|
Forum: General Talk
09-22-2011, 02:54 PM
|
| |
The old guard republicans were just people with different ideas, not necessarily bad. The new guard is freaking insane. I wouldn't have had too much beef with Eisenhower.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
08-23-2011, 06:07 AM
|
| |
All good advice here. A polite and genuine conversation about how you admire her work, dabble in the 'field' yourslef. Compliments about how much 'better' her shots seems to be than yours in similiar situations and would she mind offereing up any tips over a lunch or coffee - explicitly metion you are not trying to take away her clients but you want to improve your skills. Heck it could even be a course recommdation.
Worded genuinely as others have said the worst case scenario is she says no (and she feels much better about herslef) sounds like win win to me (although you may not win but hey you lost nothing other than perhaps the cost of a cup of coffee or lunch).
|
|
Forum: General Talk
06-03-2011, 05:38 AM
|
| |
The issue isn't whether welfare recipients, any more than any other citizen, should use drugs, but what extent we allow the government to intrude on the privacy and the dignity of a human being who is a citizen of this democracy. If they could just go out and get a job that allowed them and their children to live, then they would/should not be receiving assistance payments to begin with.
Under your theory, we should test them for cigarettes, alcohol, and just about any other non-essential consumable. You've got the urine, so why not check? Perhaps you would like them to be weighed, and they will receive no payments if the parents or children are overweight. Or, even better, test the women to be sure they have been taking birth control. Put TV cameras in their homes.
Why just do this to welfare recipients? Shouldn't anyone who receives money from the government lose their right to privacy? Why not require a drug test before you get a federally-insured mortgage or deposit into a federally-insured bank? Shouldn't you keep testing to keep these subsidies? How about farmers? Do they need subsidies if they have the money to buy drugs? Perhaps all of us who receive any service from the government (police, fire, flood control, etc.) should submit blood or urine to the government for testing.
If you really examine what you are saying, it is that you do want to punish the recipients of this particular government program for not being more successful.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-26-2011, 08:16 AM
|
| |
Boris - If you exercise even the most modest amount of common sense you should be able to enjoy your visit without the least bit of difficulty. Pay attention to your surroundings, don't set your camera bag down without wrapping the strap around your leg, don't walk around with your eyes and ears closed.
By coincidence there's an article in today's NY Times on the remarkable urban renewal progress NY's made in the Bronx, Harlem etc. Read here.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-21-2011, 07:48 AM
|
| |
That's great news dtra,
I'm the author of stolen camera finder and I plan to add some features soon so that honest people can report cameras/memory cards that they have found, and also an easy way for the people that lost them to find them.
Glad to hear it's working for that purpose already!
-Matt
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-20-2011, 04:44 PM
|
| |
Hi
Just saw this posted by my brother, he lost his memory card, and some tourist found it and managed to contact him by using Stolen Camera Finder - find your photos, find your camera
Apparently it tries to find photos on the web that have the serial number of your camera in the photo. Didn't work for a photo I tried that was processed, so maybe just photos that have been exported straight from the camera. I might try again tonight with some old photos that I took with my old stolen K100d.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
07-08-2011, 03:16 PM
|
| |
I used a tripod and bulb mode, held down for the duration of the fireworks I wanted in the shot. I Set the lens to a focus point (distance) using manual focus & turned of shake reduction (using a tripod). Experiment, I was adjusting aperture and iso after shots to try to get the "perfect" shot I wanted. This was taken with bulb mode and iso 200 aperture f6.7 tripod was low down and pointing up with the silouettes in view.
 |
|
Forum: General Talk
07-06-2011, 04:28 PM
|
| |
Exactly. As someone else hinted in another post, the title of this thread is completely incorrect. A verdict of "not guilty" does not mean someone has been found "innocent." It means the prosecution did not carry its burden of proof--period. We can all speculate on the ultimate truth, but the verdict really means "not proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-06-2011, 05:53 PM
|
| |
I'm driving unless I finally get to Europe and even then I think I am sailing instead of flying. I've about hit my limit with this pat you down at will crap. Now I suppose I'll be expected to get x-rays or an MRI every time I fly? No, I don't think so. A full body scan admittedly bugs me but I only fly about every 5 years so no big deal I guess. I can just imagine though being a business person who travels 2 and 3X a month and having to get X-rays every time. Not exactly healthy all that radiation. In that situation I'd probably tell the TSA to kiss my arse and just start driving instead. You know I used to have sympathy for the airlines. I know how much they lost after 9-11, but not so much lately. Going on my last trip the security thing was so draconian it was ridiculous. From what I can tell ticket prices are insane besides.There is no way I'll be flying again anytime soon. Not without very good reason anyhow.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-05-2011, 11:28 PM
|
| |
How to avoid being misled by sensationalist media: TURN THE FOCKING TV OFF!! Those who tried and convicted Ms Anthony did so for ratings, for grabbing viewer eyeballs, for selling those eyeballs to advertisers. They obviously will say and do ANYTHING to get those ratings, those eyeballs, those bucks. DON'T ENCOURAGE THE BASTARDS! Vote with your feet and walk away.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
06-29-2011, 05:22 PM
|
| |
What are you talking about??? The photographer was 100% within his rights to shoot video of the trains. The statement made by one officer that you have to have their (in his words "the governing authority's") permission to shoot on state property is factually and legally FALSE. Public property is PUBLIC PROPERTY and the only activity the police can interfere with are ILLEGAL ones. Photography is NOT ILLEGAL!
Furthermore, public property does not have to be marked "public property" to make it public. Where did you ever get that idea?
I see you blame the videographer for his delay... Why? The whole thing would never would have happened AT ALL if the police had not tried to interfere with a legal activity. Then there would have been NO DELAY!
And frankly, the only time you legally have to provide identification to a police officer (other than a traffic stop when you are a driver and must prove that you have a valid driver's license) is when you have been arrested for committing an actual CRIME. 24 states have a "stop and identify" statute.. MD is not one of them... And there is no Federal "stop and identify" statute... not even as part of the "Patriot Act."
There would have been no issue at all if, rather than making up non-existent laws, the officers had explained to whoever got scared by "the man with the scary camera" that "photography (videography) is NOT A CRIME!"
The real CRIME here is that these police have't got a clue about the LAW. This is from MTA Maryland's own "Photo Policy" website... (my highlighting in red)
 Quote: Filming and Photography on MTA
We allow filming and photography on most MTA property that is open to the public, including local bus, light rail, Metro Subway, Commuter Bus and MARC. However, some activities require prior notice, a permit and insurance.
I NEED A PERMIT?
No permit required: A permit is not required for non-commercial, personal-use filming or photography by the general public that does not interfere with transit operations or safety. Permit required: If you wish to film or photograph on MTA property or vehicles while engaged in a commercial, educational or non-profit activity, a signed permit and acceptable insurance certificates are required. Submit your permit application (see below) at least 14 business days prior to your proposed first shoot. Fees may be required. News media: We ask that you provide MTA’s Office of Media Relations advance notice before filming. Media personnel are allowed to ride for free, but may not interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle or board a vehicle at capacity. You must contact us to arrange an interview with an operator. See contact information below. The videographer on the footage stated several times that he was shooting only for personal use... thus NO PERMIT or APPROVAL is REQUIRED!!!
So what about the safety angle? Well the videographer was, at the time he was approached" behind the yellow line on the platform and was in a public area of the platform. He also did not appear to be impeding other passengers in any way. Funny that the police officers ignored the woman who blatantly and illegally crossed the tracks about halfway thru the first video.
Face it... some worry wart complained about the "scary man with the camera"... And when the videographer refused to meekly comply the went all "contempt of cop" on him...
One of the other claims the cops made in the video was that it was illegal to tape people in MD, even on public, without their consent, especially police.
While this is true where there is a valid "expectation of privacy" this concept was ruled invalid by a MD court last year after a motorcyclist was charged with "illegal wiretapiing." Anthony Graber won his court battle over this and the judge made an interesting comment.
(see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/109418-news-man-faces...ng-police.html for information on this case)
Evidently even almost a year later, the police in MD still have not begun following this ruling.
You are right here... Even when "private property" is made generally open and available for the public's use it is still private property and the owners can control (most) activities on it at their whim. The cannot however have you arrested for performing otherwise legal activities like photography. What they can do is as k you to leave and if you refuse, have you arrested... not for photography... but for trespassing.
The "Patriot Act" is brought out by the police all the time these days to scare the public into compliance. To put it bluntly though, there is nothing in the "Patriot Act" which makes photography by law abiding citizens a crime. It also does not make photography of mass transit operations or facilities a crime.
I hope he and the ACLU skin these ignorant cops alive!
MTA warned: Let photographers shoot - Baltimore Sun Mike
|
