boinkphoto

boinkphoto

Lives in United States Lebanon, USA, United States
Works as a Computer Specialist
Has a website at http://boinkphoto.com
Joined on Feb 24, 2009
About me:

Avid photographer for over 30 years.

Comments

Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Steve in GA: We may never know all the facts relevant to this incident, but what if...

You were the cop...

You just stopped a guy for a traffic violation, but he looks pretty shady. Then another car pulls in behind you.

Is the guy in the other car an accomplice of the shady-looking guy in the car you stopped? Did the two of them just rob a store?

The guy in the second car gets out, reaches into the backseat, and pulls out something black. Is it a rifle, a handgun?

Decide quickly. Your life depends on it.

A fair response and probably a good place to leave it given the limitation of the media:

There are "No easy answers".

Have good one and thank you for the conversation "dgumshu"!

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: We may never know all the facts relevant to this incident, but what if...

You were the cop...

You just stopped a guy for a traffic violation, but he looks pretty shady. Then another car pulls in behind you.

Is the guy in the other car an accomplice of the shady-looking guy in the car you stopped? Did the two of them just rob a store?

The guy in the second car gets out, reaches into the backseat, and pulls out something black. Is it a rifle, a handgun?

Decide quickly. Your life depends on it.

Actually I don't mean training to recognize a false situation - I mean, reduce policies that tend to favor shooting early.

I know it's easy for me to say, but I would like to see police take more risk in these situations. That is, give more time and effort to truly validate the existence of a weapon. They might have to think "gun" and wait a few seconds until they truly can analyze if it's a real gun, even if that increases their chance of getting shot.

Police are hired and respected because they risk their lives to protect the public. If they put their lives before the public, then much of the point is lost. I don't want more police hurt or killed, but if there has to be a choice of weighing between someone who has voluntarily put themselves at risk (police) and someone who has not (an innocent mistaken to have a weapon), I think we should lean toward the later. If they want to be the "good guys", well, sometimes to be the "good guy" you have to take more risk.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: We may never know all the facts relevant to this incident, but what if...

You were the cop...

You just stopped a guy for a traffic violation, but he looks pretty shady. Then another car pulls in behind you.

Is the guy in the other car an accomplice of the shady-looking guy in the car you stopped? Did the two of them just rob a store?

The guy in the second car gets out, reaches into the backseat, and pulls out something black. Is it a rifle, a handgun?

Decide quickly. Your life depends on it.

I still think that's a little too callous, but I will agree that it was decided legally as described. I'm just not convince the systems checks and balances here are sufficient (ie: they may favor police too much) and far too often, regardless or race, we are seeing an over use of force. I won't argue that it's not what the police are trained for, but I think we need to look at the norms around police training and policy.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: We may never know all the facts relevant to this incident, but what if...

You were the cop...

You just stopped a guy for a traffic violation, but he looks pretty shady. Then another car pulls in behind you.

Is the guy in the other car an accomplice of the shady-looking guy in the car you stopped? Did the two of them just rob a store?

The guy in the second car gets out, reaches into the backseat, and pulls out something black. Is it a rifle, a handgun?

Decide quickly. Your life depends on it.

I didn't realize stupidity, if it even was, was now a capital crime.

We're not talking he got his license taken away, we're talking he got his life taken away. Even if somehow you're right, show a little humanity at least. It's like, "He was stupid, he died, his fault, who cares." The callousness is stunning.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

boinkphoto: The vanilla iMac is probably fairly cost competitive given the high quality screen. However, at $14k I would find it hard to believe you couldn't build your own Windows PC that would meet or blow the doors of the iMac Pro.

I say that as a Mac lover and typing on a Mac at the moment.

@hypnotictortoise Yeah, and if you're such a successful pro that you can afford to throw money away, you can have one of your unpaid interns spec it out at $0/hour.

Seriously though - you're going to get a damn nice machine for $14k that is really well integrated, but the idea that it's simply a wash is absurd. I too have built plenty of PCs and it takes a bit of research, but isn't rocket science. That and given all the unpaid technical support I've given, no one seems to mind "phone a friend" as a tactic - I'm sure you can find someone.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 11:22 UTC

Seems like a cool idea fraught with more complexity than first appears. Definitely a non-trivial addition (though doable), but only a small market demand so hard to justify from an ROI standpoint.

I shoot micro-SD in SD converters and those little micro-SD babies would probably fit up any orifice. Not saying I'd want to do that but...

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2018 at 20:40 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies

The vanilla iMac is probably fairly cost competitive given the high quality screen. However, at $14k I would find it hard to believe you couldn't build your own Windows PC that would meet or blow the doors of the iMac Pro.

I say that as a Mac lover and typing on a Mac at the moment.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2018 at 20:32 UTC as 30th comment | 17 replies
In reply to:

boinkphoto: "If it turned out to be really good, maybe it would find a place in my permanent camera kit. If it ended up being a dud, I had 30 days to return it for a refund."

It may be this is one of the things that makes this shop special, but I see so many "I tried it and returned it" it just seems bizarre to me. Broken, not as advertised, missing parts, or even I ordered wrong and didn't find out until I opened it - yes, I get that. But "fully working, just didn't do it for me" seems alien to me.

Might be a generational thing, but still these returns, particularly after more than a few days use, are usually an automatic refurb and loss to the company. I sure don't want to buy a "new" lens that someone "tested out" for 29 days.

I guess if the stores are ok with it, it's "part of doing business", but it feels weird to me.

@Impulses - no blame on anyone here, particularly the retailer(s). If anything they're the ones getting hurt by this. That said, it can be part of their business model. It's just not what I grew up with and it has been a strange evolution watching it on places like DPReview. Now I constantly see, "Tried it, didn't like it, returned it." When I was a kid I'm not saying it never happened, but it wasn't normal and definitely would not be considered cool by most retailers.

Part of me wants to think it's bad because it's different, but times change and if everyone's in on it, c'est la vie.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

boinkphoto: "If it turned out to be really good, maybe it would find a place in my permanent camera kit. If it ended up being a dud, I had 30 days to return it for a refund."

It may be this is one of the things that makes this shop special, but I see so many "I tried it and returned it" it just seems bizarre to me. Broken, not as advertised, missing parts, or even I ordered wrong and didn't find out until I opened it - yes, I get that. But "fully working, just didn't do it for me" seems alien to me.

Might be a generational thing, but still these returns, particularly after more than a few days use, are usually an automatic refurb and loss to the company. I sure don't want to buy a "new" lens that someone "tested out" for 29 days.

I guess if the stores are ok with it, it's "part of doing business", but it feels weird to me.

Yep, of course. As I said:

"Broken, not as advertised, missing parts, or even I ordered wrong and didn't find out until I opened it - yes, I get that."

The normal stuff. It's just the try and buy is weird to me. If all parties involved are ok with it, then so be it though.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

boinkphoto: "If it turned out to be really good, maybe it would find a place in my permanent camera kit. If it ended up being a dud, I had 30 days to return it for a refund."

It may be this is one of the things that makes this shop special, but I see so many "I tried it and returned it" it just seems bizarre to me. Broken, not as advertised, missing parts, or even I ordered wrong and didn't find out until I opened it - yes, I get that. But "fully working, just didn't do it for me" seems alien to me.

Might be a generational thing, but still these returns, particularly after more than a few days use, are usually an automatic refurb and loss to the company. I sure don't want to buy a "new" lens that someone "tested out" for 29 days.

I guess if the stores are ok with it, it's "part of doing business", but it feels weird to me.

Yep. Worst case if I decide it's not for me, it goes on eBay and I take the hit. My problem, not the seller's.

But if Amazon et al see this as part of their core business practice, then it is what it is I guess.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 14:38 UTC

"If it turned out to be really good, maybe it would find a place in my permanent camera kit. If it ended up being a dud, I had 30 days to return it for a refund."

It may be this is one of the things that makes this shop special, but I see so many "I tried it and returned it" it just seems bizarre to me. Broken, not as advertised, missing parts, or even I ordered wrong and didn't find out until I opened it - yes, I get that. But "fully working, just didn't do it for me" seems alien to me.

Might be a generational thing, but still these returns, particularly after more than a few days use, are usually an automatic refurb and loss to the company. I sure don't want to buy a "new" lens that someone "tested out" for 29 days.

I guess if the stores are ok with it, it's "part of doing business", but it feels weird to me.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 14:26 UTC as 52nd comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Hugo808: Having to check social media on your phone every five minutes (or less) is clearly a problem that afflicts 90% of society. But that prevents it being a disorder because it's the new normal and it's only people who *don't* look at their phones excessively now who are the odd ones.

Well, I think we *are* quite literally teaching ourselves to be ADHD.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2017 at 21:33 UTC

They had to do a study to know that?

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2017 at 21:31 UTC as 27th comment

If you read their release, you'll note they didn't say they'd give you the option to turn the feature off. Replacing the battery is still not trivial as it requires having an Apple Care nearby and having the time either wait for the battery replacement or go back and forth to the Apple Care center. For others, like myself, a ship is the most logical tack, but parting with your phone for days can be a non-starter.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 14:58 UTC as 78th comment
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Since 9-11 America is the Land of the Fear, and the Home of the Fraid.

@photomedium Or stimulating the pockets of a chosen few at the top!

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Since 9-11 America is the Land of the Fear, and the Home of the Fraid.

@sean The question is not whether a gun could or would save this or that innocent person. Of course they would now and then. The question is, if on balance, the presence of guns in innocent hands ultimately leads to deaths of more innocent people or less innocent people? I'm happy to see and respond to the statistics on that.

BTW - I am not advocating banning guns, I'm simply questioning if they are more of a positive or a negative.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 22:24 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Since 9-11 America is the Land of the Fear, and the Home of the Fraid.

If Vox is to be trusted, in regards to suicidal people finding a different way to kill themselves, Australia found otherwise. Buying back guns was, "correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline."

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Since 9-11 America is the Land of the Fear, and the Home of the Fraid.

@roustabout66 I don't really want to have a hardcore gun argument because I am not as anti-gun as you probably think. Still, yes, my chance of dying from your "law abiding" (that is law abiding until they shoot someone), "who are trained" (not required in my state), who "undergo background checks" (Stephen Paddock had one), Americans is quite literally tens of thousands times higher than a terrorist, and I travel internationally quite a bit.

I mean - do the statistics, weight them any way you want to. The number of Americans killed by (once law abiding) American citizens using guns is going to dwarf any terrorist numbers, simple as that. Even if they use chemical warfare, the numbers are still unlikely to come close when plotted over a year.

Yes, terrorists want to kill us and we need to deal with that, but there are a lot of good people who wake up in the morning not wanting to kill anyone and go to bed having done so. Without a gun, that's a lot harder.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Since 9-11 America is the Land of the Fear, and the Home of the Fraid.

I'm not generally afraid and I don't have a Glock. Being completely honest and not even sarcastic, if I am afraid, I am far more afraid of good and generally well intentioned people who have Glocks than I am of terrorists.

I have a lot of friends with guns and I love shooting, but the truth is, if there isn't a gun in the house, you can't get shot by it, you can't shoot yourself with it, and your kids can't shoot themselves with it. I get the 2nd Amendment, but the number of times guns are used by people to defend themselves vs. harm someone (including themselves), doesn't seem a good ratio.

I know if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns, but that rests on another assumption - all killers are criminals. I suspect a lot of people wouldn't be killers, and hence criminals, if a deadly weapon intended for "defense" weren't so readily available.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

Josh152: See this is the problem. Two sets of rules. If a civilian accidentally shot someone who only had a camera, they are going be arrested on the spot, go to prison most likely and lose the civil suit as a forgone concussion. If a Cop who is supposedly highly trained and is trusted with a higher authority level than the general public does it, it's considered Just an honest mistake and he goes back to work before the investigation is even over. SMH.

Agreed (and Diazepam is Valium for those confused), however I think the ultimate point is he'd like to see the police shooting of civilians be taken a little more seriously. Something is wrong in the procedures, rules, laws, and training if what happened here is legal.

The answer though isn't to say that police are evil, but to work with our government and law enforcement to change S.O.P. and laws around S.O.P. The system is broken.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 17:07 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »