Spam
When John Howard did it during the 2004 election campaign, The Chaser dumped a wheelbarrow load of Spam on his campaign office's doorstep.
3547 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
I don't know whether you think every Australian has access to a reliable connection with a minimum speed, but considering ADSL2+ subscribers within 1km of an exchange and on a good quality ISP receive 24Mb/s, and there are cable subscribers in limited areas on 30Mb/s in this country, there's a long way to fall to bring the average down to 2.6...
There are vast swathes of this country that have no access to ADSL at all, even within major cities, because all the telephone lines in the country are owned by a single, formerly government owned, company, and this company has grown fat, lazy, stupid and spendthrift.
Having recently bought a 27" monitor, the fact it's 16:9 and not 16:10 is a non-issue when the screen's almost 34cm high and you've got a vertical resolution of 1440 pixels. A 16:10 27" is less than 3cm higher.
And no, I can't see 2.35:1 aspect screens (presumably the "cinema aspect" to which you refer, although a monitor whose aspect ratio is an approximation of pi might be worthy of geek cred) becoming mainstream. The MSOffice ribbon would take up have of the screen.
Those massive CRTs of yours probably cost more than a 27" IPS LCD does today...
...you heard of someone being detained for the use of an Australian colloquialism on an aeroplane?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/fair-dinkum-lingo-sparks-us-scare/2007/08/10/1186530594123.html
Oh, right.
Flight attendants aren't hired for their knowledge or intelligence. You'd think they would be hired for their hearing acuity though, but perhaps not.
So a sales assistant saw a solid gold opportunity to take some of their more gullible and suggestible customers for as much as they thought they could get away with at the point of sale?
The only thing about this article that's newsworthy is that it was JB and not usual suspect Harvey Norman doing the rorting.
The noise level of an image is a function of the sensor's size.
The detail level of an image is a function of the pixel count.
The dynamic range decreases as pixels get smaller, but not by as much as you'd expect.
All other things being equal, more pixels are a good thing. Especially when in this case the pixel size hasn't changed, so the sensor has become larger. Image noise will therefore have decreased, since the "size" of the noise is now decreased relative to the size of the image.
The "quality" of an image is a function of both of these properties, and of the lens. The tiny lenses used in these things aren't very difficult to make. It is not uncommon to find numerous models in the digital camera world, with widely varying pixel counts.