Geek News
I've been stressed, busy, sick, and busy lately, hence the lack of posting... but just wanted to share some things that seem exciting...
I almost bought a digital camera a couple of weeks ago, but eventually dithered off because, being something of a amateur photo geek, I want something which takes really good images, but is also really small. I was tossing up between the Olympus C-5000 (5MP, and exceedingly good picture quality), versus the Sony P150 (7.2MP but, perversely, not as good picture quality, but bitchingly small). So I was excited to find on slashdot today that Nokia have phones with 4GB hard drive and a 2MP camera. Like an ipod and a stupid widget phone and a digital camera, all in one uber-expensive (I assume) gadget. But that just sounds really rad.
It's also quite cool that the new Airbus got airborne. Although, in reality, it's really quite ugly, and I think I prefer the boeing model to smaller planes between more destinations, than even bigger planes for main routes....
I was also planning to go to the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie at the midnight opening last night. After initially hearing it was terrible, it seems maybe it's not that bad. But then I discovered that there is no midnight opening in Dunedin. What's with that?, as Miss Bunce is so fond of saying.
posted by limegreen @ 1:25 PM
3 Comments:
Apparently, the olympus takes better photographs (in independent testing) than almost all the digital SLRs, plus is half the price, half the size, and a third the weight...
And half my motivation for a digital camera is to get away from the bulk and hassle of an SLR anyway. I'm sick of humping round a couple of kilos of camera (although a digital SLR would be lighter, the idea of 200g camera that fits in your pocket is very very tempting).
Do you really think that the multiple small planes to proliferating destinations is a better model than fewer trips in bigger planes? I was talking about this earlier today: it seems to me that the Airbus way is better for the planet and better for the consumer wallet, albeit somewhat less convenient. I'm thinking that over the next decade or three, there's going to be quite a retrenchment in energy use, we might even see the humble train make a re-appearance as a means of mass ground transport, if they're not left to get too rundown in the meantime.
The reality is that it'll probably be a combination of the two. Most fuel is burnt on takeoff, so once airbourne, the difference between a short and a medium trip is not so great. Incidentally, this is why flying in NZ is so expensive. A lot of the time flights don't even level out, merely ascend, then start descending. Twin engined planes are also more economical than fours, hence the advent of the 777 long range. A 747 needs four engines as a safety measure, because they won't glide without power (!!)
With you on trains for sure. My first two years in Dunedin I never went over the northern motorway. The Southerner was the way home! We used to top up our coke with spirits and have a merry old trip...
I've also claimed that I'll fly to Shanghai and take the train next time I go to Europe. Wishful thinking I suspect : (
Post a Comment
<< Home