My experience with EXMOR chips has been pretty good. I'm holding my judgement until I read about actual experiences with it.

The XDCAM EX codec allows 35Mbps in its HQ mode, but it's also MPEG-2, which tends to need 50% more data to encode the same image at the same quality. AVCHD with a good encoder might do pretty well with 24Mbps.

I have a surround sound system, but I'm not committed to the concept. If I didn't prewire my home theater room for surrounds (because I built it), I probably wouldn't bother with surrounds. My computer system will probably never have surrounds. However, I have decent speakers and receiver. Probably not much that would get an audiophile interested, I'm not out to make that kind of person happy anyways, it's my system, not theirs.

It seems like Motorola has sold off a lot of business units in the last decade. I expect that in another decade, they will have sold off everything including their own logo, hopefully to someone with more competent management, but I'm guessing not.

They milked the Wii cow pretty well, the price drop will probably help them, but really, I don't see why there isn't an HDMI model coming, if he's not weaseling or lying, then Nintendo is stupid. Nintendo is probably doing some preliminary work on a console two generations beyond Wii, to not do so is shortsighted, product development is supposed to be that forward-looking.

From what I've seen, pretty much every TV now sold has HDMI. It would be a great upsell opportunity. The Wii has games that I want, but not badly enough to figure out why it didn't work with my projector. Also, Wii video signal just doesn't seem to upscale well for me. Something that can at least render 720p would be nice, even though it's the same low polygon count on the models, it would still clean up the look a lot.

I think using a chart like that to illustrate video resolution is a pretty disingenuous way to promote higher resolution technology. Most people don't keep the video small if it's low res, they scale it to fit the screen. I'm pretty happy with 1080p projected.

I've seen UHDTV, it is fantastic, though the camera lenses looked like the biggest holdup to better video, the lenses didn't seem quite up to the job.

Sounds like someone misjudged the market for the service. Even if the equipment was free, I would have a tough time justifying satellite TV for a car for family use. I can see long haul truckers wanting something like this when they're away from home and trying to pass the time, but there's the issue of cost.

Since cable and telco has to use public right-of-way in order to operate at all, I don't understand why they don't have to lease out their lines, it should have been a condition of the lease. Not any yokel can just lay cable along side the roads, with good reason, IMO, but not without requiring some amount of competition for the services provided on the run in question. The problem may well be because of corrupt local government.

I wonder if the advertisers are going to go along with that. We have more people watching the actual shows, but the advertiser needs to believe that those people are watching their ads too. Also, the networks are just one piece of a typically shrinking advertising budget, if the advertiser won't pay, the money will just go to some other medium.

That's cool. Netflix streaming didn't work with my computer for some unknown reason, I'd love to give it a try without having to buy another device.

It really depends. You don't really think that $300 of a $500 notebook really goes to Microsoft, do you?

Retail boxes are radically more expensive than what OEMs pay to preinstall. I've read from a few different sources that the "home" version is somewhere about $40 for the likes of Dell and HP. There is even a lower price for OEM installation on netbooks if it's below certain specs.