I've done Mil-Std 217 reliability calculations, and I understand that the operating-life *expectancy* for these LED components is high, but it's just not translating into reality. Maybe the manufacturing (of the finished-product) degrades the individual LED's... I don't know.

I just know that the light is harsh, the cost is high, the actual life is low.

My experience with CFL's mirrors that of some other posters: short life, even from the late-90's through 'til now.

So, I am resisting "green-wash", and I buy partly based on TCO (total cost of ownership), which is largely based on purchase-price, and operating-cost, and partly based on light-quality. In most cases, tungsten-filament wins out.

Just my $0.02 at the end of 2008.

(I admin a network and user-desktops, which include PC laptops and Mac PowerBooks) One huge problem with the PowerBooks is that they're *just* like the iPods: they are fragile. Not only do they scratch and dent unreasonably easily, but nearly every one (out of 20) has required warranty-service. To Apple's credit, their warranty-service was stellar, but I never had to test IBM, Toshiba or Sony on these fronts. And, to those who say Apple has achieved price-parity: nope, they haven't. There certainly are some things to like about Apples, but they *do* "think different" and the result isn't corporate-friendly. Too Fisher Price. -sparkyradar