Slashdot Mirror


Disney Bans Selfie Sticks

New submitter albimaturityr writes with a story from the Orlando Sentinel that Disney is banning selfie sticks from its parks, starting with Disney World (as of Tuesday) but continuing with its other parks in California, Paris, and Hong Kong. Says the report: The issue has been building at Disney. Previously, the sticks were prohibited from its rides, and "no selfie-sticks" signs were at select rides, such as Big Thunder Mountain Railroad at Magic Kingdom. Cast members have given verbal warnings to rule breakers. Several incidents preceded the change, but officials have been discussing the rules for some time, Disney said. This week at Disney California Adventure park, a roller coaster was halted after a passenger pulled out a selfie-stick. The ride was closed for an hour.

106 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What are us narcissists supposed to do now?

    1. Re:Aww hell. by Xenx · · Score: 3, Informative

      For safety.. because honestly, that's totally unsafe. The potential savings from preventing injury is worth more than the earnings from the photos.

    2. Re:Aww hell. by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Hold their phone at arm's length.

    3. Re: Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You guys bring your arms on the roller coaster with you? Is Disney land getting that dangerous??

    4. Re:Aww hell. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      >People tend to be quite attached to their arms.

      Well, at least until the accident...

      In reality though, most rides these days seem to go out of their way to make sure that there's nothing actually dangerous within reach of anyone in the cars. Even if you slip out of your seat and stand up, etc. Sure, you'd have to be a grade-A dumbass to do such a thing, but even grade-A dumbasses getting themselves dismembered on your ride tends to make or bad publicity.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Aww hell. by unixisc · · Score: 2

      In fact, that would be dangerous too in a roller coaster. You should keep you arms inside the carriage... But a ban on bringing your own arms around on the ride could be a little difficult to enforce. People tend to be quite attached to their arms.

      It wouldn't be dangerous per se: it would only make it more likely that the person drops the phone, and depending on the height, end up breaking or otherwise damaging it. Although on the rides, paying attention to the photos as opposed to the rides is more dangerous. If you have someone in your party who's not on the ride, have him/her take the photo from the ground - or preferably, a video, so that he doesn't have to struggle w/ the correct positioning wrt you.

    6. Re:Aww hell. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      They could go back to posting on-line about how they're not sheep because they have an Android phone.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re: Aww hell. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Disney is just testing the waters for a rollercoaster/shooting gallery. Your ride picture at the end has your accuracy stats.
      You really only need to be armed for the parking structures and the ball road/disneyland drive intersection.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    8. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Use their selfie sticks at their bedrooms as it was meant to be used.

    9. Re: Aww hell. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      You guys bring your arms on the roller coaster with you? Is Disney land getting that dangerous??

      Small arms only!
      It makes you look a bit like a T-Rex though.
      Also, forget about using them to eat a hamburger afterwards...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    10. Re: Aww hell. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Burned thru LOTS of 22 shot gallery loads at WDW when I was young - the gallery in Frontier Land used *real* guns and *real* ammo.

      Was rather disappointed to see they were replaced with cheap cheesy fakes that "shot" light ...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    11. Re:Aww hell. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Taze yourself, Guaranteed to get far more likes and clicks than any selfie you can take.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Aww hell. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, are they for narcissists? I thought they were courtesy items carried by selfie-takers to allow annoyed bystanders to beat them to death. I have personally beaten at least five selfie-takers to death with their own selfie sticks. If you go to the large fountain in Buda Castle, the one that people like to take selfies in front of, and look for the blood stains on the cobbles, that was me.

    13. Re:Aww hell. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Remember Selfie Sticks make perfectly good lightening conductors surely Disney should just let natural selection take its course

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    14. Re:Aww hell. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Get a life....

    15. Re:Aww hell. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Thank You.

  2. Hurray! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    The new rule doesn't apply to selfie drones!

    1. Re:Hurray! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want to be riding during testing; but the combination of tight quarters and fairly substantial air currents from passing coaster cars in an enclosed roller coaster would be a pretty neat challenge to watch a drone work through. Extra credit for drones capable of exploiting passing cars(riding their air currents in some controlled way, maintaining position immediately behind them if a relatively static trapped air region is available, 'roosting' on a beam and using regenerative braking on their rotors to recharge the batteries, etc.)

  3. What were they thinking? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I imagine that there are parts of a given ride where you can safely deploy a 'selfie stick'; but what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls, beams, etc. that the pole can catch on? Roller coasters are designed not to subject you to unsafe levels of acceleration or deceleration; but that does not include sticking to speeds that are safe it a modestly rigid pole abruptly couples your moving, and squishy, body to an immobile structural element.

    If you are lucky, you bought a cheap crap stick, and it will snap(and not send a sharp end into anyone's eye) before some part of your body does; but that's not really a gamble you want to take just for a lousy picture of yourself.

    The little racket of selling pictures of the riders, taken by fixed cameras installed at strategic points, probably helped contribute to this decision, doing well by doing good and all that; but what a stupid idea.

    Do people also take care to wear ponytails and/or ties when near rotating equipment? And dangle loose clothing over any exposed gears and belts they find? Or do we have people who've never met a machine more dangerous than an iPad or a minivan and just don't think?

    1. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but what kind of idiot

      You're in a world where everyone is constantly being told to do whatever the fuck they want, and everyone else is told to deal with it. People smoke while leaning on no-smoking signs, people drive through streets clearly labeled as private streets, people scream in libraries, yap on their phones in theaters, and take flash pictures in zoos scaring the animals away and there is fuck all reasonable people can do about it.

      So now you have a rule in an amusement park that some idiots don't think apply to them (as usual), and its actually really important. You think they'll get it, after being able to ignore every other fucking rule they were ever subject to?

      No, they won't. They'll treat the "No selfie stick sign" the same way they will every other damn sign they ignored.

    2. Re:What were they thinking? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Then they'll get thrown out of the park and admission is not at all cheap.

    3. Re:What were they thinking? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The difference is that merely being a dickhead is relatively low risk, so it's annoying but not surprising that people do it when it suits them. Waving a selfie stick around is an excellent way to lose a phone, at minimum, and potentially do yourself some actual damage.

      I'm not expecting civility here; but even relatively dumb animals learn to avoid aversive stimuli; and the slightly smarter ones sometimes even anticipate and avoid them.

    4. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The difference is that merely being a dickhead is relatively low risk

      People don't try to understand why rules are there. "Don't park there" could be because the snow truck has low visibility and risks ripping your car off. "Don't jaywalk" has a pretty fucking good reason behind it. Ignoring non-smoking signs isn't just being a dick head. My condo complex has a no BBQ rule, because its a group of historical buildings that are basically dry firewood close to each other. I don't think anyone aside me does NOT have a BBQ. Someday everyone will roast alive.

      Thats my point: people cannot make the difference between just being a dick head and putting themselves and others genuinely at risk. Rules are meant to be ignored, no matter how important they are, to these people.

    5. Re:What were they thinking? by quetwo · · Score: 1

      Just this comes to mind : https://youtu.be/oeT5otk2R1g

    6. Re:What were they thinking? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine that there are parts of a given ride where you can safely deploy a 'selfie stick'; but what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls, beams, etc. that the pole can catch on?

      The kind of shallow, vain, social media obsessed person who carries around a damned selfie stick in the first place?

      This isn't people thinking "gee, this could be stupid and dangerous", it's people thinking "I'm so putting this on Instagram".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:What were they thinking? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Don't jaywalk" has a pretty fucking good reason behind it.

      It does? The UK doesn't have a "don't jaywalk" rule, and there don't seem to be any adverse effects.

    8. Re:What were they thinking? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's good reason to be skeptical of rules. Too often, rules are not honest. The usual tactic is to not give any explanation. When that won't fly, safety is the #1 excuse for a rule. But so often, it turns out that someone profits from a rule, and that is the real reason for it. Even when there are genuine safety concerns, there is often also a profit motive. That seems highly likely with this particular Disney rule. Why couldn't people use electronic devices or carry nail clippers on planes? Why did so many cities try red light cameras? Why can't people bring their own food and drink to the movie theaters? Why can't we play movies on our computers' DVD drives?

      Yeah. Don't blindly trust The Rules.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    9. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course. But instead we're in a world of "blindly distrust the rules". And that is just as stupid. (also, in a lot of the cases you mentioned, its a private entity dictating what to do on their own property, which they're fully allowed to)

    10. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 2

      How about -- rules are just guidelines, unless they are enforced

      Congratulation, you just created a police state, where we have to put enforcement on every fucking thing because we can't expect people to be civil.

    11. Re:What were they thinking? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... but what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls,...

      There are many, many people ion this planet who are so self-absorbed, so oblivious to the world around them, that they regularly put others at risk.

      .
      At least those who walk into streetlight poles while texting hurt only themselves.

    12. Re:What were they thinking? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the risk of whacking the rider in front of you in the head when the apparent gravity shifts, a poorly secured phone getting loose and hitting someone behind you (with great force if the phone rebounds off of a fixed object first), or simply losing your grip on the stick.

    13. Re:What were they thinking? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a problem. With so many unjustified rules around, they become background noise. Then a rule that has a very good justification gets ignored.

    14. Re:What were they thinking? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Half the world is intent on making rules for everything, just because "there ought to be a law" against anything remotely risky or unpleasant. And the other half lashes out by ignoring those rules an doing what the hell they want.

      1) If you treat people like children, they will start behaving like them.
      2) If you make tons of unreasonable rules, people will start breaking them in protest, and start breaking the reasonable ones as well, especially if it's hard to tell the two apart ("You can't bring your gun on the plane because of terrists, but you also can't bring your bottle of water for the same reason"). Unjust, unreasonable or petty laws endanger all of the law.

      Now, having a rule against using selfie sticks in a roller coaster is reasonable, but people choose to ignore that law, or tell others to, because of a whole range of other laws that are silly. And because of the way those laws are enforced (instead of treating them as a means to an end, they are treated as a goal in themselves).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    15. Re:What were they thinking? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are two factors at work. 1) People are seriously fucking stupid, largely because of shit parenting. MY parents (well, parent, really) taught me to stay the fuck out of the street, keep my arms inside the roller coaster and so on. 2) People hate their lives. Who cares if they die? Life sucks, then you die, right? Especially teenagers. When I was 15 I didn't expect to live to 30. Who cared? The world was going to hell in a handbasket.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:What were they thinking? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      How about -- rules are just guidelines, unless they are enforced

      Congratulation, you just created a police state, where we have to put enforcement on every fucking thing because we can't expect people to be civil.

      Welcome to the UK!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    17. Re:What were they thinking? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Half the world is intent on making rules for everything, just because "there ought to be a law" against anything remotely risky or unpleasant. And the other half lashes out by ignoring those rules an doing what the hell they want.

      Everything not forbidden is compulsory!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    18. Re: What were they thinking? by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      There really oughta be a rule banning all these unjustified rules.

    19. Re:What were they thinking? by ancientt · · Score: 1

      You nailed it.

      We're subjected constantly to rules and laws that make no sense and most of them aren't enforced; Even the cops often don't know what the laws are and they're supposed to enforce them. It makes me think of the cop who was writing tickets to everyone with a GPS. It was a stupid law but he decided to enforce it and caught hell for it, but isn't that what we want? Don't we want cops to enforce the actual laws regardless of their own opinions? But instead, we've all come to accept an environment where it's practically impossible to follow all the laws all the time, not to mention all the rules. We're literally being trained to ignore the rules.

      And of course, people act like the solution is to make more rules.

      Observe all warning signs.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    20. Re:What were they thinking? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      He runs Linux.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:What were they thinking? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      "Do people also take care to wear ponytails and/or ties when near rotating equipment? And dangle loose clothing over any exposed gears and belts they find? Or do we have people who've never met a machine more dangerous than an iPad or a minivan and just don't think?"

      There's a "hall of fame" of sorts at my old highschool of kids not paying attention to exactly this. One was nearly scalped by a drill press due to his ponytail, my second day in that class some kid reached into the lathe and it sucked him in by his long baggy sleeve. Thankfully they keep the belts loose so that no arms can be ripped off, he was still pretty banged up though.

      Everyones first reaction is always to blame the school or the class teacher. I can easily tell you every accident could have easily been avoided if my classmates payed attention to the first three weeks of class detailing safety, including pictures of previous students.

    22. Re:What were they thinking? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Most of them a good 51% of the human population are idiots.

      This is from personal observation and working a few years when I was young at an amusement park. the bulk of people are really morons.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    23. Re:What were they thinking? by radish · · Score: 1

      Huh? The speed limits on UK streets are broadly the same or higher compared to those in the US. Having driven for many years on both I really don't see much difference other than US streets are typically wider and the highways are considerably slower. I drive 30-40 on typical (sub)urban streets in both places.

      There's no enforcement of jaywalking laws in plenty of the US too (e.g. NYC). It's not about safety (to my mind) but about indicating whether the car or the person has priority in that city. The UK and NYC both have large pedestrian populations which other parts of the US do not - those tend to be where jaywalking is frowned upon.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    24. Re:What were they thinking? by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      >what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls, beams, etc. that the pole can catch on?

      Narcissists, that's who. And unfortunately, they are becoming more common. People these days are incredibly entitled, and it's not the younger generations, it's everyone.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    25. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason was to promote car use (and make walking less attractive). Before "jaywalking" was invented the streets were for fucking pedestrians.

    26. Re:What were they thinking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Selfie sticks on an amusement park ride are just crazy dangerous. If you must claim that Disney's consideration is money, include in that money the number of hundred-million dollar lawsuits for death, blindness, dismemberment, punctured organs, etc.. Disney would be negligent if selfie sticks were allowed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:What were they thinking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      FUD. I use Linux to play DVDs. It's different from using a dedicated DVD player, because Linux never bluescreens, unlike my dedicated players.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re: What were they thinking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Private streets are frequently maintained by the owning entity. Unlike public streets, your taxes aren't paying to support them. You should be pleased that they aren't a burden on your life.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:What were they thinking? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      What brand of DVD player do you have that crashes at all, let alone blue screens?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:What were they thinking? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      What brand of DVD player do you have that crashes at all, let alone blue screens?

      I'm guessing this might be a "Whoosh" moment, and the GP was referring to (CRT) TVs, VCRs, and (some?) DVD players that will show a solid blue screen when there's no signal. This obviously varies by brand.

    31. Re:What were they thinking? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      That sounds like an issue with the laws surrounding driving cars, not an issue with crossing the road.

      Aside - while I have no stats to back it up, my bet would be that it's far less dangerous to jay walk in the UK than it is to cross at one of America's crossings attached to a huge light controlled crossroads (mostly due to right turn on red, but partly due to just the sheer number of things drivers must concentrate on). Speaking as a European living in the US, America's road designs are utterly and thoroughly fucked.

    32. Re:What were they thinking? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Let's be honest that selfie stick rule has absolutely nothing to do with what happened on the ride, that is the excuse. The real problem with selfie sticks is a little more subtle. New digital cameras, unlike old film cameras, can take shot, after shot, after shot with bad ones deleted not costing quite a bit of money each and every time the button is pushed. So old film camera, near enough, good enough. New camera, hmm, didn't like that one, lets try again and again and again, how about trying this or this or etc.. Now if you ask someone else to take the photo, gain limits on how many tries and near enough is good enough.

      Basically people taking shot after shot are causing traffic flow problems are around the park. People are blocked from seeing popular places or cough taking their own photograph there. Flows to concessions stands are slowed because people are in the way. It is not one shot with a selfie stick it is hundreds be each selfie stick aficionado.

      Realistically the park wants selfie sticks, free advertising as the photos travel around (millions of dollars worth), problem is, they are causing real traffic flow problems as people are not stopping for a say around a minute for a single shot, they are being awkward repeating that shot again and again and again until they get it right and they are not doing just at a couple of locations but all over the place. Also I am sure the park could or already has photo taking concessions. You know pay a buck and get a quick photo emailed to your phone (sneaky huh, money for the concession and email and contact details and photographs on record, taking that into account the can really, really squeeze down the price of the shot).

      You can do some smart stuff with the photo taking. Fixed point photo spots, linked to a pre-registered phone. Walk around the park offer of a 10 cent auto shot from a fixed well sited camera, based upon phone proximity (again other revenue opportunities). Toss in a 10 second video for a buck.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    33. Re:What were they thinking? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Looking a raw statistics one might argue that lack of a "don't jaywalk" rule has lead to increased safety of pedestrians in the UK compared to the USA.

      In reality it has probably more to do with stricter driving tests, structurally safer roads; I am primarily referring to far fewer intersections and far more roundabouts, and on average smaller cars than the USA. However I imagine road safety as taught to children probably plays a part as well.

    34. Re:What were they thinking? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Hi, this is a rule established by a business. They can do pretty which whatever the heck they want. You violate their rules and they can throw your ass out of there. Have a nice day.

    35. Re:What were they thinking? by tofarr · · Score: 1

      A classic example is with air travel: None of your own drinks past this point. People who pay more get to board first. Wedge yourself into that spot and no moving around the cabin. When a rule that is really important comes along, people are so jaded that they no longer trust the people whom have paid to look after their safety, and there have been deaths as a result. (An example being cases where people deliberately inflate their life jackets before a plane crash lands in water, and then are stuck at the top of the cabin when it fills with water and cannot get to the exits.)

    36. Re:What were they thinking? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Someone's hunch finally paid off. According to this BBC article from last year, the number of pedestrians in the U.K. is half that of the U.S.

      However, the reason to not jaywalk is simply because the vast majority of people take the longest possible route to cross the street (i.e. diagonal) rather than straight across which exposes you to more traffic and thus a greater chance of being hit.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    37. Re:What were they thinking? by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      While I'm against selfie sticks, what's the difference between using them versus blocking traffic & interrupting the flow while taking normal pictures?

    38. Re:What were they thinking? by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      there is fuck all reasonable people can do about it.

      I disagree. The way that you deal with one of those types of people, who I deem "assholes", is a simple idea that is hard for many people to do: Be an asshole in turn.

      Assholes are not going to listen to reasonable people, to polite requests. Certainly try these first, but do not expect them to work and be ready to up the ante. See someone throw a cigarette butt on the ground? Ask them to pick it up. They refuse? Pick it up and stick it on them.

      Nice people don't want to be assholes, of course. This is a good thing. But the only way to deal with people like this, from the guy who cuts in line to the fanatic priest that wants to legalize stoning adulterers, is to puff up your chest, boost up your voice, and lean right back into them. Asshole and evil people get away with a lot today (and in history) because reasonable people don't want to be assholes themselves. But reasonable people need to be willing and ready to be a calculated asshole, causing grief only to those who already cause grief, or those assholes will continue to shit all over us.

      Maybe groups of friends should have a designated asshole. Like a designated driver, the designated asshole is the one who steps to the front when someone in the group is faced with regular assholes. Someone who can turn it on and off as needed.

  4. Dangerous by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Selfie sticks are, at best, narcissistic nonsense, but the person who whipped one out on a rollercoaster was risking injury to himself and his fellow riders. How much of a grip can you have on a stick with a weight on the end while hurtling through twists and turns? And if you lose your grip, the best case scenario is that your phone falls and shatters below. Worst case scenario is it hits into someone and injures them. All because he "needed" to get a photo of himself.

    Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Dangerous by adamstew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having worked at one of these parks, I can speculate as to what happened:

      A worker monitoring the cameras on the ride saw the rider with the selfie stick and did as they were instructed, to hit the emergency shut off. This stops the ride, and halts all the cars/trains at their next safety stop point. Once that happens, the only way to get the ride going again is to reset it and do your opening procedures over again. The computer for the ride won't allow the ride to operate unless those checks have been performed and passed. Sometimes it might even require one of the engineers from the park to give their sign-off as well.

      But to even begin, you have to evacuate everyone that is currently on the ride. So you have to go out on the track to where they are, release them from the ride, and escort them back to the exit. If there is anyone with mobility issues in any of the cars, that could become a very complicated task. IMO, an hour is very quick to do all of that.

    2. Re:Dangerous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If there are 4 of you, then there is no reason that one of you can't take a photo of the other 3, and for the all of you photo, call a bystander. This is if y'all are outdoors, maybe touring some place. If you are indoors, it's not all that difficult to set up the timer mode on the camera, and in 10 seconds, get the shot of all of you.

      The only people for whom they're really useful is a single person, or a single person and his/her kid, w/ the kid too young to take a pic. But even then, using the timer mode, or holding it at arms length makes it easy, particularly since you can see how you look before clicking!

    3. Re: Dangerous by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Or ask. I got to confuse some German bikers in France once. Got out of a car with a GB plate at the top of the Col d'Iseran and asked in German for them to take a photo of me by the sign. Saw them on and off for the next 100 km or so - always got a wave.

    4. Re:Dangerous by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      While the long recovery process is going on, they should set up a long roped-off corridor running all the way through the park, for the person with the selfie stuck to walk out through. Every other person in the park, particularly those who were inconvenienced and didn't get to ride the coaster that day, could see and/or possibly say a few things to the moron with the selfie stick.

    5. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or just have someone follow them with a bell.

      SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! *DING!*

    6. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      If there are 4 of you, then there is no reason that one of you can't take a photo of the other 3, and for the all of you photo, call a bystander. This is if y'all are outdoors, maybe touring some place. If you are indoors, it's not all that difficult to set up the timer mode on the camera, and in 10 seconds, get the shot of all of you.

      The only people for whom they're really useful is a single person, or a single person and his/her kid, w/ the kid too young to take a pic. But even then, using the timer mode, or holding it at arms length makes it easy, particularly since you can see how you look before clicking!

      2 plus a baby, can we please use a selfie stick without being labelled narcissistic?
       

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Dangerous by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Spanking line!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Dangerous by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No. That was easy.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Dangerous by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Yeah because you're always taking photos in secluded spots with no one around.....

    10. Re:Dangerous by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could be followed by a dour woman in a full wimple, ringing a large hand bell, chanting 'Shame. Shame. Shame.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Yeah because you're always taking photos in secluded spots with no one around.....

      Yes most of the time actually

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:Dangerous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Your mom, your wife, your baby and you. Makes it 4, of which one of you can't take photos.

    13. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Your mom, your wife, your baby and you. Makes it 4, of which one of you can't take photos.

      You aren't getting it. My mom is in another country, she hasn't met the baby and wants photos of us all as a group. Its nice for her. Understand now?

      Not everyone who uses a selfie stick is using it to just get a narcissistic photo of *themselves*.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    14. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Never heard of timers?

      and carry a tripod?

      oh so a tripod is less narcissistic than a monopod?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  5. Goofy web site by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I was unable to watch the video as an ad started playing first. Then, a second advertisement video overlayed that video and started playing, too, covering the entire screen.

    I'm going to assume the reason is nasty teens are trying to shove the sticks up the Mickey Mouse costume guy's rear end?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Now if only the US government could do it. by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I appreciate the right of people to look like idiots walking around talking to their camera. Documenting their journey for no one who cares to see.

    Why they think that they are what is worth filming is beyond me. Or that talking while filming is a good choice.

    My wife and I love to sail, and watch sailing videos on you-tube. The good ones take pictures of things AROUND them, things I actually want to see. They also either do voiceovers post-production, or use a separate microphone to eliminate wind noise.

    The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.

    In our motorcycle group, I've witnessed people just vomit their pictures up to the web, with no care taken to edit or even select only the few that are worth posting. No pride in what they have taken, just a regurgitation of what's in their camera.

    Selfie sticks are just more of the same. I'll admit they have some valid uses.

    Too bad most people appear to be ignorant of what those uses are.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.

      You mean like most vacation photos ever taken?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    2. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Which is kind of the point isn't it? I'm not usually taking pictures for the enjoyment of the public, I'm taking them so that I can someday enjoy the memory more clearly.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    3. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, when we go on vacations, it is useful to have photos of ourselves along w/ those surroundings. Otherwise, any video of that place that's publicly available would have been adequate, and people wouldn't bother taking cameras w/ them. Having ourselves in those pics is a part of what creates the memories. Also, while those pictures are mostly of value to them, they are really shared w/ friends and family. What makes it look like it's being shared w/ the 'public' is that too many people are all too happy to add a gazillion people as their friends on FaceBook

      But I do agree w/ you about the selfie sticks.

    4. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Don't project your distaste for shots of yourself onto others. They may not have the same hangups or fixations.

  7. Re:Who would take vibrators to a Disney park? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You can't see someone masturbating in the "it's a small world" ride?

    You haven't been on the internet too long, have you?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. banning it from the whole park? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    It is reasonable to ban them from roller coaster rides. But the whole park? What gives?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:banning it from the whole park? by adamstew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed. Any Disney Park employee will take your photo for you with your own camera, if you just ask them. Even the people they litter around the parks who are paid solely to take your photo so they can sell it to you later for $15 each.

    2. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Sure you haven't gotten your Disney parks mixed up? Widely available churros are at Disneyland, while widely available electric scooters carrying large people are at Disney World :-)

    3. Re:banning it from the whole park? by I_Lost_My_Puppy · · Score: 1


      One possible reason is enforceability - You have one or two people operating the ride, hundreds of customers, and then one jackass with a selfie stick. How many ways can the employee divide his attention?

      Another concern is the number of different places the selfie sticks could cause trouble. They find a new place, they make a new rule. They find another new place, they make another new rule. Or they could just have one park, one rule.

    4. Re:banning it from the whole park? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The attachment of a stick does not stop me from taking the phone and beating you with the stick. Hell, the stick attachment makes it more likely that I am going to steal your phone if, you know, I decide to start stealing phones. I am going to take your phone and you precious stick and beat you with it (again, assuming I decide to start stealing phones but I just can not imagine why I would do so) and you will not have even had the chance to ask me to take the picture for you in the first place. I'd be like, 'give me that stick you stupid son of a bitch' and stuff. I would, too... If I were, you know, going to steal phones. The stick would just be an added bonus.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:banning it from the whole park? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am sure that if you ask anybody, they will happily do it for you, not only the emplyees.

      And this will work anywhere in the world. If you ask; the chances of getting a bad person who runs away with your camera are minimal if you pick them.

      Also: stop taking pictures and look around. Most of the pictures you take are a: never looked at by anybody and/or b: of a subject that you can doanload. No need to take a picture of the Disney Castle as many already have and you can download one that is better than what you will take.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:banning it from the whole park? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm having a hard time seeing how "narcissism" hurts anyone.
      Should we ban mirrors too?

  9. Re:$$$ DIsney will have low priced photos to sell by adamstew · · Score: 2

    They already do. https://mydisneyphotopass.disn... Yes, the price is actually $15 per photo, or $200 for unlimited photos.

    However, those same people will also take your photos with your own camera as well if you ask them. As will any other employee at the park you interact with.

  10. Photos still stuck in... by unixisc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Problem is that these photographers are still stuck in the 20th century, and will give you a printout. They may sell you a CD if you pay more. That's my biggest turn-off: I don't keep photo albums any more, and don't want a folder cover for a slaughtered tree photo. I have my tablets, laptops, phones, and can even get an electronic photoframe if I wish where I can store any number of photos w/o taking up more space.

    I don't mind paying for the ride photo services if they take electronic photos and then deliver it to us in a way of our choosing - either email, WhatsApp, iMessage or any other medium of our choosing, not theirs.

    1. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the pictures they take are available on the web. They absolutely do not require physical pictures. Been that way for years

    2. Re:Photos still stuck in... by hankwang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Problem is that these photographers are still stuck in the 20th century, and will give you a printout.

      They changed the photo business in the biggest attraction park in the Netherlands, quite recently. They used to charge EUR 10 or so for a single printout. Now they sell you a 4 GB USB stick for EUR 20 which you can load with up to 15 (?) photos and which you can re-use on a next visit until some expiration date. And afterwards, you can use it as any other USB stick. I thought it was pretty reasonable. It was the first time ever I paid for photos in an attraction park.

    3. Re:Photos still stuck in... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      slaughtered tree photo

      Many photographic "papers" today are actually solid polyester.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Photos still stuck in... by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Yea dude, super old news but the on-ride photos at Disneyland can now be emailed to you. You just type in your email on a touchscreen at the end of the ride.

    5. Re:Photos still stuck in... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You can fit several thousand photos in a 4GB stick. It would be useful for taking not just stills, but videos of the customers as well, while they're on the rides.

    6. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Did you pay cash to get into Disney? And buy everything inside the park with cash? If you used any kind of card to pay they already have your personal data, so there is no reason not to use the touchscreen.

    7. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Its a big park and facial recognition tech has come a very long way. Also, in California, FastPass as well as various police agencies have been (possibly illegally) logging license plate numbers and processing them with licence plate recognition tech for some time now. Chances are even if you DID pay for everything in cash they still know who you are within a few minutes of entering their property, unless you drove your own car and parked it in their lot, in which case they know as soon as you approach the gate.

  11. Re:Slashdot: News For Soccer Moms... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    When 'stuff that matters' gets a higher comment count than stuff that doesn't, it'll turn up more often. Think before you bitch.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  12. Re:dafuq? by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Fully agree! I had gone for years missing taking pics of myself. But recently, when I had my kid over for vacation and was taking him around, I asked someone to take our pics. Aside from that, in the mall, I managed to take a reasonably good picture of both of us just holding the phone at arms length.

  13. Not strictly for profit by Varenthos · · Score: 2

    Some people are saying that they're only doing this to boost sales of their overpriced ride photos, but that's not the case. I was there last summer and brought a GoPro with me. I had it [securely] strapped on for every non-dark ride that we went on in plain view of the ride operators and not a single one of them said a word to me about it. That got me on-ride video of practically every ride that we went on, and they didn't care in the least. Most theme parks won't let you take a GoPro on the rides no matter how securely it's attached to you, period - including Universal Orlando, which is just a few miles away from Disney. Granted, we also bought their photo package last year, which cost $149 at the time and got us digital copies of every photo that was taken on rides and by the park photographers for the entire time we were there. Compared to the astronomical prices you'd pay for an individual photo, that works out to be a really good deal. Obviously, the ride operators had no way of telling that I had purchased that package, so that wouldn't have been why they let the GoPro slide. Personally, I'm glad they're banning selfie sticks. They tried to accommodate them by only prohibiting them on the rides at first, but people chose to be idiots, so now they're not allowed at all. It's definitely a safety issue. I've never used a selfie stick, so I don't know how securely the mechanism is that holds onto the phone, but when you're talking forces exerted on a roller coaster, would that prevent the phone from flying off? I don't know for sure, but there's a good chance it won't. Now you've got a projectile flying at non-trivial speeds. They tried, and people proved that stupidity will prevail, so now they're not allowed at all. Good riddance.

  14. Re:I'm boycotting Disney after IT fiasco by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    People were okay with them having a Gay Pride Day years ago and celebrating homosexuality in an environment largely dominated by children, and they're only now worth fucking because they dared fire American workers

    Might be because these things are only comparable if you've got the intellectual capacity of a moth.

  15. Re:I'm boycotting Disney after IT fiasco by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "a Gay Pride Day years ago and celebrating homosexuality in an environment largely dominated by children"

    Even worse, they have 364 days per year celebrating heterosexuality in an environment largely dominated by children!

    Just because your politics are normative does not mean you don't have any politics.

  16. Re:$$$ DIsney will have low priced photos to sell by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "like i want to risk someone dropping my $700 phone"

    The subject is people waiving their $700 phones around at the end of a stick. The risk of dropping has already been discounted.

  17. Re:dafuq? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Why have cameras been around for decades but only now these "selfie sticks" are being used?

    Extremely large numbers of quality, low-weight cameras is a new phenomenon. A one pound SLR on a 6 foot pole would require a strong wrist and a sturdy pole.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  18. Obligatory xkcd gallery by rpstrong · · Score: 1
  19. Can't wait for the backlash by anyGould · · Score: 1

    When they tell someone with a walking stick they can't have it anymore either.

    Guessing Disney forgot that you can buy walking sticks with camera mounts (no endorsement intended on the link - just the first returned result for "walking stick with camera mount")

  20. Re:dafuq? by turp182 · · Score: 1

    A one pound SLR on a 6 foot pole would require a strong wrist and a sturdy pole.

    That's what she said...

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com