Star of LCD projection display what is LCOS projector technology-LCOS projector, LCD projector - Edu

1 Technology How can we be called quot good quot mean It must have more than other types of low cost technology and comprehensive than the performance but also more energy efficient environmental protection In br br Projector Display technology LCOS Projection Technology to play a role in this hungry br LCOS Projection display Technical not professional to say is quot fabricated on a silicon on the LCD display technology quot As a rising star of the three projection display technology since its inception to be widely sought after industry colleagues whom everyone called the core of the future of projector technology However LCOS projection technology development is not smooth but after several bumps br br LCOS projection technology history LCOS projection technology called liquid crystal on silicon silicon optical technology Liquid Crystal onSilicon LCoS is a combination of semiconductor processes and br br LCD Monitor LCD of the emerging technologies The technology first appeared in the late nineties of the last century The first molding is AuroraSystems company in 2000 developed the The product has a high resolution low price reflective imaging features br br After this many companies rushed Today many of whom are still active in the LCOS arena br br Sony JVC as the founding technology SMIC UMC Jiangxi Hongyuan digital technology brilliant and other enterprises in Henan However in the early LCOS technology is considered the most powerful supporters Intel and Philips the two quot giants quot but not to the end br br 04 LCOS Philips announced its withdrawal from the product development plan Philips LCOS products in the direction of major technology rear projection TV single chip timing imaging products Since 2004 LCD and plasma flat panel TV product growth is considered to Philips LCOS rear projection TV to give up a core element of product development stalled In addition this year Intel also announced the cessation of megapixels LCOS chip level development and delivery plans Intel claims that the future will be on the main experience develops two megapixels full HD grade LCOS products Intel the position is considered to want to LCOS pixel density advantage and Texas Instruments TI 39 s DLP projection technology struggle strategy However 05 years after Intel 39 s LCOS Scheme quot die a natural death quot br br Lost two giants of the LCOS is doing a nose dive in the 04 05 year period This phase has a number of companies introduced products development and production of LCOS LCOS camp so it seems for a time the danger of collapse However out of dissatisfaction with existing technology and the expected future industry trends Sony JVC and Taiwan Windows technology is still stuck with it Currently LCOS br br Projector Has become a high end theater projector technology used in the main Been a number of companies such as Sony JVC as the record br br Canon Pioneer LG and other support br br Currently LCOS technology products in the market has shown a good growth In the projection display technology DLP technology LCD technology to catch up with a decade 39 s time LCOS technology is already present in 2089 after the development period Industry analysts expect further with the LCOS technology maturity and expansion of industrial chain LCOS projection display technology is ushering in the development of the spring

Technology and Academic Achievement

Over the last fifteen years American schools have dramatically increased spending on classroom technology to more than $5 billion annually, because there has been a widely held belief by governmental, business and educational leaders that "wiring schools, buying hardware and software, and distributing the equipment throughout will lead to abundant classroom use by teachers and students and improved teaching and learning" (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Craig, Winter 2001). In recent years a growing number of critics of technology in the classroom have raised questions about what kind of return schools have gotten for this investment. Larry Cuban has been quick to note that his surveys suggest that fewer than 20 percent of teachers use technology several times a week, and up to half of all teachers didn't use technology at all. (Cuban, et al., Winter 2001; Cuban, August 1999) Even if teachers used the technology, Cuban concluded, few employed these tools in ways that would improve teaching and learning. "[M]ore often than not," he noted, "their use sustained rather than altered existing patterns of teaching practice" (Cuban, et al., Winter 2001). America's return on this massive investment in classroom technology seems even more questionable when parents, policymakers, and educators look for evidence of the impact on student achievement. Supporters of educational technology continue to believe that technology will make a difference in academic achievement, but tend to rely on anecdotal evidence about student motivation and their development of critical?thinking skills to support this belief. They have been forced to depend on faith and their observations in a large measure because, "[T]here still is very little scientifically based research to gauge the effectiveness of technology," according to John Bailey, the Director of Educational Technology for the U.S. Department of Education (Murray, October 22, 2002). Given the lack of evidence that technology increases academic achievement, its not surprising that some observers are asking whether the resources and time devoted to technology might produce more significant increases in academic achievement if focused on other education needs. New Evidence: Recently, a growing number of researchers have published studies that provide substantial evidence that technology can play a positive role in academic achievement. Several organizations like Edutopia, the North Central Educational Lab (NCREL) and the Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET) are documenting research studies that link technology to increases in academic achievement. Two studies are reflective of the growing body of research on technology's role in academic achievement. Harold Wenglinsky's study, "Does it Compute: The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics," concluded that for 4th and 8th graders technology has "positive benefits" on achievement as measured in NAEP's mathematics test. But it is critical to note Wenglinsky's caveat to this conclusion. He argues that not all uses of technology were beneficial. Wenglinksky found using computers to teach low order thinking skills, "...[W]as negatively related to academic achievement . . . ." Put another way, this type of computer use was worse than doing nothing. By contrast, teachers who had students use computers to solve simulations saw their students' math scores increase significantly. As he explored the reasons for the differing ways teachers used technology, Wenglinsky found that professional development was the difference between those teachers who used skill and drill software and those who used software that could create simulations. Teachers who had training and skills used technology in ways that focused students on simulations and applications that encouraged students to develop problem solving skills. Those teachers who hadn't had training used skill and drill software (Wenglinsky, 1998). More recently, educators in Missouri issued their findings on a study of the impact the statewide eMints program had on academic achievement. This program is designed as a comprehensive approach to assist teachers to integrate technology. Participating teachers receive classroom equipment, and over two hundred hours of professional development over a two-year period. In addition to traditional workshops, eMints training includes peer coaching for individual teachers. The training is designed to help teachers integrate technology so that they can use inquiry-based teaching and emphasize critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. As one of the program leaders noted, "We find that when you put the two, (inquiry based learning and true technology integration) together there's a synergy created that really boosts students' learning" (Brannigan, 2002). The power of pairing technology with inquiry learning was directly reflected in the test scores of more than 6,000 third and fourth grade students who recently took the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test. "Results show that a higher percent of students in eMINTS classrooms scored in the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' categories . . . when compared with other students who took the MAP tests . . . " (Brannigan, 2002; Evaluation Team Policy Brief, 2002). Technology and Learning: Two Pieces of the Puzzle: These two studies highlight the importance of rethinking our current beliefs about technology. Educators can no longer accept the belief that technology is a silver bullet. Secretary of Education Rod Paige recently told educators they need to look beyond their focus on wiring schools and providing classroom access to computers. "The (real) issue," Paige insisted, "is how we use this access-how we get results." Paige encouraged educators to ask how technology can "add value to student performance?" (Brannigan, Jan 31, 2002.). The two research studies highlighted above offer clear direction for educators who are trying to answer the questions raised by Secretary Paige. Both studies argue that improvements in student learning occur when technology is paired with instructional strategies like project-based instruction, which actively involves students in intellectually complex work that demands higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. Henry Becker's research adds further weight to the argument that technology is a particularly strong tool for supporting active, inquiry-based learning. Becker argues that the kind of active learning necessary to master principles and concepts and explain student work is easier to implement in a technology-rich environment where "students have a rich array of information to work with (rather than only preselected, quality filtered textbook content), when communications structures enable students to pose relevant questions to appropriate individuals . . . and when technology-based tools such as databases, analytic software, and composition software help them to extract understanding from information" (Becker, 2000). Each of these studies also highlights the importance of Michael Fullan's observation that "The more powerful that technology becomes, the more indispensable good teachers are" (Fullan, 1998). If we expect teachers to use technology in ways that enrich and enhance student achievement, we must provide them with the professional development they need to develop the confidence and skills to apply technology, and an understanding of how technology supports standards-based education. Preparing teachers to use technology effectively may also mean following the example of Missouri's eMints program and ensuring that professional development focuses on instructional strategies like project-based learning, and cooperative or collaborative strategies, in addition to technology skills. This need to prepare teachers to use technology effectively means schools and district's have to adopt new models of professional development. Too often the limited staff development available focused on the computer, not technology's role in learning and teaching. As a result, the President's Commission on Web-Based Learning found that the training teachers received was "usually too little, too basic, and too generic to help them develop real facility in teaching with technology" (Web-Based Commission, 2001). Ninety-six percent reported that the most common training they received was on basic computer skills (Web-Based Commission, 2001). Another survey of public school teachers found that while most (78 percent) received some technology-related professional development in the 1998-99 school year, the training was basic and brief, lasting only 1 to 5 hours for 39 percent of teachers, and just 6 to 10 hours for another 19 percent of those trained (Web-Based Commission, 2001), The results of this failure to prepare teachers to use these new teaching tools were predictable. In 1999 a survey commission by the U.S. Department of Education reported that two-thirds of teachers surveyed were not comfortable using technology (Web-Based Commission, 2001). There is a consensus about the characteristics of a new, more effective model of professional development. One of the most salient of characteristics is that " . . . teachers need opportunities to work with colleagues, both in their school building and beyond. They need chances to learn from one another's successes and failures and to share ideas and knowledge" (The National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, 1995). Professional development also needs to be ongoing, and if we are to overcome the barrier of time, teachers' daily schedules must include "embedded opportunities for professional learning and collaborating with colleagues . . . " (The National Council of Staff Development, 2001). Others argue professional development must be immediately linked to the work teachers are doing in their class each day, and must model effective classroom instruction (The North Central Education Research Lab, 2000). To meet these needs, many leaders who are pressing for new staff development models encourage schools to adopt peer coaching or study groups to provide needed on-the-job collaboration on issues that are immediately relevant to classroom needs. Conclusion: During the Clinton Administration a presidential committee on educational technology noted there was too little research being conducted on the impact of technology in the classroom and called upon researchers to accept the challenge. Some researchers, perhaps too few, have accepted this responsibility. They are finding that it is difficult to isolate technology as a variable in good instruction, but they are finding that in the right circumstances, technology plays a positive role in enhancing academic achievement. Educators are increasingly focusing on this research, but must also be mindful of the circumstances in which research studies show technology has been a powerful learning tool. With this understanding of the context for success, educational leaders can shape programs that prepare teachers to use these powerful new learning tools effectively.Food |Gift |Relationship |Girlfriend

Dell Inspiron 15R (N7010) Specifications

The newly designed Inspiron 15R is the latest 15.6-inch desktop-replacement notebook from Dell. Equipped with the Intel Core i3 or i5 processors and Intel GMA HD graphics, this budget-friendly system is aimed at the masses. In this review we take an in-depth look at this new system and see how it performs.

Dell Inspiron 15R (N7010) Specifications:

* Intel Core i3 370M processor (2.4GHz, 3MB cache)
* 15.6-inch 1366x768 display with LED backlighting
* Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)
* 4GB DDR3 memory
* 500GB 5400rpm HDD
* Intel HD integrated graphics
* 10/100 Ethernet, 802.11n wireless, and Bluetooth
* Intel Wi-Di (wireless display technology) and adapter
* 6-cell Li-ion 48Wh battery
* Dimensions: 14.8 x 10.31 x 1.25-1.34-inches
* Weight: 5.79lbs
* MSRP: $599 (excluding Intel Wi-Di)

Build and Design

The newly redesigned Inspiron 15R offers a much cleaner and sleeker look and feel compared to past models. Similar to the Adamo-series, the layout has a hinge-forward design with the screen positioned just slightly in front of the back edge of the chassis. This has the added benefit of moving the screen closer to the keyboard and bringing the action to you. The outside appearance of the new 15R is very stylish, with a faux-brushed metal screen cover. The look gives the appearance of metal, although with an easier to clean painted surface. This look it also shared inside the notebook, with the palmrest and keyboard trim.
Build quality is great with a strong chassis and very durable feeling plastic. Even with its large footprint, the thin chassis resist flex and doesn't creak when you lift it up from the corners. The keyboard and palmrest both have more than adequate support, and don't sag under strong pressure. The screen cover has moderate protection for the LCD, with only strong pressure to the back of the panel causing ripples. The screen has no problem staying put with two strong hinges that get the display into position and hold it without any wiggle.
Users looking to upgrade the RAM inside the Dell Inspiron 15R will find the process quite easy. There is only one access panel on the bottom of the notebook. With a few Phillips head screws removed, you can add or repalce to the system memory. Unfortunately, getting access to the hard drive requires a complete disassembly of the notebook chassis.

Ports and Features

For a budget 15-inch desktop-replacement the Inspiron 15R offers plenty of inputs. We counted three USB 2.0 ports, one eSATA/USB connection, HDMI and VGA-out , audio jacks, and Ethernet. It also featured a SDHC-card reader, but an ExpressCard slot was missing.
One feature Dell offers as an option on the Inspiron 15R is Intel Wi-Di (Wireless Display) that transmits 720P resolution video through wireless HDMI over a long distance to a receiver box that attaches to your HDTV. This technology is great for enjoying movies without needing to trip over wires draped across a living room. The downside is this technology requires a 2-3 second buffer, making it impossible to use for a second monitor where you need to actively control items on the screen. Browsing the web is very difficult when your mouse cursor is trailing a couple seconds behind. For watching a movie, its not a problem since you start it up and go hands-off.

The Intel Wi-Di option adds $100 to the price of the Inspiron 15R. In theory this is a great value, although at the time of this writing Dell only offers this on the highest configuration of the 15R. Our $599 model cannot currently be configured with Wi-Di on the Dell website. Instead, the lowest priced model with Wi-Di starts at $949.