Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone
I know a 2" screen on the back of a camera is much better.
That's one of the reasons to have the laptop along. As I said, it's marginal, but especially for location work, the best compromise.
nor would I ever re-hire someone who did
I also apply stupid criteria to my hiring decisions! Like I don't hire photographers who don't own a backpack with compartments. Because let's face it, their method is far more important than the work they would produce.
There are some yet to be broken laws of physics that smartphones have not surmounted yet. Like depth of field precise control, and the inherent characteristics of the shutters which on rotating things like tires or propellers is a dead giveaway. All of those scream "I shot this on a smartphone! I suppose if for some reason the work was supposed to look amateurish, then you want a smartphone photographer.
Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.
Really? Personally my own most expensive commissioned work cost me $4.30 (two metro fares) and 20min. But yay let's generalise.
Speaking of generalizing. Yeah, I didn't travel cheap or light. Professional video camera, main and backup DSLRs Lenses, Lighting. Tripods. My assistant, her luggage, my luggage. In most cases, from the east to the west coast - I paid heavy charges, and on the commuter plane part of the itinerary, seating arrangements had to be arranged to keep the plane trimmed. I was horrified one time when an extremely obese man was on the flight, and they moved him to a seat that he didn't quite fit in to accommodate my equipment weight. Since I knew why they were making him move, I tried to discretely suggest it might be more comfortable to move my equipment than him, but they were already loaded. Then there were paid models if I needed them.....
In reality, I think we are talking about two entirely different workflows and types of photo shoots. $4.30 versus thousands in flights, payroll, and that's before a photo was taken. We're arguing past each other. 8^)
Sex is the oldest currency known to man. I don't think the #metoo movement is going to change that.
The loss of due process and re-evaluation of the risk/reward aspect of interaction between the sexes is causing men to avoid them. There is already in Japan, the "Herbivore men" who exchew relationships with females https://www.telegraph.co.uk/me...
Now I've been married for a long time, but as a hetero male with a healthy sex drive, my risk/reward analysis leads me to state in no uncertain terms that if I was young today, I would concentrate on my career and hobbies only, and make certain I was never in a position that could be compromised. As some say - that juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Other guys? Hey, if the prospect of being called out on social media and convicted by the public with no defense or due process is worth a bit of modern woman sex - by all means, go for it. I'll be the guy sitting on the lawn chair, drinking shots of tequila and eating popcorn while watching their destruction.
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
It's not, which is how you end up with 19 year old "sex offenders" with distraught 16 year old girlfriends.
Yeah, and that's a shame. But boys that age think with their dicks, not their brains. Time to educate them that there is a world out there that wants to destroy them, and boinking their girlfriend when she's underage will give society all it needs.
No, it's not. I take your article and raise you "Northanger Abbey", a book published in 1817 which more or less has the plot (heavily summarised) "teenagers are a bit silly".
How on earth would you think that is what refutes my referenced statement. If anything, it moves the dates backward. But regardless, if the living conditions were what they were back then, but we waited until what we consider appropriate, we'd go extinct in short order. People were in general dying off at the age that many consider proper for having children today.
Now how on earth could that be a thing if teenagers didn't even exist then?
You are woefully confused here. Your attempted refutation based on a word, simply does not negate the concept of extended childhood. Where once humans married shortly after puberty, and through the concept of teenagers - or if you find the word so offensive - extended childhood might salve your sensitive ears, there is no question at all that extended childhood exists.
There are even scientifically measurable brain changes that happen during adolescence.
All through life there are measurable changes in the brain. That in no way means that humans should wait until menopause to have children.
That is because there are years of peak fertility, and it is very difficult to bear children outside their physical boundaries.
Welcome to the real world. The real world is messy and fully of grey areas requiring a mixture of poorly applied rules and actual judgement. For example in this case it's often very clear when things are far over one side of the line. 5 years old? Definitely not ok. 50 years old? Definitely OK. Logarithmically interpolate (~16) and you run right into the middle of a grey area.
It's stark but ultimately it's like everything else. There's always a continum between "definitely fine" and "fuck no" and no matter where you draw the line problems abound.
I do not have an issue with obeying simple age limits described and implemented by the social mores that exist where I am at. Seems pretty simple to me.
It is very difficult to assign a certain age as the lower limit, but you have to.
14? Some young ladies have not even gone through puberty yet. There is a genetic relationship as well as a weight relationship. 16? Well, some young ladies have been fertile and sexually interested for 4 years already. 18? I suppose that might work, but the sex drive in both male and female is raging pretty hard by that time. So a country discusses and sets a lower limit, and you comply with it.
Disclaimer - I've always been attracted to women of a more mature outlook, which to me starts in most women in their mid 20's. Even when I was a teenager, I hung around the local college campus. High school girls were silly and pretty lame mentally.
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
Meh. Sometimes the posted speed limit is stupid. Sometimes following the rules about recreational drugs like weed is stupid. You want to bang some 14 year old, go ahead, but don't come bitching if you end up in jail.
Did you make this same argument when they wanted to break up AT&T? Did it work out that way?
I suppose to be fair the government does listen to your phone calls via the NSA, but only secretly and illegally and they do it to all social media as well already.
Do you actually think I believe what I wrote? Wasn't even trying to Poe anyone, That's why I posted waitwhat. The problem with these folk who demand to control media is they think it is all awesome and great when they are in control. Because they think their cause is just. They never seem to get that the evil party (whichever the one they are not in) might get into power and control it in whatever way the evil party finds justified.
You're from GB, IIRC. Are you implying that M16 never listens in?
I consider it just some of the feelgood lies told to women. For some reason, the dictates of modern feminism demand starting a career right out of college, then working for a decade, then finding mister right, and having children.
My wife and I had decided we were going to have one child, and she looked at the science, and decided she wasn't going to have a child any time after 25. So we had a child young, and after he was in preschool, she embarked on her career. With a vengeance. Ended up the number two position in her company - and paid more than the owner.
Now many of these professional ladies end up finding out the hard way that if they decide that they are going to start the man-hunt when they are 35, their plan tends to fall apart. Men that age tend toward not wanting to get married, either by being divorced at a younger age, and either being considered unfit by virtue of not having enough financial resources, or the 35 year old men that they consider acceptable - looks, height, financial level - just are not interested in marrying a woman who is demanding that they start fertility work immediately.
So these poor successful women start freaking out and try to extend theit fertility by freezing eggs in the hope of meeting mister right at 40 or even later.
Which has even less of a chance of success. Fertility with unfrozen eggs isn't all that great, and not many men want to become fathers in their 40's.
Dear Leaders continual rants against "Fake News" shows that he and his toadies, the Republican Party already have designs upon the first amendment and the destruction of the fourth estate. The third estate dissolution is nearly finished.
"My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100."
What an extreme statement.
Whoooshies.
So just to prove how much of a bootlicker you are you would be willfully celibate for life? And watch everyone die while the brave go to jail for love?
You see, dear Coward, my point was not that we should have such laws, but that laws are laws. If the law says I do not fuck 14 year olds, or 16 year olds, or anyone under 18, then I won't. I have no intrinsic need or wish to fuck 14 year old women. Regardless of what Republican Senate candidates from Alabama think.
I'll add that it is absolutely disgusting that anyone who considers them self a liberal would result into such hideous victim-blaming of a child. Basically, no one should victim-blame a child.
You need to do some web research on Asia Argento. Anthony Bourdain's ex girlfriend, and one of the founders of the #metoo movement.
She carried on an affair with an underage male - indeed getting nude images of him starting when he was 12. First she denied it, then the pictures of her enjoying a nice post priandal nsp with the boy surfaced. Then she claimed the child forced himself on her. Then after paying the child a settlement, she claimed that Bourdain forced her ot pay the settlement. Then she decided to peep for her very own, the last payment of the settlement provided by her now dead boyfriend Bourdain.
Apparently in the #metoo world, everyone is guity, including little boys, and generous boyfriends who pay off your debts even when you are a disgusting pedophile utter trampslut.
And a lot of women support her. They too are more than happy to victim blame, as long as it is the dreaded male of the species. No lower age limit.
> Someone of the age of 16 is not fully developed.
Devils advocate:/sarcasm As opposed to someone who is 18 years old?
Who determines what this "magic age" is?
Young people will become mature at the age they are allowed to become mature. My grandparents were married at 13. My wife and I married shortly after she turned 18. Today, marriage is pressing the limits of female fertility.
The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46... It did make sense, but introduced a lot of complexities. Whereas once the evolution and survival of the species provided puberty and adulthood in the early teens, we sensibly stretched it some to allow for better education.
Now however, there are people who are agitating for adulthood to occur in the early 30s. 35 years old is considered a "young adult". I even saw a Ted talk by a woman claiming that women were biologically designed to start having children after 35 years old. Ironically, many women are freezing theieggs and have to go through fertility treatments at this age, and age when our ancestors were dying off.
My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100.
We need The Government to get involved in all forms of media!
I would suggest that all posts on Facebook and Twitter be funneled through a trustworthy group of House of representatives members, and they who know what is good and right can stop anything that they know is not good from ever being posted, and on repeat offenses, exercise a second amendment solution on the guilty party.
But Americans - this is not enough. Our dear leader tells us every day about the terrible lies the media tells about him.
We must extend the telling of only the truth to all forms of media, and merciless crushing of those who would bear false witness, and God will reward America once again.
Even better, shut down all media liars immediately, and set up a Government run Ministry of Truth..
Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.
What other quick auto preview monitor that can apply the predefined functions of your fancy macbook would your recommend for said professional for sub $1000 (or more accurately sub $600 since a halfway decent phone costs money too)? Do you lug around yet another piece of special purpose kit when instead you can achieve the job you require on something that multi-tasks?
Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone - nor would I ever re-hire someone who did. Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.
I lug around whatever equipment I have to to do a proper job. Yes, I take a laptop - which is marginal for the purpose. Editing is performed on a desktop with a good calibrated monitor.
That is true - you didn't Some people have tried to argue that with me here on Slashdot, sI i kinda wanted to head that one off.
Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR.
Of course! In many situations they are way better than a DSLR. Why just the other day the smartphone I had with me at the stadium was infinitely better than my 50mpxl camera that was at home. The smartphone I had in my pocket skiing likewise since it was kind enough not to break my rib and puncture my lung like my DSLR would have when I landed on my chest.
I use my smartphone camera for uses like that, which interestingly enough, the last time was also at a football game. But if I'm getting paid for the pictures......
But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process.
I could almost get behind this comment but to be honest a smartphone isn't suitable. It tries too hard to be a quality camera to permit "creative processes". The result is often just an average looking picture. Quite unlike say loading a 35mm spool into the Diana. If you're going to go creative, go creative, don't just go sub par.
You lack imagination if you're using it as a phone. And with your lack of imagination you are better off not spending money on something fast. In other news I don't run 100 VMs on my computer so no one cares about Threadripper or Core i9s right? Right?
Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.
Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR. I can and have used a smartphone camera instead of my Nikon DSLR. But then again, I have used Diana cameras - I'm planning a project of mating a imaging chip on the back of one.
But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process. But you have to know the rules before you creatively break them.
I'll be due for a new smartphone soon. Could be one of the XS's. But it sure won't be because of the benchmarking
I note you didn't bother to refute the Big 5. That's because it's science. You're closed-minded and disagreeable, and this makes you reject any idea you didn't come up with yourself. Human intelligence does indeed distribute on a bell curve, just like many other heritable traits. Now, your next argument is to *giggle* insist that intelligence isn't heritable.
Why on earth would I insist on intelligence not being inheritable. That my dear punchinello,,is an uncontested fact. My family is largely brilliant.
Okay - let us cut through your fog. I'll ask a few questions.
Do you agree with the material presented in Charles Murray's Publication, "The Bell Curve"?
If yes, what exactly do you wish to do with that bell curve? GIve us a detailed plan of action required to address the Bell curve to make use of it and what it represents.
I say there is nothing that any bell curve presents that is of any use because it addresses nothing on an individual basis.
Nothing quite says "you don't really own your device" more than forced advertising. And their answer is pretty weak/non-specific. And I wonder if they advertise/disclose this to potential purchasers.
Crazy people exist on both sides. Dems don't generally nominate them for federal office though.
Exactly. I wonder what Old Joe McCarthy would think of his party shifting into alignment with a country led by a leader of the KGB. And one thing is for certain, one does not leave that field, and while the Republicans might be smitten with him, and support Russia over our own country, denigrating the FBI and our intelligence services while supporting the FIS, Mister P is still doing his part to aid in our destruction. Don't doubt that for a second.
Nobody mentioned race, buddy. That's all on you. Racists are always thinking about race. You just made a bunch of assumptions, constructed multiple strawmen, and then told me that's my position.
Wowee.. It's pretty obvious that you can't have a conversation without thinking that mean old uncle Olsoc isn't accusing you of something.
Siddown. Shuttup for a second.
Your insinuation that I was accusing you of being racist is interesting. I'm not certain exactly where I wrote that. Kindly point it out my paranoid friend And yes, I do judge, and you fit the paranoia spectrum to a T.
The reason I brought up the Bell curve in manner related to the use of the bell curve by racists is that it is simply one more completely useless use of the Bell curve. The same as using a bell curve to judge the intelligence of a person born to poor people
A bell curve of any use whatsoever us 100 percent useless. Pointless. A huge nothingburger. You cannot tell the intelligence of any individual. be they poor white people, or shemale midget scat porn actors by virtue of the fact that they are any grouping of people.
And note, dear DNS and Bind, I'm not accusing you of being a shemale midget scat porn actor either.
Point is, the Bell curve is useless, and the only judgement I might make is upon the intelligence of anyone who thinks it somehow means something.
There's almost no such thing as "actual" Republicans anymore, just cowards blowing in the winds of nationalist strongmen's blathered self-praise. If they had any pride or self respect, they'd have resigned long before now.
Yep, same with Scotsmen. It's not by chance that the Republican party has become what it is.
I've never been a registered Republican, but as an independent, I used to be a pretty reliable Republican voter. If I was to be categorized, I was a Barry Goldwater conservative.
Then around 2000, the party started a weird shift. Some people who were not conservative started running the show - the Neocons, who were actually Marxists. Then in the 2007 election, when the party went largely insane with the election of the Majick Negro from Kenya. Then when O'Blama was elected for a second term, it became even worse, where anything the leeburls believed, you could not. So science was suddenly bad. The scary part is that eventually Democrats became an actual enemy to dehumanize - always the start to warfare. The really scary part is that once the "Anything my enemy believes is wrong" opened up the party to believe with great enthusiasm things that they would have considered completely wrong at one time.
So now, the Republican party believes in running the presses to print money, that taxes in the form of tarriffs are the best thing going, that our allies of over 70 years are now our enemies, and that our enemies are our friends. And don't get me started on those motherfucking Canadians - they're eating our lunch! When should we nuc Canada?
Good old fashioned conservative principles, amirite?
Slashdot Mirror
Bitch you said 100 and now you say 14...learn math.
As soon as you learn to follow conversations, homie.
Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone
I know a 2" screen on the back of a camera is much better.
That's one of the reasons to have the laptop along. As I said, it's marginal, but especially for location work, the best compromise.
nor would I ever re-hire someone who did
I also apply stupid criteria to my hiring decisions! Like I don't hire photographers who don't own a backpack with compartments. Because let's face it, their method is far more important than the work they would produce.
There are some yet to be broken laws of physics that smartphones have not surmounted yet. Like depth of field precise control, and the inherent characteristics of the shutters which on rotating things like tires or propellers is a dead giveaway. All of those scream "I shot this on a smartphone! I suppose if for some reason the work was supposed to look amateurish, then you want a smartphone photographer.
Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.
Really? Personally my own most expensive commissioned work cost me $4.30 (two metro fares) and 20min. But yay let's generalise.
Speaking of generalizing. Yeah, I didn't travel cheap or light. Professional video camera, main and backup DSLRs Lenses, Lighting. Tripods. My assistant, her luggage, my luggage. In most cases, from the east to the west coast - I paid heavy charges, and on the commuter plane part of the itinerary, seating arrangements had to be arranged to keep the plane trimmed. I was horrified one time when an extremely obese man was on the flight, and they moved him to a seat that he didn't quite fit in to accommodate my equipment weight. Since I knew why they were making him move, I tried to discretely suggest it might be more comfortable to move my equipment than him, but they were already loaded. Then there were paid models if I needed them.....
In reality, I think we are talking about two entirely different workflows and types of photo shoots. $4.30 versus thousands in flights, payroll, and that's before a photo was taken. We're arguing past each other. 8^)
Sex is the oldest currency known to man. I don't think the #metoo movement is going to change that.
The loss of due process and re-evaluation of the risk/reward aspect of interaction between the sexes is causing men to avoid them. There is already in Japan, the "Herbivore men" who exchew relationships with females https://www.telegraph.co.uk/me...
Now I've been married for a long time, but as a hetero male with a healthy sex drive, my risk/reward analysis leads me to state in no uncertain terms that if I was young today, I would concentrate on my career and hobbies only, and make certain I was never in a position that could be compromised. As some say - that juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Other guys? Hey, if the prospect of being called out on social media and convicted by the public with no defense or due process is worth a bit of modern woman sex - by all means, go for it. I'll be the guy sitting on the lawn chair, drinking shots of tequila and eating popcorn while watching their destruction.
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
It's not, which is how you end up with 19 year old "sex offenders" with distraught 16 year old girlfriends.
Yeah, and that's a shame. But boys that age think with their dicks, not their brains. Time to educate them that there is a world out there that wants to destroy them, and boinking their girlfriend when she's underage will give society all it needs.
The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46...
No, it's not. I take your article and raise you "Northanger Abbey", a book published in 1817 which more or less has the plot (heavily summarised) "teenagers are a bit silly".
How on earth would you think that is what refutes my referenced statement. If anything, it moves the dates backward. But regardless, if the living conditions were what they were back then, but we waited until what we consider appropriate, we'd go extinct in short order. People were in general dying off at the age that many consider proper for having children today.
Now how on earth could that be a thing if teenagers didn't even exist then?
You are woefully confused here. Your attempted refutation based on a word, simply does not negate the concept of extended childhood. Where once humans married shortly after puberty, and through the concept of teenagers - or if you find the word so offensive - extended childhood might salve your sensitive ears, there is no question at all that extended childhood exists.
There are even scientifically measurable brain changes that happen during adolescence.
All through life there are measurable changes in the brain. That in no way means that humans should wait until menopause to have children.
That is because there are years of peak fertility, and it is very difficult to bear children outside their physical boundaries.
Welcome to the real world. The real world is messy and fully of grey areas requiring a mixture of poorly applied rules and actual judgement. For example in this case it's often very clear when things are far over one side of the line. 5 years old? Definitely not ok. 50 years old? Definitely OK. Logarithmically interpolate (~16) and you run right into the middle of a grey area.
It's stark but ultimately it's like everything else. There's always a continum between "definitely fine" and "fuck no" and no matter where you draw the line problems abound.
I do not have an issue with obeying simple age limits described and implemented by the social mores that exist where I am at. Seems pretty simple to me.
It is very difficult to assign a certain age as the lower limit, but you have to.
14? Some young ladies have not even gone through puberty yet. There is a genetic relationship as well as a weight relationship. 16? Well, some young ladies have been fertile and sexually interested for 4 years already. 18? I suppose that might work, but the sex drive in both male and female is raging pretty hard by that time. So a country discusses and sets a lower limit, and you comply with it.
Disclaimer - I've always been attracted to women of a more mature outlook, which to me starts in most women in their mid 20's. Even when I was a teenager, I hung around the local college campus. High school girls were silly and pretty lame mentally.
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
Meh. Sometimes the posted speed limit is stupid. Sometimes following the rules about recreational drugs like weed is stupid. You want to bang some 14 year old, go ahead, but don't come bitching if you end up in jail.
Did you make this same argument when they wanted to break up AT&T? Did it work out that way?
I suppose to be fair the government does listen to your phone calls via the NSA, but only secretly and illegally and they do it to all social media as well already.
Do you actually think I believe what I wrote? Wasn't even trying to Poe anyone, That's why I posted waitwhat. The problem with these folk who demand to control media is they think it is all awesome and great when they are in control. Because they think their cause is just. They never seem to get that the evil party (whichever the one they are not in) might get into power and control it in whatever way the evil party finds justified.
You're from GB, IIRC. Are you implying that M16 never listens in?
"I even saw a Ted talk by a woman claiming that women were biologically designed to start having children after 35 years old"
That's crazy talk.
At the age of 31, 50% of women are subfertile!
Between the ages of 30 and 40, live birth rates from a conception almost halves!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I consider it just some of the feelgood lies told to women. For some reason, the dictates of modern feminism demand starting a career right out of college, then working for a decade, then finding mister right, and having children.
My wife and I had decided we were going to have one child, and she looked at the science, and decided she wasn't going to have a child any time after 25. So we had a child young, and after he was in preschool, she embarked on her career. With a vengeance. Ended up the number two position in her company - and paid more than the owner.
Now many of these professional ladies end up finding out the hard way that if they decide that they are going to start the man-hunt when they are 35, their plan tends to fall apart. Men that age tend toward not wanting to get married, either by being divorced at a younger age, and either being considered unfit by virtue of not having enough financial resources, or the 35 year old men that they consider acceptable - looks, height, financial level - just are not interested in marrying a woman who is demanding that they start fertility work immediately.
So these poor successful women start freaking out and try to extend theit fertility by freezing eggs in the hope of meeting mister right at 40 or even later.
Which has even less of a chance of success. Fertility with unfrozen eggs isn't all that great, and not many men want to become fathers in their 40's.
Please don't give them ideas.
Dear Leaders continual rants against "Fake News" shows that he and his toadies, the Republican Party already have designs upon the first amendment and the destruction of the fourth estate. The third estate dissolution is nearly finished.
The current US administration already has that. Hence everyone is "fake news" except "fox news entertainment".
You forgot Infowars and Breitbart.
"My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100."
What an extreme statement.
Whoooshies.
So just to prove how much of a bootlicker you are you would be willfully celibate for life? And watch everyone die while the brave go to jail for love?
You see, dear Coward, my point was not that we should have such laws, but that laws are laws. If the law says I do not fuck 14 year olds, or 16 year olds, or anyone under 18, then I won't. I have no intrinsic need or wish to fuck 14 year old women. Regardless of what Republican Senate candidates from Alabama think.
I'll add that it is absolutely disgusting that anyone who considers them self a liberal would result into such hideous victim-blaming of a child. Basically, no one should victim-blame a child.
You need to do some web research on Asia Argento. Anthony Bourdain's ex girlfriend, and one of the founders of the #metoo movement.
She carried on an affair with an underage male - indeed getting nude images of him starting when he was 12. First she denied it, then the pictures of her enjoying a nice post priandal nsp with the boy surfaced. Then she claimed the child forced himself on her. Then after paying the child a settlement, she claimed that Bourdain forced her ot pay the settlement. Then she decided to peep for her very own, the last payment of the settlement provided by her now dead boyfriend Bourdain.
Apparently in the #metoo world, everyone is guity, including little boys, and generous boyfriends who pay off your debts even when you are a disgusting pedophile utter trampslut.
And a lot of women support her. They too are more than happy to victim blame, as long as it is the dreaded male of the species. No lower age limit.
Should a 17 year be banned from federal positions for life due to an an alleged wrestling match with a female peer?
Only if male. If female, it was her choice.
I don't see the historic acceptability of marrying off young women as being exculpatory.
A lot of men are not seeing the acceptability of marrying a woman at any age now.
> Someone of the age of 16 is not fully developed.
Devils advocate: /sarcasm As opposed to someone who is 18 years old?
Who determines what this "magic age" is?
Young people will become mature at the age they are allowed to become mature. My grandparents were married at 13. My wife and I married shortly after she turned 18. Today, marriage is pressing the limits of female fertility.
The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46... It did make sense, but introduced a lot of complexities. Whereas once the evolution and survival of the species provided puberty and adulthood in the early teens, we sensibly stretched it some to allow for better education.
Now however, there are people who are agitating for adulthood to occur in the early 30s. 35 years old is considered a "young adult". I even saw a Ted talk by a woman claiming that women were biologically designed to start having children after 35 years old. Ironically, many women are freezing theieggs and have to go through fertility treatments at this age, and age when our ancestors were dying off.
My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100.
Its. "Spouting". Stupid beta male retard motherfucker.
Hey - he's an amoeba, you insensitive clod!
I would suggest that all posts on Facebook and Twitter be funneled through a trustworthy group of House of representatives members, and they who know what is good and right can stop anything that they know is not good from ever being posted, and on repeat offenses, exercise a second amendment solution on the guilty party.
But Americans - this is not enough. Our dear leader tells us every day about the terrible lies the media tells about him.
We must extend the telling of only the truth to all forms of media, and merciless crushing of those who would bear false witness, and God will reward America once again.
Even better, shut down all media liars immediately, and set up a Government run Ministry of Truth..
Oh......what.... hold on...
Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.
What other quick auto preview monitor that can apply the predefined functions of your fancy macbook would your recommend for said professional for sub $1000 (or more accurately sub $600 since a halfway decent phone costs money too)? Do you lug around yet another piece of special purpose kit when instead you can achieve the job you require on something that multi-tasks?
Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone - nor would I ever re-hire someone who did. Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.
I lug around whatever equipment I have to to do a proper job. Yes, I take a laptop - which is marginal for the purpose. Editing is performed on a desktop with a good calibrated monitor.
That is true - you didn't Some people have tried to argue that with me here on Slashdot, sI i kinda wanted to head that one off.
Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR.
Of course! In many situations they are way better than a DSLR. Why just the other day the smartphone I had with me at the stadium was infinitely better than my 50mpxl camera that was at home. The smartphone I had in my pocket skiing likewise since it was kind enough not to break my rib and puncture my lung like my DSLR would have when I landed on my chest.
I use my smartphone camera for uses like that, which interestingly enough, the last time was also at a football game. But if I'm getting paid for the pictures......
But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process.
I could almost get behind this comment but to be honest a smartphone isn't suitable. It tries too hard to be a quality camera to permit "creative processes". The result is often just an average looking picture. Quite unlike say loading a 35mm spool into the Diana. If you're going to go creative, go creative, don't just go sub par.
You lack imagination if you're using it as a phone. And with your lack of imagination you are better off not spending money on something fast. In other news I don't run 100 VMs on my computer so no one cares about Threadripper or Core i9s right? Right?
Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.
Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR. I can and have used a smartphone camera instead of my Nikon DSLR. But then again, I have used Diana cameras - I'm planning a project of mating a imaging chip on the back of one.
But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process. But you have to know the rules before you creatively break them.
I'll be due for a new smartphone soon. Could be one of the XS's. But it sure won't be because of the benchmarking
I note you didn't bother to refute the Big 5. That's because it's science. You're closed-minded and disagreeable, and this makes you reject any idea you didn't come up with yourself. Human intelligence does indeed distribute on a bell curve, just like many other heritable traits. Now, your next argument is to *giggle* insist that intelligence isn't heritable.
Why on earth would I insist on intelligence not being inheritable. That my dear punchinello, ,is an uncontested fact. My family is largely brilliant.
Okay - let us cut through your fog. I'll ask a few questions.
Do you agree with the material presented in Charles Murray's Publication, "The Bell Curve"?
If yes, what exactly do you wish to do with that bell curve? GIve us a detailed plan of action required to address the Bell curve to make use of it and what it represents.
I say there is nothing that any bell curve presents that is of any use because it addresses nothing on an individual basis.
You seem to disagree with that, so educate me.
Nothing quite says "you don't really own your device" more than forced advertising. And their answer is pretty weak/non-specific. And I wonder if they advertise/disclose this to potential purchasers.
But they have headphone jacks, so all is well.
Crazy people exist on both sides. Dems don't generally nominate them for federal office though.
Exactly. I wonder what Old Joe McCarthy would think of his party shifting into alignment with a country led by a leader of the KGB. And one thing is for certain, one does not leave that field, and while the Republicans might be smitten with him, and support Russia over our own country, denigrating the FBI and our intelligence services while supporting the FIS, Mister P is still doing his part to aid in our destruction. Don't doubt that for a second.
I'll fully support Google sharing my purchasing history if they give me all of the credit card numbers of all their employees from the top down.
Nobody mentioned race, buddy. That's all on you. Racists are always thinking about race. You just made a bunch of assumptions, constructed multiple strawmen, and then told me that's my position.
Wowee.. It's pretty obvious that you can't have a conversation without thinking that mean old uncle Olsoc isn't accusing you of something.
Siddown. Shuttup for a second.
Your insinuation that I was accusing you of being racist is interesting. I'm not certain exactly where I wrote that. Kindly point it out my paranoid friend And yes, I do judge, and you fit the paranoia spectrum to a T.
The reason I brought up the Bell curve in manner related to the use of the bell curve by racists is that it is simply one more completely useless use of the Bell curve. The same as using a bell curve to judge the intelligence of a person born to poor people
A bell curve of any use whatsoever us 100 percent useless. Pointless. A huge nothingburger. You cannot tell the intelligence of any individual. be they poor white people, or shemale midget scat porn actors by virtue of the fact that they are any grouping of people.
And note, dear DNS and Bind, I'm not accusing you of being a shemale midget scat porn actor either.
Point is, the Bell curve is useless, and the only judgement I might make is upon the intelligence of anyone who thinks it somehow means something.
There's almost no such thing as "actual" Republicans anymore, just cowards blowing in the winds of nationalist strongmen's blathered self-praise. If they had any pride or self respect, they'd have resigned long before now.
Yep, same with Scotsmen. It's not by chance that the Republican party has become what it is.
I've never been a registered Republican, but as an independent, I used to be a pretty reliable Republican voter. If I was to be categorized, I was a Barry Goldwater conservative.
Then around 2000, the party started a weird shift. Some people who were not conservative started running the show - the Neocons, who were actually Marxists. Then in the 2007 election, when the party went largely insane with the election of the Majick Negro from Kenya. Then when O'Blama was elected for a second term, it became even worse, where anything the leeburls believed, you could not. So science was suddenly bad. The scary part is that eventually Democrats became an actual enemy to dehumanize - always the start to warfare. The really scary part is that once the "Anything my enemy believes is wrong" opened up the party to believe with great enthusiasm things that they would have considered completely wrong at one time.
So now, the Republican party believes in running the presses to print money, that taxes in the form of tarriffs are the best thing going, that our allies of over 70 years are now our enemies, and that our enemies are our friends. And don't get me started on those motherfucking Canadians - they're eating our lunch! When should we nuc Canada?
Good old fashioned conservative principles, amirite?
You keep calling it a phone. It should come to no surprise to anyone that you wouldn't know what to do with a modern device.
The best Smartphone is a lot more a phone than a computer. Are you going to code or edit images, or create videos professionally on your smartphone?
Yeah, you can make phone calls, you can send texts, you can play simple games on it. You can do a little crappy web surfing on it.
Oh - and you can tether a real computer onto it so you can actually do something.