Slashdot Mirror


Major Museums Start Banning Selfie Sticks

An anonymous reader shares these articles about museums banning the dreaded selfie stick. "Selfie sticks, the logical 'extension' of an already irksome activity, were recently banned in Premier League soccer stadiums. Now museums around the world are starting to do the same over worries of accidental damage to artwork. The Smithsonian barred their use effective last week as a 'preventative measure to protect visitors and museum objects,' especially on crowded days. Meanwhile, a formal ban is pending at Versailles palace and Centre Pompidou in France, and visitors are now being told to stow their sticks by guards at the Louvre. Both Pompidou and the Louvre will continue to allow regular photography and selfies."

183 comments

  1. Sure about the Louvre? by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On my visits there, I remember signs prohibiting photography...not that anybody paid any attention to them.

    It's been a while...maybe it was just flash photography.

    1. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep, it's just flash. If you use flash, guards will tell you to not-do-that-again. Otherwise everyone walks around photographing.

    2. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most art museums I have been in have only banned flash photography.

    3. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For museums in general, it depends on the exhibit and whether or not the works have been copyrighted. If so, no photography of any kind is allowed. For the Louvre, it seems like most exhibits should allow photography, although not necessarily flash. Even so, it seems like flash photography may not harm paintings after all...

      http://www.arthistorynews.com/...

    4. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Harm to art or not, flash photography is also annoying. That is another reason for not allowing it in museums where people go to actually appreciate the artwork and would prefer to not be strobe lit all the time.

    5. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by mrbene · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "I don't speak French" tactic was what my dad and I used when I visited a couple of decades ago. I seem to remember it being no flash photography at that time, as well.

      It was a legitimate language barrier. We later had a heck of a time getting our taxi driver to stop so that we could hop out and see the Shuttle being ferried over Paris on a big plane. Once he understood, he seemed rather happy that we had.

    6. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "I don't speak French" tactic was what my dad and I used when I visited a couple of decades ago. I seem to remember it being no flash photography at that time, as well.

      It was a legitimate language barrier. We later had a heck of a time getting our taxi driver to stop so that we could hop out and see the Shuttle being ferried over Paris on a big plane. Once he understood, he seemed rather happy that we had.

      What year was that? It might have been the Russian shuttle Buran. If so, I envy you.

    7. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Chrutil · · Score: 2

      IIRC, non-flash photography is allowed at Lourve, but no photo's at all at d'Orsay, for example. Probably a copyright issue.

    8. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realise that when you take a flash photo, the flash should not be pointing at the subject in all but the rarest cases, right?

      There's only one type of flash photography that needs the flash to point forwards - that's front filling (where you use the flash to try to even out dim lighting close to the camera, and bright lighting in the distance, and which is typically used for landscape photos)

      For pretty much all other cases, instead, you want to bounce the flash off a large surface, to diffuse the light. Otherwise, all you get is photos with a big white specular dot right in the centre.

      This is why when you look at a professional flash, you'll note that it tilts in all axes, rather than simply pointing forwards, like the crappy flashes they put on consumer cameras to try and even out their poor ISO response.

    9. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by disposable60 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how common is an aimable flash as a fraction of the number of cameras being carried by the general public these days? I believe I heard that the iPhone is the top-selling camera, beating sales of the big three (Nikon, Canon, Olympus) summed.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    10. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People were using flash all over the place when I was at the Louvre. Some art had signs saying no flash and some didn't. I didn't even take my flash in.

      I was stopped from taking one picture while there. I tried to get a picture of the crowd that formed in front of the Mona Lisa and the guard stopped me. He wouldn't tell me why I couldn't, but said that I should take a picture of the Mona Lisa instead.

    11. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yeah, professional flash... professionals have those on their professional cameras. I've never had one.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I was there in '12, and photography was not prohibited, and that includes flash.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    13. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the point. A regular point-and-shoot really doesn't need a flash at all. The only thing it will do is make the picture look worse.

    14. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. We were just about the first ones in the building that day, and headed straight for the Mona Lisa. Flash photography was most definitely allowed.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      That's not how light works.

      The flash light is not just visible to you and your camera, it's visible to everybody, even if you don't look directly at the flash.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    16. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I was there in I think '98 or '99. It seems to my faded memory that they would not allow photography of the Mona Lisa at all back then, but maybe I am just misremembering.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Why take pictures of paintings, if you can download a better quality and that leaves you time to enjoy the painting.

      A friend of mine always bought pictures (dia format) when he visited cities, because that way he had the best quality of the image of the building.

      I take almost no photos of buildings. I can look them up online and if I forget where I was, then it was not worth remembering.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, professional flash... professionals have those on their professional cameras. I've never had one.

      If you've ever had an SLR (hardly the exclusive domain of professionals, though it does imply a familiarity with photography beyond snapshot-taking), you probably have a flash for it kicking around. I dug up my old camera bag the other day to test a K-mount to EF-mount adapter so that I might use my old lenses with my new camera. My old flash, a Sunpak Auto 222, still works. I've had it since I was 13 (just realized that makes it (and most of the other stuff in the bag) 30 years old). The new camera has a pop-up flash, but this one is probably a fair bit more powerful. It's definitely aimable from straight ahead to straight up, which is something you can't do with the pop-up flash. Put the camera in manual-exposure mode and the flash works the same with the EOS Rebel T5 as it did with the K1000.

      Is this stuff common? Probably not. In the domain of professional photographers, though? Definitely not.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    19. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by xevioso · · Score: 0

      That article is hilarious, because while it debunks the notion that Flash photography harms paintings, the final sentence says it all:

      "Of course, I absolutely agree that flash photography should be prohibited in galleries and museums, not least for the disruption it causes other visitors. The point of this post is merely to rebut the widespread belief that flash photography kills paintings."

      Which is hilarious, because a huge amount of those very same visitors would be using flash photography and not getting annoyed by it.

    20. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      dia format

      ?

    21. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      Why take pictures of paintings

      I generally agree, though a selfie (dread word) provides a different perspective association with a painting that memory can't - i.e. seeing yourself standing next to the painting as opposed to seeing it as it is.

      With respect to buildings (or other, esp. outdoor images also available online) one might be looking for a unique composition involving lighting, perspective, &c. There's also the same perspective element as well.

    22. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by magarity · · Score: 2

      For pretty much all other cases, instead, you want to bounce the flash off a large surface, to diffuse the light

      But not just any "large surface" will do. It's always amusing to see someone with a fancy camera with the flash pointed straight upward towards a vaulted, black ceiling.

    23. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Well, if my exposure to people has taught me anything, a huge amount of those visitors would be using flash photography while simultaneously getting annoyed by other people also using flash photography.

      "All this flashing is really annoying," the tourist says just before flashing their camera.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    24. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      You couldn't be troubled enough to learn arrete? Arrete maintenant! ... Arrete ici!
      Sis vous plait.

    25. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Why take pictures of paintings, if you can download a better quality and that leaves you time to enjoy the painting.

      A friend of mine always bought pictures (dia format) when he visited cities, because that way he had the best quality of the image of the building.

      I take almost no photos of buildings. I can look them up online and if I forget where I was, then it was not worth remembering.

      Quite agree, And I did something else - I went to the Uffizi a few years back, and bought slides. Along with books, etc. Slides (I figure) give you the sense of size and scale that photos and books don't. I've done the same with the paintings in the Cistine chapel.

      Problem is of course, finding a slide projector...

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    26. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The "I don't speak French" tactic was what my dad and I used when I visited a couple of decades ago.

      That tactic makes you look absolutely braindead in this scenario. I've rarely seen a sign with written words saying No Flash Photography. Every sign banning something especially at international tourist locations is usually written in english or more commonly is actually a picture with a big red naught line through it. Especially "no photography" or "no flash photography" signs.

    27. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what - did your google break today

    28. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the visual capabilities of the poster are as dim as his intellectual ones... ironic that he was so quick to call other people morons.

    29. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If I'm taking care of the Mona Lisa and art of similar importance, I'd want something more than "may not harm paintings after all" before allowing flash photography. This is one of those cases where you take all feasible precautions that don't stop people from enjoying the art.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:Sure about the Louvre? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Probably means diapositive : slides.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. "Dreaded"? by plover · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Who the hell "dreads" a pole with a camera on it? You are seriously deranged if that's a clinical phobia you suffer from.

    --
    John
    1. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The summary is dripping with self-righteousness

      As if taking a photo of ones self at a museum or on vacation was some modern ill.

    2. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who have to deal with a lot of them in moderately crowded spaces with multiple millions of dollars' worth of precious, irreplaceable, objects on display (objects that they are employed to protect), that's who.

    3. Re:"Dreaded"? by alen · · Score: 2

      people don't pay attention and swing these things around thinking they are the only ones who matter

    4. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same way people dread a flag, its symbol of the decadence and fall of the west

    5. Re:"Dreaded"? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is, People take shittons more photos now than they used to. The reasons are obvious. Moden technology has enabled cheap photography- where it wasn't too long ago that you had to bring around extra equipment, rolls of film, then get them developed, or even just the fact that SD cards were limiting. Now I can take more photos than I Have time to review- but that is the problem. People are spending more time taking pictures and less time actually experiencing life because of the status, The Facebook status. People aren't making memory books, they are trying to show their friends they are cool and hip and whatever.

    6. Re:"Dreaded"? by 228e2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      lol, calm down grandpa. what you quantify as the appropriate amount of picture taking is exactly that.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    7. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should thank major museums for saving us from inane photography?

      Modern ill or not, it sounds like that's a problem for the photographer - not others. Sounds like you should worry about your experiences in life and not protect how others engage their experiences. In short, unless you are harmed directly, the short-comings of others are none of your business.

    8. Re:"Dreaded"? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Translation: I oppose what other people do even when it has no impact on me.

      Whatever happened to good old fashioned "Mind your own business"?

    9. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first saw these when visiting Disney World last year. I think they are great. However for every happy couple I saw using them to grab a pic in front of the castle, there were as many hanging them out over railings to get photos of roller coaster trains zipping bye. I can't say precisely how safe this is, but I can see how there might be a concern.

    10. Re:"Dreaded"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure the precise, correct number of photos to take during a vacation is precisely the number you took on that awesome vacation you took decades ago and have forever since tried to recapture the feeling of. Anything more than that is a symptom of these cursed youths destroying the society and culture you spent decades working hard to foster.

      tl;dr settle down gramps. Your predecessors said the same about you, and those kids will say the same about their successors. The sooner you realise that the better off everyone will be :)

    11. Re:"Dreaded"? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      The railings are designed to be far enough away that no matter how long your arm is you aren't going to be in danger of losing it to the roller coast zipping by.

    12. Re:"Dreaded"? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      the precise, correct number of photos to take during a vacation is precisely the number you took on that awesome vacation you took decades ago

      "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" - George Carlin

      Beware the ego - it's a powerful confuser.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:"Dreaded"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      People with a building full of fragile, priceless, irreplaceable artwork dread people swinging long sticks around. With damn good reason, if you ask me.

    14. Re:"Dreaded"? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Not when it interferes with people's enjoyment.

    15. Re:"Dreaded"? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      The art museum can does whatever the heck they want. You don't like it - tough titties.

    16. Re:"Dreaded"? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, my in-laws came with my wife, kids, and myself to Disney World. During the trip, my mother-in-law seemed highly agitated at how many photos I was taking. (I was using a DSLR and love taking tons of photos.) Once we got home, though, I copied the photos to her laptop and she started browsing the photos. She started noticing details in the parks that she hadn't seen before and had memories sparked of things we experienced. She instantly apologized and now loves that I take so many photos.

      Are there pictures that I'll take and then never look at again? Sure, but you never know which photos will wind up being treasured and I make sure I still enjoy the actual vacation (as opposed to the vacation through the lens).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    17. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the fucking selfie stick is longer than your arm, you goddamm moron!

    18. Re:"Dreaded"? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the art museum can't do what it likes now did I?

    19. Re:"Dreaded"? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      The same people who hate google glass, and any of a dozen other things they've decided aren't cool. This is banning something because its "not cool". Personally I think selfie sticks are incredibly idiotic, but I am happy to think that loudly in my head and ignore people using them, unless they're hitting me with one it really doesn't involve me.

    20. Re:"Dreaded"? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      GTFO my lawn with your selfie stick punk.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    21. Re:"Dreaded"? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      People walking around with sticks and flashing cameras has no impact, right. Other than the bright flashes in a typically dark museum, and having to take a wide berth around people carrying long sticks, I'm sure nobody's been hit by one, and not art has been damaged. Right.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re:"Dreaded"? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      People take photographs of vacation, this is true. I stopped taking photo of everything, and only photograph a few things, to commemorate the event. Why? Because I used to take hundreds or thousands of photos and missed actually enjoying the vacation trying to capture everything on Camera, only to never really look at the photos ever again.

      When you have one photo of a vacation, it makes the photo much more valuable than if you took a thousand. I've discovered, that the one photo can spark all the memories better than the thousand, because I actually have memories and not just photographs.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:"Dreaded"? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      The comment to which mine was a response. It had nothing to do with museums.

    24. Re:"Dreaded"? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I really don't go on facebook very much it's all silly games people invite me to play with very little socializing but I have a couple of friend's wives that post 20-30 selfies a day. They post the outfit they are wearing every morning short video selfies to inform everyone they are driving to the mall to buy something followed by short clips of them looking at this item or that and finally leaving with what they bought. One of the friends said to me at least I know she's not cheating on me I can account for every minute of her day with her facebook timeline.

    25. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is not taking pictures, but taking pictures and in this case selfies with a stick. They don't see where they are waving the stick, they are too focused on the screen of the smartphone/camera, and don't notice when they are hitting someone on the head, knock over that small statue in the museum, or just fall down the stairs while positioning themselves to get the best effect. And all this for a selfie, something that might be modern, and helpful to increase your status on the Internet (me with the Eiffel tower, me with the Mona Lisa, me with Eden Hazard after he scored the winning goals, me with Froome when he attacked on the Mont Ventoux, ...) Well, I've seen some stupid girl trying to take that selfie when some cyclist wanted to attack on a mountain during the tour the France, and got hit in his face by the elbow of the girl. Now imagine hundreds of sticks trying to take selfie in such a event.

    26. Re:"Dreaded"? by Skater · · Score: 1

      I saw a young woman in EPCOT back in December that was walking around with the selfie stick constantly extended. It looked like she was videoing her entire vacation... and she was at the center of the video the whole time. Everything else in EPCOT was background - all of its beautiful buildings, people in costumes, performances, fountains, etc. The amount of narcissism required to accomplish that astounds me. I get self conscious when my wife and I snap one or two pictures of ourselves (no selfie stick). I can't imagine having - and watching - and entire video of myself walking around all day.

    27. Re:"Dreaded"? by plover · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in the field of taking pictures and vacations; that people must only enjoy themselves in a manner of which you approve. You're obviously intent on curing the technological ills that plague our modern world, and for that we should all be grateful. I'd vote for you because you clearly won't allow those pretentious people to be pretentious on your watch.

      In other words, "Lighten up, Francis."

      --
      John
    28. Re:"Dreaded"? by plover · · Score: 1

      I agree completely with everything you said, and on my last vacation we took less than a dozen photos in total. And yet none of how you or I enjoy our trips should ever be applied to anyone else. If someone else wants to spend their vacation running around with a selfie stick, why should you or I care? I certainly won't dread encountering them.

      --
      John
    29. Re:"Dreaded"? by plover · · Score: 1

      If you're the curator of a museum, and if you think they are causing a problem for your exhibits, put up a sign and ban them. If you aren't, let the professional curators deal with them, and you can learn to not mind other people's business.

      --
      John
    30. Re:"Dreaded"? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      For some people it's their livelihood. I subscribe to a few youtubers for video game stuff and usually their videos are entirely ingame captures. But occasionally they'll have videos that are just them speaking, and so it makes sense for the camera to be directed at them. And if they are walking somewhere a selfie stick is a common sense enough way to do that. That said I don't find those videos as entertaining usually and they are normally much shorter in duration so it's not an issue.

    31. Re:"Dreaded"? by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      I always tell the people who complain that I've brought a big arse camera that I've brought mine so no one else has to bring theirs. This means everyone can relax and enjoy the experience while I enjoy capturing it.

    32. Re:"Dreaded"? by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Yeah right, so it's none of my business if I have to waste my time waiting to walk down a narrow corridor because every second git is trying to capture a picture of themselves next to some random exhibit. And it's not my problem that I have to do the limbo rock to get underneath the selfie sticks, or get whacked across the head because I didn't see the extended shaft in the low ambient lighting at the museum.

      It doesn't happen often, but when it does it is really annoying. The last time I went to the museum, there was a bus load of tourists doing exactly that. Luckily some loudmouth tourist from another country cracked the shits first and loudly told everyone to take a break from the selfies and the let people past.

    33. Re:"Dreaded"? by plover · · Score: 1

      And when the museums feel this has gotten out of control, they can address it. Complain to the museum so they know it's a growing problem. Otherwise, yeah, deal with it.

      We banned tripods at our exhibit a few years ago as they cluttered the aisles, and we offered the photographers the chance to arrive before hours to take their shots. If selfie sticks become a problem, we'll ban them, too.

      --
      John
    34. Re:"Dreaded"? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though he was responding to one that mentioned museums, and the whole article is about that.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    35. Re:"Dreaded"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The art museum can does whatever the heck they want. You don't like it - tough titties.

      Art museum titties are the toughest. If they're not marble, they're granite.

  3. n/t by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    Just another culture war.

  4. Thought these were jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Up until I just googled the phrase seconds ago: "Selfie Stick" I thought it was just something people joked about (hyperbole of where selfies are going) and wasn't actually a real product. I just looked them up and wow...

    1. Re:Thought these were jokes by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      THIS is why the aliens won;t come visit us ;)

    2. Re:Thought these were jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase an astronomy quote, the world is not only more idiotic than you imagine, it is more idiotic than you can imagine.

    3. Re:Thought these were jokes by alen · · Score: 2

      back in the day you would have to ask strangers to take a photo of your entire family or group and thieves would steal cameras. worse in the smartphone age when someone can steal your $700 phone and all the personal data on it.

      well worth it to buy a $40 stick with bluetooth on it for personal photos

    4. Re:Thought these were jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selfie sticks are an item generally used by the people who think that google glass is too nerdy for them. Cuz walking around with a camera on a stick pointing at you rather than away from you is for the cool kids.

    5. Re:Thought these were jokes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I asked my proctologist for one. I told him, "I'd rather do it myself!"

    6. Re:Thought these were jokes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      back in the day you would have to ask strangers to take a photo of your entire family or group and thieves would steal cameras.

      We had that quandary on a corporate treasure hunt many years ago - one of th tasks was to get a photo of the entire team. The solution was to choose a fat stranger.

      P.S. If you're holding the thing out at arm's length it's not particularly difficult to snatch; the thief has more leverage than you do.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Thought these were jokes by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      I would like to agree with that without realizing it myself and insinuate that you fornicate with someone or some group of people I do not agree with.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  5. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by AndyKron · · Score: 1
  6. Good Luck by coop247 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.

    --
    //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    1. Re:Good Luck by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      same with the statue of David. they should just make fake art for some of these museums that can be damaged by photos and save the real thing

    2. Re:Good Luck by steelshadow · · Score: 2

      We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.

      My experiences differ from yours. I've been to the Sistene Chapel twice in the last five years and did not see any flash photography. The guards were very active in making sure people weren't taking pictures and even checking on people with cameras out to remind them not to take pictures.
      It did get fairly loud in there because of the sheer number of people in the room. The guards would try to "shush" people now and then to lower the volume, which did help, but not for very long. Individual people weren't loud but it was so crowded that the overall volume was loud.

    3. Re:Good Luck by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was there last spring. There wasn't any flash photography. If the guards were paying attention and would give a warning if they saw you raise a camera. Ignore it and you're out. There was kind of a dull roar in the room because so many people were packed in, but the guards would shush everyone regularly.

    4. Re:Good Luck by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.

      Last Spring when I went, it was a dull roar - the guards were all over people who were taking photographs. Perhaps they're more attentive now given the relative fragility of it. In fact, they didn't allow photos at all - the guards were the loudest ones there and they were mostly shouting "No photo".

      same with the statue of David. they should just make fake art for some of these museums that can be damaged by photos and save the real thing

      The guards were all over people at the Academy museum - they saw a camera and they practically pounced on the guy. not to mention they basically made you keep all your real cameras away, those who had cellphones up in the "taking a photo" stance were generally reminded to not take photos.

      Though there are plenty of replica Davids around (the Ufitzi gallery has one) for your snapping pleasure. The Academy gallery was basically constructed to hold David.

    5. Re:Good Luck by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      ^ this. Exactly my experience, twice in the last few years. How are they going to sell books of photos if they allow everyone to take their own?

  7. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by alen · · Score: 1

    you can buy cheap ones for like $10

  8. Selfies... by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now there is an illness that needs a custom disease to wipe out those who take them...

    1. Re:Selfies... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Now there is an illness that needs a custom disease to wipe out those who take them...

      It's called being run over by a car.

      The problem isn't selfies per se, it's people who are disconnected from the environment they're in and so pose an obstacle or even threat to people they're sharing that space with. Who the hell cares if someone shares a selfie or a Facebook status update. It's wandering around with no awareness of what's going around you that creates problems for other people.

      I have no problem with selfie-sticks per se, but there are plenty of situations where confined spaces and heavy foot traffic make just using your smartphone a nuisance. Just in the last year or so I've noticed a trend of people in the supermarket walking their carts into other people as they text and they don't even notice. I was visiting Manhattan last weekend and I dodged so many young women texting as they walked that I had a flare-up of an old college knee injury that hadn't bothered me in years. If someone wants to take a selfie in Central Park that's one thing, but if just 1-2% of the patrons in a crowded museum corridor try it that's going to be utter chaos.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Selfies... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      It's called being run over by a car.

      Probably by someone who is updating their FaceBug status.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  9. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by MitchDev · · Score: 1, Funny

    Screw your logic, because ... umm... 3D Printing!!!!!!!!!! It's amazing, it's the next big thing, it's a Star Trek replicator...

    Hope the hype dies soon...

  10. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was in the Louvre last year, I was amazed at what was going on in front of the Mona Lisa. Most people had their backs to it.

    There were more people preoccupied with getting a photograph of themselves in front of it than there were people looking at the damn thing.

    Same story at Venus de Milo statue.

    An observation that I made (and this is nothing more than an observation) is that everyone wielding a selfie stick and not looking at the art was Asian.

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my experience, when visiting historic items of this nature, you have 30-60 seconds to stand in its presence, before getting crowded out, or being asked to move along. Why not get a photo of you and your friends to capture the moment? It is not like you are going to close enough, or the time to study it in any significant way. For better or worse, it is more about the journey than the destination.

    2. Re:Good. by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Why would you waste time looking at the real Mona Lisa when you've seen it everywhere since you were a kid? Do you think you'll discover something new? The only reason you physically go to such a place is to show others (or remind yourself) that you've gone there and stood in its presence. It has nothing to do with looking at the picture that you can anyway recognize easily.

    3. Re:Good. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would you waste time looking at the real Mona Lisa when you've seen it everywhere since you were a kid?

      You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing. Which, incidentally, is why taking a selfie with it exactly misses the point.

    4. Re:Good. by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which, incidentally, is why taking a selfie with it exactly misses the point.

      Perhaps for you, but selfies are proof you've been somewhere. That's why I call them evidence photos. For the people in question collecting this evidence may have been the point. Just like the souvenirs that tourists and pilgrims have been taking home for thousands of years.

    5. Re:Good. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      What a douche bag excuse.

    6. Re:Good. by bhagwad · · Score: 2

      Nah, I'm pretty much a barbarian when it comes to art. If you show me a printed reproduction and told me it's the real thing, I'd fall for it hook line and sinker. And so would, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of people who go to museums.

      Same for sculptures etc. Do a double blind test to check if people can figure out which is the real and which is the fake and well over 99% of people would fail!

    7. Re:Good. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      When I was there I didn't even bother to try to get close to either of those 2. I did take some nice pictures of both of them but then I just used a telephoto lens and a small tripod so I didn't have to use a flash. Then again I went to the Louvre to actually see the art and while I did take pictures of the things I liked I spent a lot of time just looking at the pieces I liked. There is a lot of really neat stuff to see if you go through the entire museum, and yes I did go through the entire museum and looked at everything on display, it only took me 2 days open to close.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:Good. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I ran into someone once while travelling, and we had a conversation about tourists versus travellers. That sort of thing definitely falls under the "tourists" category. The GP is right - it misses the point. You're right, most people do it.

    9. Re:Good. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing.

      Indeed. In comparison with how close you can get in the Louvre, the prints have a lot more discernible detail than the original...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Good. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      How could a printed copy possibly be confused with a painting? Printed copies are dead flat surfaces, while paintings have brush marks all over them and uneven application of paint.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    11. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet around 50% of people would fail ;)

    12. Re:Good. by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Well, a fake then. There are some incredibly well done copies of famous paintings.

    13. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photos of the Mona Lisa exhibit show that you can't get much closer than about 10 feet, and it is behind an inch of glass. I would bet a lot of money that even the most experienced expert could not discern the difference between a copy printed on a cheap inkjet from the original under those conditions. You don't go to see the Mona Lisa because you want to study it in any detail. You go for the experience and adventure, so that you can tell your friends what you did on vacation.

    14. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We passed upon the stand,
      We spoke of was and when
      Although I wasn't there
      He said I was his friend

    15. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need to ban Chinese from traveling. They're the worst tourists.

    16. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could probably find a facsimile of sufficient resolution on the internet and stare at it for hours. Being able to brag on FB that you where "there" can however only happen with a selfie, picture of the ugly but famous b***tch be damned.

    17. Re:Good. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Now with modern technology, you don't even have to leave the comfort and security of your basement --

      Create an app that:

      1) Takes a picture of the user (bonus points against a green screen or monochromatic background)
      2) Isolates the selfie from the background
      3) Overlays that image on the rear facing camera to aid in composition
      4) Takes the pseudo selfie
      5) Allows the 'photographer' to adjust various parameters, filters etc so it looks even cheesier.

      6) Profit!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Good. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      There were more people preoccupied with getting a photograph of themselves in front of [the Mona Lisa] than there were people looking at the damn thing.

      I'd do that, and I'm not even the sort of person who likes photographs (or worse, selfies). It's not like I haven't seen copies of the most famous art pieces everywhere but it's not every day one can see the original, which would make it a memorable event. I'd personally care more about original art pieces if it weren't for the fact that most art experts attach approximately zero value to the art in question and millions of dollars worth of value to its status as original -- else the value of a painting would not change much after a chemical analysis.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    19. Re:Good. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Printed copies are dead flat surfaces,

      I hear there's something new called a "3D printer"...

    20. Re:Good. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      I hear they print using plastic.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    21. Re:Good. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Even art experts can fail at identifying the best fakes, and some paintings that might be originals are branded as fakes due to poor provenance.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    22. Re:Good. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I hear they print using plastic.

      Some of them do. Some print in metal. Some of them print biological organs and stuff. And even some of them do it in multiple colors.

    23. Re:Good. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I was thinking something similar. False + selfie = falsie?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Good. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why the heck would I want to prove to anybody that I've visited the Louvre? My friends will believe me when I talk about it, and I don't care what anybody else thinks. If I wanted to establish an alibi, I'd take a selfie with a clock in the background, not the Mona Lisa.

      If you get there, look at the Mona Lisa and the other art. You can always get pictures (many museums will be happy to sell them to you), but they aren't complete replacements for the real thing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. Ralphie You'll take your eye out with that. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Or the eye of someone else or a priceless painting. Old memes never die they just get recycled.

  12. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by SomeWhiteGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like the idea of the 3D printer mainly because I have 2 small kids and a dog, so toys are broken or chewed quite often. Being able to print new parts and figures overnight as a treat is a nice idea. My problem is the $4k price tag on one plus the plastics and other work once printed. I like it being popular because more and more things are being made for the hobby, but I'd like the demand to come down, and the price for the basics to get started.

  13. Priorities by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Selfie sticks, the only thing that can rival drones in their speed of being banned.

    1. Re:Priorities by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      Just wait until selfie drones are all the rage! i'm guessing within 2 years.

    2. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like this?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_selfie#mediaviewer/File:PIA16239_High-Resolution_Self-Portrait_by_Curiosity_Rover_Arm_Camera.jpg

    3. Re:Priorities by JBallz · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selfie sticks, the only thing that can rival drones in their speed of being banned.

      Close, but no vuvuzela

  14. Selfies are just a logical extension.... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... of asking somebody else to take a picture of you at some location.

    Some would argue that they have the added benefit of not requiring you to actually be in any way sociable with those around you.

    1. Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some would argue that they have the added benefit of not requiring you to actually trust a stranger with your expensive camera

    2. Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your selfie stick is a lot less likely to run away with your phone than that oh-so-honest person you asked to take a picture of you in Italy.

    3. Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your selfie stick is a lot less likely to run away with your phone than that oh-so-honest person you asked to take a picture of you in Italy.

      The odds of another tourist stealing your camera when you ask them to take a picture is pretty much 0%.
      The odds of a someone (especially a poor local) who asks YOU if you would them to take a picture of you
      stealing your camerais pretty much 100%. This is the same advice I give my kids. If you get lost, don't
      wait for someone to approach you, instead walk up to the first person you see and ask for help. Most people
      are normal law abiding citizens, if you play the odds and pick someone randomly then your chances of getting
      a criminal are very small. If instead you let them approach you then they are picking you which makes the
      odds of them being a criminal considerably higher.

    4. Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The odds of another tourist stealing your camera when you ask them to take a picture is pretty much 0%.
      The odds of a someone (especially a poor local) who asks YOU if you would them to take a picture of you
      stealing your camerais pretty much 100%.

      My country (Israel) is full of tourists, and when I see them taking turns photographing each other I offer to photograph the group. I've never stolen a camera, and others do as I do without stealling cameras. I suppose that your advice might be culture-dependent.

      This is the same advice I give my kids. If you get lost, don't
      wait for someone to approach you, instead walk up to the first person you see and ask for help. Most people
      are normal law abiding citizens, if you play the odds and pick someone randomly then your chances of getting
      a criminal are very small. If instead you let them approach you then they are picking you which makes the
      odds of them being a criminal considerably higher.

      That is good advice for kids, and I will in fact start giving it.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to play the odds of not striking up conversations with random shitheads such that the chances of me having to interact with a criminal are considerably zero. If that means i have to use a selfie stick instead of risking my property or worse to someone else, and you find that antisocial, then that would be what i classify as a 'you' problem.

  15. Lame joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Northern Iraq, long sticks are positively encouraged in museums.

    1. Re:Lame joke by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Lame joke.

      If you joke about Mo-ham-mad you'll be lame - if your lucky

  16. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

    I'm sure frequent submitter Bennett Haselton has a solution.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  17. Okay by c · · Score: 1

    But monopods are still allowed, right?

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:Okay by PPH · · Score: 1

      Actually, many museums restrict the use of tripods (and monopods).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  18. ISIS will use them anyway by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I don't think ISIS much cares if they damage a piece.

    1. Re:ISIS will use them anyway by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They are permanently in Opposite Land. If you say, "Don't do X", suddenly they are posting tons of videos of themselves doing X.

      Maybe we should tell them, "Don't wipe yourself out, you keep other wacky groups in check", and then they'd wipe themselves out. (And the other whacky groups would rise up, unfortunately.)

  19. The summary icon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or does the summary icon look like a golden statue of a guy trying really hard to grunt out a turd?

    captcha: immature. Fitting.

  20. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

    I like the idea of the 3D printer mainly because I have 2 small kids and a dog, so toys are broken or chewed quite often. Being able to print new parts and figures overnight as a treat is a nice idea. My problem is the $4k price tag on one plus the plastics and other work once printed. I like it being popular because more and more things are being made for the hobby, but I'd like the demand to come down, and the price for the basics to get started.

    Sure, but for a common item like this the cost is going to be 99% in the materials, and I imagine that those are going to be cheaper for some chinese manufacturer than your printer.

    It would be like trying to print a paperback book on your home printer. Sure, you can sort-of do it, but it will cost you a LOT more than the 50 cents per copy or whatever a publishing house can do it for, since they aren't using a general-purpose printer for the job but rather machinery optimized for the efficient production of books.

  21. Good riddaance by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was at the Museum of Natural History in DC a few weeks ago and got hit in the face more than once with those stupid things. I complained to the curator's office before I left, and I'm glad I'm apparently not alone in doing so.

    Nobody's going to run off with your camera. Just ask someone nearby to take a photo of you.

    1. Re:Good riddaance by nblender · · Score: 2

      so you're saying you were assaulted... I feel that gives you justification to disarm your assailant.

    2. Re:Good riddaance by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      As much as I'm sure this happens, I'm highly doubtful that you were literally hit in the face multiple times. And, FWIW, I'm in favor of the ban.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Good riddaance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on this. You got "hit in the face" more than once by a selfie stick? That is incredible. Unless you are blind, these things are not the gossamer threads of spider silk. So either you're texting, and walking right into them, or people are swinging them around with equal disregard to their surroundings. I have never even seen a selfie stick in person, but I can easily discount the latter as a possibility. Note: I didn't say it was impossible to someone to hit you with your stick, but you said "more than once". If you meet one person who is an a-hole, it's them. If everyone you meet is an a-hole, I have bad news: you're the a-hole. Watch where you are going.

    4. Re:Good riddaance by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      ...or people are swinging them around with equal disregard to their surroundings.

      This.

      People focus solely on the phone/camera image on the end of the stick and don't watch the surroundings. Maybe in an open area with nothing nearby people might have a little extra peripheral concentration to pay attention. But, in a dark partly crowded museum with people and exhibits everywhere, I find people barely pay enough attention when they use their cameras without a selfie stick. When that stick comes out, forget about it.

  22. What is this? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Stupid Monday?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  23. Rightly so... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Informative
    The purpose of a museum is to showcase the exhibits of the museum, not the visitors of the museum.

    .

    1. Re:Rightly so... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Sadly self centered morons, don't get this.

    2. Re:Rightly so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I lived in D.C. I though the Smithsonian should advertise "Come see the world's largest exhibit of the American tourist in its native habitat! New specimens daily."

  24. Selfie stick stimulus to keep out aliens by tepples · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    THIS is why the aliens won;t come visit us ;)

    If selfie sticks keep out aliens, then perhaps the US Republican Party ought to offer a tax credit for buying a selfie stick as a "stimulus" in order to solve the immigration problem.

  25. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by Chrutil · · Score: 1

    They are easy enough to make yourself, but if you want a selfie stick at all, you really want one with Bluetooth so that you can take a picture without using a timer.

  26. Are they really "starting" to ban them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't speak for all these places but I know my local museum has a policy against monopods and tripods. This seems to be a logical extension of the policy that some people may need to have clarified.

    1. Re:Are they really "starting" to ban them? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Years ago, I attempted to use a tripod at the Lincoln Memorial. Having just taken photos on the lawn outside, I had the small pointy metal extensions out, and had forgotten about them. The Park Service told me to get lost, and in retrospect, I don't blame them since the metal spikes could scrape the stone floors.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  27. Re:not a selfie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The phone is attached to the stick, and you're holding the stick, so it's still a selfie.

  28. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just like XKCD, The Big Bang Theory comes to the rescue:

    Howard: Do you realize, by owning a 3-D printer, we are reclaiming the manufacturing process and taking jobs back from sweatshops in China?

    Raj: I think this thing was made in China.

    Howard: Eh, what can you do?

    Raj: Ooh, I, I think it's done. Oh, it worked. We printed a whistle.

    Howard: Amazing. You realize these things go for 25 cents a pop at a party store.

    Raj: And we made it in only three hours. Sounds just like store-bought.

    The full video version.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  29. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Once they make it A) Affordable, B) the printed materials "sturdier", there will be a reason for the hype.

    I see so many folks around me acting like these are the next coming of christ even though they admit they have no real need for one...

  30. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    :)

    And how much did the printer and the materials to print the whistle cost?

  31. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    That was the point of the video. The machine cost $5,000 and the plastic to make the whistle was in addition to that figure.

    The same applies with the two figures (three when you include Raj) for Howard and Bernadette.

    Those are awfully expensive items to print at home.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  32. I remember when taking a selfie by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    ... required asking a stranger to hold and click your camera while you posed.

    Of course, you always got a crappy photo that way, because everyone always thought you primarily wanted a photo of yourself, instead of a photo of something interesting that just happens to have you in the picture...

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    1. Re:I remember when taking a selfie by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      You should clarify: Could you please photograph this Foobar in a way that I can be seen in the photo? Thanks.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  33. I just attach the camera to my dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just attach the camera to my dick. But I need a looooong lens.

    1. Re:I just attach the camera to my dick by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I just attach the camera to my dick. But I need a looooong lens.

      Instead of just compensating, you might get the macro zoom out to find it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:I just attach the camera to my dick by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I thought you only need a long lens when taking photos OF your dick?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  34. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Hope the hype dies soon...

    The hype of 3D printing or the hype of selfie sticks?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  35. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Well the idea is that you print things that are not available in a store or on Amazon.

    At some point I am going to want some custom milled plastic frame parts to hold together my telescope assembly. Right now I have it temporarily held together via velcro and cable ties. Once I figure out how I want things arranged I would love to have something more permanent.

    But there is no way I am going to buy my own 3D printer to print off some plastic junk. Fortunately there are online 3D printing companies that will do one-offs from a 3d model you upload. Sure, its expensive when you look at per-part costs, but custom plastic and metal milling from large companies usually comes with big minimum order quantities.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  36. You are all fucking tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet if the popular term for these devices was "Autophotographical Portrait Tool" or something internerds would be all over it. Since it's a cutesy term invented by a non-nerd you want to shit all over it.

    1. Re:You are all fucking tools by binarstu · · Score: 1

      You are all fucking tools

      I think you are confused about the meaning of the term "selfie stick". In this case, we are talking about a tool used for photography. Most people who own selfie sticks do not have sex with them. I can see how the name "selfie stick" would lead you in that direction, but if you're wanting a discussion about people fucking tools you'll need to look elsewhere.

  37. selfie sticks by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    For assault purposes, is there much or any difference between a selfie stick and a copper pipe? Any bets on how soon they're banned from being carried onto airplanes?

    1. Re:selfie sticks by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      A copper pipe wouldn't be much good for assault. Not enough weight to it. You'd probably be better off with a laptop battery, which they have no problem with you carrying onto a plane.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  38. Think Engvall by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Since the world is full of idiots, you can only attempt to idiot proof the world with rules like "no selfie sticks". Just like they had to ban countless hiking trails because the self proclaimed 'nature lovers' would leave mounds of shit and graffiti all over the place.

    Normally I'm pretty libertarian and say leave people alone. There are limits however, these being two of them.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Think Engvall by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      You don't even need them to speak, you see someone taking a selfie, you just hand them a "STUPID" sign and say "Here's your sign"

  39. Hey, my house, too by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, a formal ban is pending at Versailles palace and Centre Pompidou in France, and visitors are now being told to stow their sticks by guards at the Louvre.

    Yeah, if someone brings one of those stupid things to my house I'll help them "stow their sticks" where the sun don't shine.

  40. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Hence the smileys in that and my original post.

    Once costs are under control (which I'm sure won't happen for a good long time), this will be able to replace a lot of Manufacturing jobs.

    Reminded of the stupid MP/RIAA ads "You wouldn't download a car, would you?"
    Once the tech and the cost savings are there, hell yes I would. Middlemen just drive up the cost.

  41. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Both.

    3D printing will eventually be great, but it's got a long ways to go before it's more than a toy for bored hobbyists

  42. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    If you can make a 3D representation of an object, you can have it made in meatspace using any one of a number of construction technologies - printing, CNC, molding, etc. They key is to have a decent software model that can drive the construction device.

    I see this as a sort of game changer for hobbyists / prototypers. Personally, I don't want to babysit a fussy 3D printer which will be out of date in a year. Nor do I want to try and run a sintering printer, complex CNC machine or the like. I would like to upload a file and have the object mailed to me in a couple of days. I see this as analogous to printing photographs. It used to be that you had to buy your own printer, calibrate it, feed it and keep your kids from printing out Disney cartoons using the most expensive liquid on the planet. Now you just upload the data to Snapfish or whomever.

    Yes, you can get slightly better results by yourself, if you are willing to take the time and spend the money - but for most people, the quality is quite good enough. And I say that as someone who has an expensive Canon 8 ink printer with expensive Hahnemuhle paper. Once I use up my supply of both of those consumables, I'm out of the printing business.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  43. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    I doubt it will ever replace large-scale manufacture. If you printed 300 whistles vs injection molding them or however they make them today, I suspect the printer will still have a higher marginal cost.

    I do think it is unfair to lump in the entire cost of the printer. That is a bit like charging a kid $20k for a ride to school because you had to buy a car to make the trip. I'd look at how many whistle-like items you can make using a printer before it wears out and figure out the per-whistle cost that way, plus the cost of consumables and waste.

  44. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Not the entire, no, but when you see home hobbyists going nuts to get the parts to build these things you question the sanity of anyone or any of the hype in all this :)

  45. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Well, selfie sticks will never be great. It will only ever be a toy for bored teenagers.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  46. Sorry if this is a dupe by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

    There were already too many comments to read through. Thought y'all might be amused by this though; nicely sums up selfie-sticks.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  47. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What you're talking about is a solved problem. The bean counters call it amortisation.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  48. Just ban photography, period. by AlvySinger · · Score: 1

    Too much recording everything; too little experiencing it. This isn't old person moaning about youth and throwing sticks at the moon, but really... Look at stuff, enjoy it. Really want an image? Buy a postcard. It'll be better than your photo anyway. Want a few? Buy a book. There's a rather gorgeous Sassoferrato in the National Gallery in London. I've been in with friends just to find the one picture. Could have a terrible image of it on my phone... Yes, that'd be easier but sometimes less (often) is more (of an experience).

  49. Elitist hipster bullshit by ribbitman · · Score: 1

    I fail to see the difference between asking a stranger to take a picture of you in front of something and taking it yourself. Somehow taking it yourself has drawn the ire of hipsters and columnists, in an adolescent "ohmygawd selfies are soooooo annoying" whinge. They justify it with dishonest, self-serving rants about a self-obsessed culture that would somehow be better if people would only ask strangers to take pictures for them. The selfie-stick backlash is what's important...a perfect example of a self-entitled internet culture whose members think anyone cares what they have to say.

  50. Museums are missing a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Offer to take pictures of visitors, in front of green background, at the museum entrance. This step is (a) free, and (b) entirely optional. If you choose to do it, you can take your time to pose, arrange yourself in a group with your friends - however you like it.
    2. On exit, offer the visitors a "souvenir pack" containing their photo 'shopped onto various (high-quality) backgrounds showing the most famous pieces in the museum. Sell this for $20 or so. (Include a download code to get the pictures in digital form, and maybe some other bonus content.) At the end of the day, just destroy any pix remaining unsold.

    My local zoo does this, it's a huge earner for them.

  51. Re:Plans to 3D print a selfie stick? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I've seen some very impressive stuff done with 3D printing. The printers that did it were considerably more expensive than anything on the hobby market.

    The 3D printers hobbyists have are basically toys for bored hobbyists.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes