Wells Fargo Moral DilemmaFollow

You had me at "Cinderella".


h4wt

I see dead people.

Ehhh ... what do we have for our looser Alex.

DLP is supposed to be the best quality picture available.

http://www.hp.com/sbso/product/projector/technologycomparison.html

Nothing compared to what you'll see in hell, mister.

I would ask myself what would Earl do?

It's a canister actually. When you use a drive-through teller, there's a stand (cabinet? I don't know what term to use) with a plastic, tube-shaped canister in it. You deposit your items into said canister & put it back in the cabinet. The canister is sucked up, via vaccuum tube which sends it to the teller inside. They do their teller thing and shoot the canister with your receipt/money/whatever back to you via the same tube. Grab your receipt/money/whatever out of it & drive off.

As to the original situation, I would have a split second of guilty contemplation of yoinking the money, but would return it. $600 isn't going to make my life significantly better, but thinking I had $600 in my checking account that wasn't there could easily become $1200 in bounced check fees. That's a crappy thing to inflict on someone. Golden rule, baby. Golden rule.

I believe that petty concepts such as morality are made up to make people feel better for themselves and superior to others.

That being said, I would not have taken the money because I also believe in Karma, which is kind of an oxymoron.

(no, seriously, having less than a 3.00 rating has really effected my life in a negative way... $400 phone bills, car accidents... breaking computers... actually, I think I would have taken the money.)

And to add even more confusion to my beliefs it is a dog eat dog world out there and as long as you benefit it doesn't matter how many people are hurt by your actions, you're doing what evolution meant for you to do.

edit:: thats three different viewpoints! The voices in my head can't stop arguing about what they would have done! Oh, woe is me!)

Edited, Sun Feb 26 23:32:07 2006 by Lilfrenchfry

Hehe. OP is boring and washed out, but this TV thing is more up my alley, especially in light of recent events.



Not true at all. I had (had! :( ) a 42" plasma screen TV for a bit over three years. In addition to normal viewing, I played a decent amount of video games on it (PS2 stuff like Xmen and Prince of Persia, both of which had anchored life/energy bars). They don't burn in in a "few hours of playing" They don't burn in at all (maybe the really cheap ones do. maybe). I spent many a full weekend night playing and after 3 years, that screen was as bright as the day I bought it and there were definately no burned in images to be seen.

In fact, the thing worked great, right until the day it made a loud clacking noise and stopped working. You are right about the companies ripping people off on the warranties though. Total screen failure (which I'd been warned about when I purchased it, and for which I shelled out a ridiculous amount of money for an extended warranty). They're currently trying to rip me on the replacement cost (they don't have replacements, and repairs are too expensive, so they just cut you a check). Without going into details, they're trying to pay me off with an amount only 500 bucks over the amount I paid for the freaking warranty! Sheesh.

That's not an issue with the technology itself though, only the policies of the covering company (GE in this case). Plasma screen TVs are by far the most bright and vibrant screen technology today. It's just darn expensive.



That's also not totally true. While it is definately the best bang for buck if you're going for a big screen. DLPs can actually suffer more fade over time then other screen types. They don't suffer catastrophic failures like plasmas, but they do tend to fade gradually as the projection elements age. They're also *very* subject to the glass quality (plasmas are as well btw, so don't think this is specific to DLPs alone). Possibly moreso since it is a projection, so the glass functions like a lens. This can amplify the aging issue in ways that plasma screens dont (or at least not as much). That's actually where you get that rainbowing effect. It's bad glass in the screens, not correctly canceling the light refraction that all projection generates. Top end units wont have that problem, but since most folks going DLP are going for cost effectiveness, odds are they'll get the biggest screen in their price range, which usualy means they get one that looks great in the storeroom, but has some substandard problems that aren't immediately apparent.

And, as I mentioned above. DLPs are not true flat panel screens. They can't be wall mounted. And they have really poor viewing angles. These things may not matter, but they are issues to consider.


Also, in both cases, cost really is an indicator of quality. If there are two seemingly identical units, of the same size, with similar features, and one's 500 bucks more expensive, you can bet it's not a mistake. The more expensive one has been optics, better circuits and decoding chips, and will last longer, look better, and just generally be a better TV.





This is absolutely true (again). Of the three types, LCDs have the most problems scaling to larger sizes. And it's all about pixel blending and size adjusting. When you see LCDs in the storeroom, everything looks great. But that's largely because all large screen TVs have some issues with resolution issues. Each screen will have a fixed number of "physical" pixels and will use software/hardware to adjust to a different resolution. This is one reason why in many cases, and EDTV will look better for viewing DVDs then an HDTV (and will often look better when watching any non HDTV content in fact). This problem affects all larger screens but *really* affects LCDs. And that's largely because of the ability to blend pixels. Plasma screens have brighter pixels inherently, allowing them to blend pixels in mid resolutions better then LCD (assuming you have a decent set). DLPs are projection and can much more easily blend as well. LCD has a really hard time concealing the fact that it's adjusting from it's true resolution to display a different one.

In the showroom, they make sure that the source data displayed on the screen is correctly scaled to the screen it's displaying on. You wont notice the problem until you get it home and try viewing normal TV, digital TV, DVDs, and perhaps HDTV content. You'll suddenly realize that certain resolutions look really really crappy. And the larger the LCD screen the worse it looks.

The absolute worst thing to do is buy a really cheap large screen (40"+) LCD TV. They might seem cheaper (although as the size increases the price advantage for LCDs diminishes), but you really aren't getting a bargain at all...