That's just because of an archaic measure-the-diagonal method of comparing screen sizes. 4:3 started as the 'academy ratio' for film, was retained for TV displays, then retained again for monitors so they could share parts of the production line and save manufacturing costs. 16:9 was a compromise ratio between legacy 4:3 and cinemascope so both could fit in with minimal letterboxing or pillarboxing, and again monitors adopted it to save on production costs by sharing the production line and driver electronics.
My personal favourite ratio is 16:10. You can fit most document sizes (A series, B series, JIS-B, ANSI A & B, etc) comfortably with minimal edge wasting, whereas with 4:3 or 16:9, even in portrait mode, you'll be wasting significantly more screen space. 4:3 is good for very old films and old TV shows, but not much else.

More likely 'HD lite' at 1440x1080 anamorphic. But the bigger problem is not resolution, it's bitrate. BD sits at the apex with 40-odd mbps h.264 (assuming the disc wasn't encoded by morons, which occurs with unfortunately frequency), sometimes MPEG2 or VC1 for older discs. Then you have broadcast TV at a few 10s of mbps (or even sub-10) h.264. Then you have broadcast TV in the same bitrates but MPEG2. And finally you have streaming video, which often doesn't even break 1mbps. The difference between a blu-ray and youtube's 1080p is at easily over an order of magnitude.

It's taken about as long to get from 3.1 to XP as it as from XP to 8? Wow, that feels really weird.

Bose is a name to be reckoned with, but only the name. Their actual equipment is pretty mediocre, dead average, but priced as if it were premium equipment. You're paying 5x/10x the price for the badge, nothing more (hence the common apocryphal backronym Buy Other Sound Equipment).

Your eye is not a camera. Just because you cannot resolve the space between two dots, does not mean your eye cannot resolve detail at much higher resolution, e.g. vernier acuity

That's what skepticism is.

I'm not sure you're on the correct website if "nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen" is not near the apex of sexy names.

Quite the contrary. I think dicking about with half-arsed reduce-our-CO2-emissions legislation is committing ourselves to a death spiral of wilful "but we're solving the problem!"-ing ignorance. We need numerous, varied and far-reaching global geoengineering projects aimed at controlling ANY undesired global temperature variation, in the long term. Our recent few-tens-of-thousands-of-years unseasonably warm period has been a huge boon to the human race, and we're on the verge of it's end, either upwards or downwards.

That's great, if CO2 were the only substance involved and the rest of the planet was inert. Does an increase in temperature caused by an increase in CO2 levels result in a cloud cover increase that persists and causes an overall temperature lowering effect? Is there a positive feedback effect that would mean a sudden stop of all anthropogenic CO2 emission would not cause a change in the current temperature increase? Will any of the many, many different biological processes that are either accelerated or retarded by an increase in CO2 concentration (in both the air AND the water) have a net positive or negative effect?
The climate is complicated.

The Apple logo on the back, and the work 'new' in the advertisements.