OK. I have to take issue with this "test." I laughed and rolled my eyes when I saw it.

I think it rather interesting that 10 hours seems to be thought a credible burn-in test.

A friend of mine got a 65" rear projection TV a few years back. His kids watched the Disney channel for hours a day on that set over a several month period. It burned the Disney logo into the tube. Exactly how long it took for the burn pattern to be visible, I do not know. The point being it was likely months of several hours a day before the burn pattern was evident.

Personally, I highly doubt that even a tube TV would permanently burn-in on just 10 hours of exposure to the same image unless it was in bad shape already.

What would I consider a credible burn in test? Say 500 hours minimum, but I think it would be something like one to two percent of the expected lifetime of the set.

Since you do not seem to mind the possibility of killing a perfectly good set, why not run it for say six or seven months straight? Somewhere around seven months, you'll have about 5,000 hours of run time on it. If it has not burned by then, report it to us.

Until then, though, please do not try to pass off 10 hours as a credible burn-in test. Heck, any credible set manufacturer would run a manufacturing burn-in test run after it is produced for at least 72 hours continuously - and maybe even with the same image displayed for the entire test run.

When I see things like this, I question my wisdom of visiting a site like this. OK, now I am ranting, I know.

Cable and satellite's market advantage was that they could bring in numerous channels with both good picture and sound that were impossible to receive over-the-air when cable and satellite first emerged. With the advent of DTV, it is now possible to receive all channels for which you can get a signal with sound and audio quality that is comparable to the best of cable and satellite. The problem is that most people have moved away from external over-the-air antennas in the years that they have enjoyed reasonable picture and sound quality from cable and satellite. I doubt that many people beyond those who understand the capability of DTV realize that they could now get nearly as many channels over-the-air with quality that is as good as or exceeds that available from cable and satellite.

IMHO, what would be needed would be a consumer awareness campaign to let consumers know that the quality from free, over-the-air DTV meets or exceeds that available from cable and satellite. I think knowing that it is available for free would likely make many consumers aware that they are spending a lot of money for little to no improvement in picture and sound quality.

Now, there are many channels that are not available over-the-air. If they were also available over the air, I think it likely that many people would opt for free, over-the-air.

However, I do not think either of these is likely to happen because cable and satellite control so much of the market, and have deep pockets that are virtual monopolies, and bucking something that has become so entrenched is something that I think will be difficult to do even though it would likely improve competition and quality of programs.

So, no, I do not believe that we should take away further bandwidth from free, OTA TV to devote to subscription based, wireless services. If anything, I think that the digitial OTA, FREE TV model should be enhanced. Perhaps then we would end up with better offerings over all since cable and satellite presently have little competition and, thus, little incentive to offer better and innovative products.

This reminds me of Circuit City's "DivX" player experiment. For anyone who does not remember, Circuit City spent something like $200 million to produce DVDs and players that would play a DVD based on a pay per play model, or, if you were willing to cough up a premium, the DVD would be "unlocked" giving you unlimited plays. That experiment was a complete failure, and I would not be surprised if that was the beginning of the end for Circuit City Perhaps this spells the beginning of the same fate for BB. We have a couple of BBs in our area, but I prefer to shop at my local AV dealer instead - who, incidentally, will match or beat BB's prices.

I have my doubts that this will actually fly, especially with ISPs still threatening to charge customers based on bandwidth used, and I am skeptical that physical media will actually disappear. Perhaps it will, but there is still a large number of people out there who prefer physical media to virtual media.

What I really think is driving this model is an attempt to avoid piracy. Well, I doubt this will achieve that. Rather pirates will probably see this as a new challenge that will eventually be conquered.

Maybe they figure that they cannot make any money on them in the US because the US only records using DVRs. :p

Two possible improvements - assuming you are willing to spend the bucks.

Ultra low-noise fans - with the corresponding power supplies and coolers, or a "fanless" design.
Black Magic's Intensity HDMI capture card.

With this kind of setup, you reduce or eliminate noise and add HDMI recording that will get you content from an HDMI output if the "no record" bits are not set.

Believe it or not, the "F grade killer disaster/reptile/insect/horror schlock" movies consistently get two million viewers every Saturday night; those ratings, I assume that they are comparatively good, are one of the reasons that they continue to produce that trash. The other reason? They are so cheap to produce that it is likely difficult not to make a profit on them.

IMHO, this article is moot. Though some will certainly say that this is still waaaaaayyyyyy off, with LG announcing earlier this year that it will ship an OLED TV, not only is plasma a dying technology, but so, too, is LCD. OLED will likely be a significant improvement over plasma, definitely so over LCD.

Believe it or not, it is not the retail store that is responsible for the way the displays are viewed in-store. Every set manufactured is shipped that way from the factory. All manufacturers do that because it grabs the eyes of the people (most often uneducated) who walk by them in the store and, as such, it entices them to buy. So, some places decide to calibrate a few displays, such as some Best Buy stores, to convince potential customers to purchase their calibration service just so that Best Buy can make more money.

So, I'll submit that it is the manufacturers causing the problems by not shipping calibrated sets. If the sets were calibrated when they left the factory, I am sure the situation would be much different than it already is. However, since calibration ultimately depends on the source, manufacturers probably figure that the effort to calibrate each set before it leaves the factor is not cost effective, and what is cost effective is to ship the set with wacked out settings that most stores will never change and that lure the average consumer to buy them.

When non-crippled, stand-alone Blu-ray recorders with HDMI as an input hit the US market, I'll get in then. Until then, only a sub $100 player that functions as well as the better players do now would get me into the market.

From the majority of responses so far, it seems people have little understanding that fair use rights exist. Anyone reading this who has not heard about fair use rights should familiarize themselves with it.

It seems the industry is hoping that people in the US will forget fair use. Very unfortunate.