Yes, now you mention it, I recall something along those lines. If this is the case, then the 1 image per day is clearly an arbitrary limit imposed purely as an incentive for people to subscribe.

Or so it seems to me. If it's one-a-day max for non-subscribers, and as-many-as-you-like for subscribers, then I can't square that with Peter's explanation here:

I mean, that either is the reason, or it isn't. If it is, why give subscribers a higher limit?

Hmm. How were Pschlute's Amur Leopard and Southern Ground Hornbill added on '30/07/2008 - 23:52' and '30/07/2008 - 23:57' respectively, then?

I'm delighted they're both there; don't misunderstand me. Just wondering how the limitation works.

It can't mean 'within a 24 hour period' either, since his Palmer Sport Jaguars were added on '31/07/2008 - 00:02'.

I do like the leopard. Sharp, yet quite fluffy.

Hear, hear.

You're welcome. There are absolutely loads of add-ons (not -ins, it would seem..) that do all kinds of cool things. Once you've installed it (edit: Firefox, I mean), go to

Tools | Add-ons | Get Add-ons.

Then be prepared to waste a lot of time

Especially with this one.

This add-in for Firefox lets you switch to the IE rendering engine for the current page, and also add to a list of sites that it knows to use the IE engine for.

Pretty much gives you the best of both worlds.

I've looked at this page using IE7, and if I shrink the browser width, the adverts do indeed intrude over the top of the right hand side of the image.

With Firefox, however, they don't - the advert column gets progressively hidden by the right side of the browser as you shrink it, leaving the picture intact.

So one solution would be to switch to Firefox, I guess.

Or get a new monitor that you can use at a higher resolution - but I suspect you didn't want to hear that..

Apart from this, I can't see a solution. You are a member of a dying breed, using 1024x768, it has to be said, although I'd be annoyed too, if it was the adverts that forced me to a different monitor, or a browser that I didn't want to have to use.

_______

Edit: of course there are two other solutions. One is for the site owners to remove the ads (no chance), and the other is for the site development team to fix the weird behaviour in IE7, where the RH column overlaps.

Raise a report using the link at the bottom - they've been fairly responsive to our requests for fixes, with a few notable, even notorious now, exceptions.

Not sure what you mean here. The two versions seem identical to me, and indeed have the same URL.

As I mentioned, a lot of my photos were spoiled, inevitably, by all the people milling around.

So I thought I'd have a quick go at cutting the subject out of the background.

Here's the result... I know the reflection of all the people behind the railing is a bit naff, but I'm more interested in the technique of getting the border right - as you can see it's just a little too big, but when I reduced it a bit, the edge definition wasn't so good.

So rather than fiddle about for ages, I thought I'd post this for C&C and suggestions on good ways of getting borders cut out accurately.

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Motor%20Show%202008%20Excel%20Centre/IMGP1073.jpg[/IMG]

You probably didn't go into the wrong room first!!

There was the big hall with all the cars, and the one on the opposite side of the main corridor through the middle, with a lot of smaller stalls. We went in there by mistake first, which was where the Canon stand was. They were showing off some Ixus or other, I think.

Well I have, of course, ages ago.

Their position is that allowing edits at any time introduces the risk of abuse by people that change their posts after someone else has posted, in a way that changes the meaning of the thread.

As I (and others) have said until we're blue in the face, this was never an issue; there's no evidence that it will become an issue; it would be easy to change back if it did, and blanket restrictions as a way of dealing with the occasional miscreant are a bad solution.

Yes, so do I. Always. For some reason I still don't see the typos till after the actual post.

I do!

It's not spelling mistakes so much, it's missing or additional words... the sort of thing where you retype part of the text, and fail to realise that it now makes no sense with the rest of the sentence.