alt.hn

2/12/2026 at 3:00:58 AM

Sony Jumbotron Image Control System (1998) [pdf]

 https://pro.sony/s3/cms-static-content/operation-manual/3864848111.pdf

by xattt

2/12/2026 at 3:12:55 AM

A couple of interesting takeaways:

- Pre-LED Jumbotrons used CRT pixels called "Trinilite" elements. This was a proprietary Sony technology where each sub-pixel or "cell" was a miniaturized CRT assembly. Each resolved one pixel each.

- A "maximum" NTSC configuration consisting of 40 units wide would result in a horizontal resolution of just 640 dots.

- The display needed a calibration using a “Screen Alignment Unit” (the JME-SA200). This unit used a remote modem chain involving a "cellular phone" and "digital data card." This means that Jumbotron techs could dial in over 1998-era mobile networks to geometrically align a stadium-sized wall of vacuum tubes as they sat in the middle of said stadium.

I also found the format of the manual interesting, because it follows the same style of consumer-grade Sony devices from that period.

by xattt

2/16/2026 at 11:59:14 AM

I believe these were supported from 2001-2011, which makes it amusing to think of some guy sitting in Times Square adjusting a Jumbotron and changing the inputs from the sidewalk.

by kotaKat

2/15/2026 at 8:45:58 PM

Off-topic, but this ongoing trend of brands getting TLDs is really starting to infuriate me. It's not what TLDs are for! Sony is a Japanese company, so it should use sony.com or sony.jp.

by zdimension

2/15/2026 at 10:11:56 PM

There's no inherent reason to restrict the number of TLDs. The best way to combat rent seeking from registries is to allow any organization that has the technical capability to operate a registry.

by ralph84

2/15/2026 at 10:48:51 PM

Why do companies and organizations get special treatment over regular people? I think a simpler fix is just to ban any companies that register domains from squatting on them.

by cwnyth

2/15/2026 at 11:00:51 PM

Were regular people prohibited from applying for TLDs when applications were open?

Not that I know many people who would have been interested in paying the fees.

by toast0

2/16/2026 at 2:34:09 AM

The bigger problem is the rent seeking some registrars are doing now by increasing prices. Not sure what domain portability might look like (maybe requiring multiple registrars per tld), but something like it would solve this problem.

by ece

2/15/2026 at 9:42:17 PM

That’s not what the ICANN thinks, and this started in 2012:

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program

by ErneX

2/15/2026 at 11:18:31 PM

Any idea why Google and Microsoft and Apple don’t yet have TLDs then?

by urbandw311er

2/16/2026 at 11:36:23 PM

EDIT: I couldn’t have been more wrong — all three have TLDs. Not really sure if they are being used for much though! Most of the action still seems to be on their .com domains

by urbandw311er

2/15/2026 at 11:29:11 PM

Apple does.

https://apple.nic

by slater

2/16/2026 at 3:29:52 AM

I think you meant https://nic.apple :)

Worth pointing out that the ICANN agreement for all these new TLDs require a website live on whois.nic.<tld> under Specification 4. eg, Google's TLD delegation agreement (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/googl...).

Most TLDs will also put live nic.<tld>, but it's not required.

edit: huh, seems like a lot of TLDs are not following their ICANN agreements.

by tim--

2/16/2026 at 11:34:45 PM

Weirdly if you browse to nic.apple there is a link on that page to “Whois for .apple” which points to http://whois.nic.apple/ which seems to be dead.

by urbandw311er