Mar 9th 2011 2:41PM I have about 124 pages in my passport (4 extensions). I was never told there was a maximum number of pages. There are still 11 pages empty, but I've still got 4 years left so they'll probably be filled. I had about 96 pages on my old passport. I'm sure I would have had about 170 pages if I'd just kept that passport.
As to why I'd want to keep such a big passport? Well, when you have multiple long term visas on your passport, you don't want to get rid of it. Many countries don't allow you to display expired or cancelled passports for the purpose of visas. You have to reapply. Consequently, you can either live with your phonebook sized passport, or go through the time and often considerable expense of getting many new visas.
And, to be honest, if Guinness was to contact me to give me "largest passport" ranking, I'd tell them to do a little more research. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with bigger passports. The person who wrote or researched this article just didn't know what he/she was talking about.
Aug 9th 2010 11:25AM It needs to be smaller. And more resolution. And has to read your mind (just kidding - kind of).
For all those out there who say "12MP is enough!" "that means more noise" and ... seriously? I remember when I had a Commodore 64 and people were saying "Why would you need more than 64K?" And I remember when 133mhz 486's were out and there was discussion of electron migration and what was the upper limit of silicon microprocessors.
First, the noise problem can be solved. Look at the 1D MkIV. Go to dpreview and compare ISO25,600 images. The 16MP Canon does much better with a smaller sensor and higher resolution than a D3 (non-S) and seems only about 1-1 1/2 stops worse than the D3S. If that sensor was scaled up to FF, you'd have a 25MP sensor with usable ISO25.6K (barely).
Secondly, more resolution is better. Yes, often, it won't make a difference most of the time (99% of the time, maybe). You can't see the difference at 4x6 or on someone's facebook page. And in fact, you probably won't see them at 8x10. But I think at 13x19, you'll start to see a difference and you'll really see one at poster size. And if you crop a lot, you'll notice. Basically, if 99% of the time, I wouldn't need the extra resolution, that means 1% of the time I would. Further, how often are you going to want to shoot at ISO 102K. At that point, I think having a built in flashlight and can of mace might start to become important.
The original professional DSLRs had 2.7MP and 4MP (D1 and 1D). I'm sure they were "enough" at the time too. And now, even entry level camera beat out those primitive monsters in high ISO noise levels. No one would give up their 1000D or D3000 for one of those camera now.
We'll max out in resolution soon enough. But it won't be because "it's enough." It'll be because light waves can only do so much and regular optical lenses won't be able to handle the resolution. Anyone know what resolution a camera would have to be to be to surpass resolving abilities in the visible light wave spectrum?
May 22nd 2010 5:58AM Assuming the price and technology are already as optimal as Canon wants them to be, besides tweaks, the only thing major change would be the kit lens. And then, if you assume that the lens prices are close to what Canon wants to sell them for, only economies of scale come into the equation. I say, bundle the camera with the 18-135 lens that is sometimes bundled with the 7D. I think that can be done for about body + $250. I think for many who buy this camera, that would become their permanent walking around lens (not everyone wants the quality and expenditure that comes with an L lens). For some, an 18-135 would probably end up being the only lens they ever buy (which might be why Canon wouldn't want to do this).
Oct 6th 2009 12:18AM I don't think it's unreasonable that a household making 30K or less pay no federal income tax. At that level, tax money comes directly out of the food or housing budget. There's something wrong when someone making 50K+ or 75K+ isn't paying anything.
What IS wrong is that there are people complaining that these people should pay and that those who make 100 times what these people do should have their taxes cut in return? There's something wrong with a society that thinks that 100 people should have to replace their spaghetti dinner with mac and cheese so that someone doesn't have to buy a Bentley instead of a Rolls.
We're not talking about welfare collecting losers here. We're talking about hard working Americans who, for one reason or another, just have lower paying jobs. These people deserve to be able to put food on the table AND receive the benefit of being American without paying federal income tax. And if they should ever become one of the fortunate, they will have to pay too.
Sep 15th 2009 11:34AM These extreme makeover houses are tailored to individual families to live in, not for sale. These families used the increased value of their homes to take out home equity loans on the supposed increased value, but the increased value is sketchy. They are still in bad neighborhoods and far too specific to sell easily. Many rooms would need to be completely redone.
Sep 15th 2009 11:12AM I absolutely hate Bill Gate's business ethics, but the man has redeemed himself somewhat through his charitable activities.
Sep 15th 2009 10:46AM I live in Dubai. Riding the metro won't be about saving money or gas, but time. The traffic can get bad here.
Also, there are tons of lower income workers here who will definitely benefit from being able to use this. Even here, people question the value of the metro, but I think between the rich using it to save time, and the poor using it to save money, it will be successful.
Oct 26th 2008 10:37AM I live in Dubai. I bought a house here just a year and a half ago. It's already appreciated about 70%! My partner bought a house here 2 1/2 years ago and that house appreciated 175%!!! And that was after the bulk of the initial appreciation.
People here seem to be expecting a 15-20% correction in the market. Real estate agents say sales are down. But no one is expecting a crash. Everyone's bought in to the "dream" of Dubai.
Oct 3rd 2008 5:13PM I recently ate at a Nobu for the first time (in the new location in the Atlantis Resort in Dubai). It was a fantastic restaurant. Unfortunately, after reading this article, I won't be going there anymore. That sucks. There is a limited choice of good restaurants here.
As far as Ken Peterson's comment goes, I'm fairly environmentally conscientious, but I'm sorry, there's no way I can carry around a little booklet 24 hours. Further, there's not a booklet for use overseas.