tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 4783, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

My Mother taught me it was impolite to discuss religion and politics, so I'll stay out of this one.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:37 UTC as 284th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

tkbslc: Stupid robots.

If you can't infer my informal and non-literal use of the word "stupid" based on the nuances and context of this article, then perhaps you are a robot, too?

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 17:27 UTC

Stupid robots.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 17:03 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

stratplaya: The only think I can't get past is the aspect ratio. 4x3 is just too boxy looking for my taste.

I bow to your superior intellect.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 04:13 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Efimoff: These are not photographs these are illustrations. So over processed, altered and sterile that there is not much left to read from.

Eyeroll

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 19:57 UTC
In reply to:

filmrescue: This camera is to photography what Donald Trump is to politics. Sorry...too political?

I don't think the public will be so easily fooled into choosing this app.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 21:03 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

paul613: Funny how these roundups never seem to include able contenders that are no longer made, like the Olympus XZ-2. That wouldn't be because you need to help your advertisers sell product, would it?

Mostly because 1/1.7" is barely discernible from cell phones.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Woodyz: IMO, once a person uploads his original work on social media as a public post, it's fine to repost/share the work without the original creator's permission first, as long as proper credit is given and that the reposter doesn't claim the work as his own.

I know it's not completely the same case in the article story, but the concept that reposting (with proper credit) is not stealing still stands.

I wasn't making a slippery slope argument. Copying a movie and copying a photo are covered under the same law. The only difference is that Hollywood has the resources to scare and sue people. And there is certainly a culture of torrenting and ripping movies among certain circles. That doesn't make it OK.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I honestly didn't know Oakley still existed.

See, I knew Oakley wasn't still around. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: No this isn't a win, he doesn't understand social media it's all about free sharing I wouldn't have anything to do with him in that scene

Sharing a link to the original work is one thing. Copy and repost is another.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

Woodyz: IMO, once a person uploads his original work on social media as a public post, it's fine to repost/share the work without the original creator's permission first, as long as proper credit is given and that the reposter doesn't claim the work as his own.

I know it's not completely the same case in the article story, but the concept that reposting (with proper credit) is not stealing still stands.

You think the MPAA would go for that? I'm not downloading and sharing a copy of your movie, I'm just reposting it.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I honestly didn't know Oakley still existed.

I remember those sweet neon wrap-arounds from the 90s, but I haven't really noticed them as a brand since.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 20:08 UTC
On article Recycled: the Dakota Digital single-use digital camera (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: So where's the image gallery?

I don't think anyone "develops" these disposables anymore.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
On article Recycled: the Dakota Digital single-use digital camera (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicoboston: Gad, "single-use digital camera"... It reminds me of the DVD Rewinder. It was a joke, though.

I don't think that is really the same. A digital rental is essentially zero waste. A single use DVD is all waste. Even a physical DVD/VHS rental required quite a lot of fuel collectively going to and from the store to rent and return.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
On article Recycled: the Dakota Digital single-use digital camera (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

webber15: And we wonder why various ecosystems are collapsing with this sort of garbage being produced.

I wish it was a revolving door, as that would imply the old stuff goes back into the supply chain. Sadly, it's more like a one way garbage chute.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 19:57 UTC

I honestly didn't know Oakley still existed.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 19:56 UTC as 4th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

nnowak: What is amazing is the level of subject recognition and tracking. It makes a 1D X II and D5 look simply archaic.

A car has access to a massive power source and space for a whole lot of sensors and processors. A camera has a tiny battery and all the processors have to fit within a few inches of space.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 17:04 UTC
On article Recycled: the Dakota Digital single-use digital camera (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicoboston: Gad, "single-use digital camera"... It reminds me of the DVD Rewinder. It was a joke, though.

You joke, but the movie industry did try to sell single use DVD's under the DIVX branding.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
On article Recycled: the Dakota Digital single-use digital camera (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Wow! all the disadvantages of film with none of the benefits of digital. Did ANYONE at Ritz ask why anyone would buy such a camera?

C'mon, man it has a DELETE FEATURE! right on the front in big letters.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 15:21 UTC
On article Recycled: the Dakota Digital single-use digital camera (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

webber15: And we wonder why various ecosystems are collapsing with this sort of garbage being produced.

Trust me, there are far more non-disposable cameras in the landfill. Probably 95% of all cameras ever made are incredibly obsolete and you couldn't give them away. Same goes for phones, laptops, computer, televisions, etc.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 15:20 UTC
Total: 4783, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »