Right now the push in displays is all for computer and TV displays, with fast response time, and ideally in a flat form-factor. But these are expensive, really expensive if you want more than 2 megapixels.

What if we bring back an old technology — long persistence phosphors — and use them to make displays intended for still images, such as photography and art, at high resolution. They are cheap and bright. And if you don’t need to do 60 frames/second, you can also get away with cheap electronics are more resolution per persisting frame.

It would be easy to start with black and white. B&W displays require just a screen of phosphor and a way to excite it. The resolution can be extremely high. Colour requires a shadow mask style technology, or projection such as CRT projection. A portal in the wall for say 10 to 20 megapixel B&W photographs and art might be a desireable product for the home. But there’s hardly any limit for B&W.

There is a limit for CRTs, it get expensive to make a tube that big. New technologies are allowing the electron gun to not be far at the back so it need not be as deep as it is wide, but these are also heavy and fragile. CRT projection (mounted in the roof) might be a good answer.

There are however lots of ultraviolet phosphors which could be triggered by a UV laser or other such source, for rooftop projection or rear projection. If the persistence is long enough so you only have to do a few frames per second you can get in lots of resolution I would think. What would you pay for a 30 megapixel portal in your wall, one as sharp as a window (but not moving and only in 2D of course) showing scenes of the world, and great photography and art?

Well, the Supreme Court ruled today that expropriation for private development can still be legal if the town council seems to think there’s a public benefit. It’s a terrible decision, with strange logic, and strange votes from the judges, but you will probably read many other articles about that today. What I want to figure is, given this ruling, what can we do to make it better?

What we will see happening is a land developer coming to the city with a plan to demolish a redevelop a block in a way that they claim will be good for the city — perhaps bringing in tourists, jobs, business, whatever. Of course the deal is very good for the land developer, or they would not be drafting it.

I suggest we make it less sweet for the developer in such cases and give some of that sweetness to the expropriation victims. Today they get a “fair market value” for their property (that part of the 5th amendment wasn’t shredded) but I say, if the expropriation is for private use, let’s give them more.

First, start by paying them this fair market value at the date of expropriation, as we do now.

Then, after the deal is complete (with some time limits and other good constraints) we want to determine just how much “value” came from aggregating the properties. Right now this value goes to the developer. We’re going to give most or all of it to the expropriated folks. So we come up with a value for the amalgamated property. (More below on how to do that.) This pre-opening profit would go, all or most of it, to the landowners. The developer keeps any further appreciation of the property as they operate it — they need an upside too, of course.

More ideas follow…  read more »