This car isn't new - it's been around for many many years here in Europe, but what's confusing me is this "Zap" thing. Who on earth are Zap?
I'm confused enough already as in the UK, you seem to be able to buy "Smart" and Mercedes versions of this car. Is it just that they are licensing the design to lots of different manufacturers?
By the way - you do NOT want to crash one of these cars. The only thing that can possibly crumple in a car this small is the bit where the passengers hit. I'm not guessing - I've seen one that had been in a head-on collision at 60mph it was VERY VERY small afterwards (like, shorter than it was wide!). Not pretty
If you want to view your photos on a screen, the maximum resolution you would need is 1600x1280, which is 2 megapixel. 98% of people will probably never print out their pictures at a size more than about 8"x6". But I've got a 5mp and a 6.3mp (EOS 300) digital camera, and both cameras produce pictures which are INCREDIBLY sharp when printed out at that size. Ie, so sharp that it's difficult to actually see all that detail with the naked eye. So why would you ever need 7+ megapixels in a consumer camera? All it does is make the picture files really big and the noise level for low light photographs quite high. 7mp cameras would only be necessary if you need extremely high res pics for printing at sizes around A4 (US Legal-ish) or above.
I reckon 6 megapixels should be enough for anyone;) Until someone can produce an affordable 7 megapixel+ 19" monitor within a few years and prove me wrong. I really wish they would!
> But... it'll happen some day. Lots of people always working on better smaller lenses.
I'm no expert in optics, but I doubt that you'll ever get a really decent lens which fits in a normal sized phone (eg 10cm x 4cm x18mm deep) because the physics of it means that a physically small lens simply can't gather enough light such that the exposure times would be acceptable. Even if the lens was perfect and the image was really clear, the pictures would have to be exposed at the equivalent of ISO 1600 because of the tiny amount of light coming in though the 3-5mm lens which is going to be VERY grainy or cause an exposure time that's so big that everything is always blurry. In fact this is my experience of all current camera phones! This might be OK for blog pictures, but hardly acceptable for all your holiday snaps. Especially if they're taken in low light conditions.
I have posted a comment like this in the past, but it's more relevant here:
Adding a 7 megapixel camera to a phone has been done mainly for marketing reasons. People who don't know anything will see the bigger number and think that it's better. The problem is, you need VERY decent optics to take advantage of a sensor with a 5 megapixel resolution. The TINY lenses that you will *always* get in a camera phone (unless you want your phone to be the size of a brick) will never be able to do justice to a 7mp CCD or even a 5 megapixel CCD for that matter. Apart from anything else, a lens that's only a few millimeters across cannot gather enough light to let the camera expose the picture for a short enough time for it to still be sharp at that resolution. What I'm trying to say is, your pictures will have camera shake nearly all the time - even when a normal camera with a decent lens wouldn't have even used it's flash.
Basically - don't bother spending money to get a phone with 7mp instead of 1mp. 1mp is fine for instant snaps to put on your blog, but you're never going to want to print out your holiday-of-a-lifetime photos taken on a telephone with a 7mp camera coupled with a 3mm plastic (or glass if you're lucky) lens. Especially if the aforementioned lens has been in your sweaty pocket for a few months and smashed against the tarmac a few times!
If you want decent photos, get a decent camera with a decent zoom lens. Lens sizes for cameras with more than 1 megapixel should be measured in CM - not in MM!
Don't try and take photos you want to print out with your telephone! That's NOT what telephones are for - contrary to popular media hype.
I recommend http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com] for reviews of digital cameras.
You obviously haven't understood what he's claiming. He's not saying that MSN is screen scraping the results - only that it may be using sites found in google as a list of URLs for the MSNBot to crawl. They are still doing the crawling themselves and building their own index.
Doesn't seem to work for me. It always says "this item will be installed after you restart firefox" no matter how much I restart firefox. I also can't uninstall it for the same reason..:(
I was wondering that, because it doesn't happen at home. At work I have a 2 megabit uncontended leased line and a very fast 3Ghz PC... Home is just a 512k/bit ADSL and an old Athlon 800.
It seems to actually happen a lot more often in 1.0 than I've noticed with any previous versions... I can't believe they'd have implemented any breaking changes at the last minute though. So maybe it's just a coincidence...
Anyone who's installed 1.0 will have noticed that Firefox is now using a start page hosted by Google. But you'll be glad to know that if you don't use google.com because you'd rather use Google in your own language or perhaps you like the option to easily search sites in your own country, then you can easily change the start page so that it uses a start page designed for your country by just appending/firefox to the normal address of your preferred Google home page:
For instance, if you're in the UK, set your start page to: http://www.google.co.uk/firefox
Or if you're in France: http://www.google.fr/firefox
Well I'm reading this in Firefox 1.0 and it *still* doesn't like slashdot's code. It still occasionally renders the comments overlapping the left hand menu and it initially rendered this "post comment" screen double width - with the left hand menu titles taking up my entire screen. I haven't encountered any problems with any other sites, so I expect it's just slashdots dubious HTML that's confusing firefox. Mind you I hate to admit that I've never seen IE mis-render slashdot.
Has anyone else seen Firefox render slashdot incorrectly?
It can usually be fixed with a simple click of the reload button (F5).
I don't see why the mention of a release of Firefox against an article about the release of Thunderbird is offtopic! Someone mod this poor guy back up.
Why do you say it's out? It doesn't appear to be out at all. There's a folder called RC2 but that's it - there are no installers/binaries or sources in it. The fact that someone's created a new folder hardly qualifies as a release.
Compare the contents of the RC1 and RC2 folders to see what I mean.
Adding a 5mp camera to a telephone has been done mainly for marketing reasons. People who don't know anything will see the bigger number and think that it's better. The problem is, you need VERY decent optics to take advantage of a sensor with a 5 megapixel resolution. The TINY lenses that you will *always* get in a camera phone (unless you want your phone to be the size of a brick) will never be able to do justice to a 5mp CCD. Apart from anything else, a lens that's only a few millimeters across cannot gather enough light to let the camera expose the picture for a short enough time for it to still be sharp at that resolution. What I'm trying to say is, your pictures will have camera shake nearly all the time - even when a normal camera with a decent lens wouldn't have even used it's flash.
Basically - don't bother spending money to get a phone with 5mp instead of 1mp. 1mp is fine for instant snaps to put on your blog, but you're never going to want to print out your holiday-of-a-lifetime photos taken on a telephone with a 5mp camera coupled with a 3mm plastic (or glass if you're lucky) lens. Especially if said lens has been in your sweaty pocket for a few months and smashed against the tarmac a few times!
If you want decent photos, get a decent camera with a decent zoom lens.
Don't try and take photos you want to print out with your telephone! That's NOT what telephones are for - contrary to popular media hype.
I'm not saying CSS is bad; I'm a web designer and I use it all the time! I'm just saying that pages with a non-realistic amount of CSS in them make IE feel rather slow compared to firefox.
Read my post before rambling on about something I'm already in agreement with you about!
> So I should drop CSS support in my web pages so that IE can render them faster!?!
No?! What on earth are you blithering on about? I just said that it rendered them slower than Firefox if there's lots of CSS. I don't recall saying that "CSS is crap and you shouldn't use it". Strange man.
It works the other way round. Windows has lots of references to IE in it - Windows does not have lots of IE's code *embedded* in it.
In fact, the very fact that IE also has to handle lots of OS functions as well as being a browser should make it bigger in memory than Firefox - but it it isn't.
If you like, I can add the entire footprint of explorer.exe (12mb) to IE (18mb) and it STILL doesn't use up as much RAM as Firefox is using at the moment with only a handful of pages open (42mb).
> If anything at all this highlights IE's highly forgiving HTML parsing.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you rather see the web page you're trying to view, or have your browser crash?!
Re:This Is to MS's Clear Business Advantage...
on
IE Shines On Broken Code
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
> all the error correction code helps to keep IE bloated and slow.
Bloated compared to what?!
Slow compared to what?
IE has quite a small footprint for a web browser. I've opened this page in IE and Firefox. Currently IE is using 19Mb of ram and Firefox is using 28Mb. In fact, currently the top three processes using the most RAM on my machine are all open source products (the top two being Firefox and the enormously memory hungry Thunderbird which is currently using 58mb of RAM). All the commercial software comes later.
IE also tends to render pages faster than Firefox under most circumstances (except where Linux advocate article authors have carefully crafted CSS heavy pages which cause IE to slow down a bit).
Slashdot Mirror
This car isn't new - it's been around for many many years here in Europe, but what's confusing me is this "Zap" thing. Who on earth are Zap?
I'm confused enough already as in the UK, you seem to be able to buy "Smart" and Mercedes versions of this car. Is it just that they are licensing the design to lots of different manufacturers?
By the way - you do NOT want to crash one of these cars. The only thing that can possibly crumple in a car this small is the bit where the passengers hit. I'm not guessing - I've seen one that had been in a head-on collision at 60mph it was VERY VERY small afterwards (like, shorter than it was wide!). Not pretty
I don't get it.
;) Until someone can produce an affordable 7 megapixel+ 19" monitor within a few years and prove me wrong. I really wish they would!
If you want to view your photos on a screen, the maximum resolution you would need is 1600x1280, which is 2 megapixel. 98% of people will probably never print out their pictures at a size more than about 8"x6". But I've got a 5mp and a 6.3mp (EOS 300) digital camera, and both cameras produce pictures which are INCREDIBLY sharp when printed out at that size. Ie, so sharp that it's difficult to actually see all that detail with the naked eye. So why would you ever need 7+ megapixels in a consumer camera? All it does is make the picture files really big and the noise level for low light photographs quite high. 7mp cameras would only be necessary if you need extremely high res pics for printing at sizes around A4 (US Legal-ish) or above.
I reckon 6 megapixels should be enough for anyone
> But... it'll happen some day. Lots of people always working on better smaller lenses.
I'm no expert in optics, but I doubt that you'll ever get a really decent lens which fits in a normal sized phone (eg 10cm x 4cm x18mm deep) because the physics of it means that a physically small lens simply can't gather enough light such that the exposure times would be acceptable. Even if the lens was perfect and the image was really clear, the pictures would have to be exposed at the equivalent of ISO 1600 because of the tiny amount of light coming in though the 3-5mm lens which is going to be VERY grainy or cause an exposure time that's so big that everything is always blurry. In fact this is my experience of all current camera phones! This might be OK for blog pictures, but hardly acceptable for all your holiday snaps. Especially if they're taken in low light conditions.
I have posted a comment like this in the past, but it's more relevant here:
Adding a 7 megapixel camera to a phone has been done mainly for marketing reasons. People who don't know anything will see the bigger number and think that it's better. The problem is, you need VERY decent optics to take advantage of a sensor with a 5 megapixel resolution. The TINY lenses that you will *always* get in a camera phone (unless you want your phone to be the size of a brick) will never be able to do justice to a 7mp CCD or even a 5 megapixel CCD for that matter. Apart from anything else, a lens that's only a few millimeters across cannot gather enough light to let the camera expose the picture for a short enough time for it to still be sharp at that resolution. What I'm trying to say is, your pictures will have camera shake nearly all the time - even when a normal camera with a decent lens wouldn't have even used it's flash.
Basically - don't bother spending money to get a phone with 7mp instead of 1mp. 1mp is fine for instant snaps to put on your blog, but you're never going to want to print out your holiday-of-a-lifetime photos taken on a telephone with a 7mp camera coupled with a 3mm plastic (or glass if you're lucky) lens. Especially if the aforementioned lens has been in your sweaty pocket for a few months and smashed against the tarmac a few times!
If you want decent photos, get a decent camera with a decent zoom lens. Lens sizes for cameras with more than 1 megapixel should be measured in CM - not in MM!
Don't try and take photos you want to print out with your telephone! That's NOT what telephones are for - contrary to popular media hype.
I recommend http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com] for reviews of digital cameras.
You obviously haven't understood what he's claiming. He's not saying that MSN is screen scraping the results - only that it may be using sites found in google as a list of URLs for the MSNBot to crawl. They are still doing the crawling themselves and building their own index.
Mod parent down.
There is the need for the + sign if you want to force Google to include the word in the search when normally it would class it as an ignored word.
Useful if you want to find things that incorporate "noise words" in their names:
eg "+the guru" compared to "guru"
(film)
Doesn't seem to work for me. It always says "this item will be installed after you restart firefox" no matter how much I restart firefox. I also can't uninstall it for the same reason.. :(
I was wondering that, because it doesn't happen at home. At work I have a 2 megabit uncontended leased line and a very fast 3Ghz PC... Home is just a 512k/bit ADSL and an old Athlon 800.
It seems to actually happen a lot more often in 1.0 than I've noticed with any previous versions... I can't believe they'd have implemented any breaking changes at the last minute though. So maybe it's just a coincidence...
Anyone who's installed 1.0 will have noticed that Firefox is now using a start page hosted by Google. But you'll be glad to know that if you don't use google.com because you'd rather use Google in your own language or perhaps you like the option to easily search sites in your own country, then you can easily change the start page so that it uses a start page designed for your country by just appending /firefox to the normal address of your preferred Google home page:
For instance, if you're in the UK, set your start page to:
http://www.google.co.uk/firefox
Or if you're in France:
http://www.google.fr/firefox
The BBC now has an article on this.
Obviously so do lots of other sites
Well I'm reading this in Firefox 1.0 and it *still* doesn't like slashdot's code. It still occasionally renders the comments overlapping the left hand menu and it initially rendered this "post comment" screen double width - with the left hand menu titles taking up my entire screen. I haven't encountered any problems with any other sites, so I expect it's just slashdots dubious HTML that's confusing firefox. Mind you I hate to admit that I've never seen IE mis-render slashdot.
Has anyone else seen Firefox render slashdot incorrectly?
It can usually be fixed with a simple click of the reload button (F5).
I don't see why the mention of a release of Firefox against an article about the release of Thunderbird is offtopic! Someone mod this poor guy back up.
I just refreshed the view and loads more files appeared!
I guess they must have been updating the en-US folder as I was trying to view it.
Sorrysorry!
Why do you say it's out? It doesn't appear to be out at all. There's a folder called RC2 but that's it - there are no installers/binaries or sources in it. The fact that someone's created a new folder hardly qualifies as a release.
Compare the contents of the RC1 and RC2 folders to see what I mean.
Gnome was already running - as you can see from the screenshots.
--
Great - now I can crash my car even after I've already crashed it.
Adding a 5mp camera to a telephone has been done mainly for marketing reasons. People who don't know anything will see the bigger number and think that it's better. The problem is, you need VERY decent optics to take advantage of a sensor with a 5 megapixel resolution. The TINY lenses that you will *always* get in a camera phone (unless you want your phone to be the size of a brick) will never be able to do justice to a 5mp CCD. Apart from anything else, a lens that's only a few millimeters across cannot gather enough light to let the camera expose the picture for a short enough time for it to still be sharp at that resolution. What I'm trying to say is, your pictures will have camera shake nearly all the time - even when a normal camera with a decent lens wouldn't have even used it's flash.
Basically - don't bother spending money to get a phone with 5mp instead of 1mp. 1mp is fine for instant snaps to put on your blog, but you're never going to want to print out your holiday-of-a-lifetime photos taken on a telephone with a 5mp camera coupled with a 3mm plastic (or glass if you're lucky) lens. Especially if said lens has been in your sweaty pocket for a few months and smashed against the tarmac a few times!
If you want decent photos, get a decent camera with a decent zoom lens.
Don't try and take photos you want to print out with your telephone! That's NOT what telephones are for - contrary to popular media hype.
I recommend http://www.dpreview.com/ for reviews of digital cameras.
You're seeing what you want to see.
I'm not saying CSS is bad; I'm a web designer and I use it all the time! I'm just saying that pages with a non-realistic amount of CSS in them make IE feel rather slow compared to firefox.
Read my post before rambling on about something I'm already in agreement with you about!
> Re:firefox users update now!
Why?
As far as I can see, there are no updates for this problem.
Am I missing something?
> So I should drop CSS support in my web pages so that IE can render them faster!?!
No?! What on earth are you blithering on about? I just said that it rendered them slower than Firefox if there's lots of CSS. I don't recall saying that "CSS is crap and you shouldn't use it". Strange man.
It works the other way round. Windows has lots of references to IE in it - Windows does not have lots of IE's code *embedded* in it.
In fact, the very fact that IE also has to handle lots of OS functions as well as being a browser should make it bigger in memory than Firefox - but it it isn't.
If you like, I can add the entire footprint of explorer.exe (12mb) to IE (18mb) and it STILL doesn't use up as much RAM as Firefox is using at the moment with only a handful of pages open (42mb).
> If anything at all this highlights IE's highly forgiving HTML parsing.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you rather see the web page you're trying to view, or have your browser crash?!
> all the error correction code helps to keep IE bloated and slow.
Bloated compared to what?!
Slow compared to what?
IE has quite a small footprint for a web browser. I've opened this page in IE and Firefox. Currently IE is using 19Mb of ram and Firefox is using 28Mb. In fact, currently the top three processes using the most RAM on my machine are all open source products (the top two being Firefox and the enormously memory hungry Thunderbird which is currently using 58mb of RAM). All the commercial software comes later.
IE also tends to render pages faster than Firefox under most circumstances (except where Linux advocate article authors have carefully crafted CSS heavy pages which cause IE to slow down a bit).