Now, for their next trick, I'd like to see a chart of those same phones, correlated with how well they actually work.

Higher radiation usually equals better signal.

Do you want to put up with a high rate of dropped calls in order to lower your exposure to cell phone radiation (which nobody actually seems to be able to prove is bad for you)?

There we go

On the other hand, if you want a simple, low-tech device that will do much the same sort of thing, just use two pedal springs.

One for normal driving, with just enough resistance to make it easy to hold at 60 MPH, and a second one that engages when you push the pedal down really hard.

Congratulations, I just saved them a couple of hundred bucks a car, for pretty much the same result.

That's odd...

I work in the convention business, and a lot of the people I meet are real techheads. They collect all of the newest gadgets - whatever gives them something to do when out of town.

Zero Kindles.

You can get the song from iTunes...

Of course, except for the Web hookup, the 50 is pretty much identical to the BD30... all of those neat little buzzwords (Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, PIP, Viera-link, and SD playback) are all right there in my week-old DMP-BD30 (yes, I got it on sale, so I'm not too bitter).

Definite scam.

The only actual report they have is a PDF from a Professor of Environmental Engineering in Australia who talks about the theoretical benefits of the device (with no actual testing done). They have a single letter from a California engine testing lab, which has a couple of nice phrases but no actual numbers on those thoretical increases in efficiency (wonder how much they paid for that no-details letter), and a whole lot of gobbledegook about how the thing's supposed to work.

I can't believe you guys actually put this on Engadget without a big "NEWEST FRAUD" headline.

Let me guess - the next story is going to be about monometal impedance-tuned catalytic wiring for speakers, with vastly improved conductivity so your stereo saves money on electricity...

Nice resolution, but 3500 lumens for a super-high-res large-venue projector?

Not so great.

The big problem is that, for the kind of thing this resolution is going to be used for, you need a lot more light. A 200 inch (16.6 foot diagonal) screen isn't particularly huge nowadays - 14 feet wide (usually, a 10.5 x 14 screen). If I had to use these for a big show, I'd have to stack up two of them to get enough brightness for the image (or the client would complain the whole time) - and that ends up dropping your effective resolution in half right off.

That would fit just perfectly in my living room, in place of my old Sony CRT.

My current iPhone needs a little brother.