Yours is hardly a unique situation. PNY's "Department of Arbitrary Denials" has pretty much made ex-PNY customers out of every single person who has ever had any interaction with them.
In hindsight, they're based out of New Jersey, so their behavior is hardly surprising.
Basically what he said was "I am smarter than all of you, so I will do things my way, and trust me, you'll be better off."
Well he was the guy who built it from the ground up and the only one who could administer it.
Not exactly sure who else you want making decisions in that situation. The fact they haven't been able to physically find a device that discovered on August 28th - that's 2 full weeks ago... well, that speaks volumes. At the very least, they should of have been able to narrow it down to a single building or something. If they don't have that level of competency, it's hard to argue that they are capable of even understanding a network like the SF WAN, let alone administering it or dictating how it was laid out.
That all said, he should of have had his lawyer talk for him a lot more.
2. The Red Alert download link uses HTTP transfers rather than Bittorrent for 2x500MB files. And it was just posted on Slashdot.
Yeah, fucking morons. Clearly they should use a transfer method that is blocked or QoS'd to shit almost everywhere. Also one that requires you to upload a lot, which screws up voip, etc, on the line.
If they can handle the load (they could and speeds were decent) and if they are willing to pay for the bandwidth costs, more power to them. Why are you bitching again?
Their sales / "recovery" people are great. A persistant bunch of jerks who keep on calling and try to bully people into switching back with high pressure sales tactics and lies. I turned the tables and made several of them cry (and gotten yelled at by the managers who call me back)
The calls finally stopped after I asked one of the callers to give me a critique about "my new book", which was some sick, graphic sex.txt I found on google. I'm sure their strategy works to get some people to switch back, but for every person with a working brain in their head, it is a terrible move in terms of PR.
I don't think he agrees, he's just not surprised. Telus has a long history of pulling shit like this and getting away with it. Sure, some people sue, but not enough so they lose money breaching contracts.
It's like "that girl" who keeps on being beat on by her piece of shit boyfriend and keeps going back. One day, he's going to put her in the hospital or kill her. Nobody wants it to happen, everyone agrees that it sucks, but when she does get seriously hurt, it really won't come as a huge surprise.
Telus has a long history of changing / breaching contracts and having lawsuits filed against it.
Their CSRs will tell you that they can change bandwidth limits at any time and if you go over the new lower limit during your contract period, they will charge you overage. If you quit, they will bill you the ETF (which is abusive) and send you to collections if you don't pay.
They dropped the residential plan data transfer limit down to 20gb a month 2 years ago. Now it's back up to 60.
Oh, and the CRTC is a bunch of spineless, corrupt bitches who "OK" virtually every move a telecom company makes.
Which is why telecom sucks ass in Canada. Not that it's great in the states, but it is better.
The WHOLE POINT of the H1-B program was so that when the US had a SHORTAGE of skilled workers in an area of expertise the H1-B would be a CYA until our schools caught up with supply and demand. Instead it has been perverted into a way to turn jobs that require a college degree into McJobs that no American can afford thanks to our high cost of education.
Nikon has this, but it's kind of fail. http://www.adorama.com/INKWT4A.html Don't think cell data networks would work that well for large images - RAW on some cameras is 14-18 megs a shot.
OK, freedom vs. (perceived) security, photography, etc. are all good things to discuss. However, Thomas Hawk is a complete asshole. By his own admission:
For years San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art has maintained a "no photographs" policy for their permanent collection, according to Hawk's popular blog -- but he's been taking photographs there anyways.
It clearly states Cameras Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed.
Also, him cheerfully getting a guard fired in 2006 adds to his dossier. Someone should shove Hawk's cameras up his ass, and let him take all the pictures he wants of blood vessels being ruptured.
Would it be presumptuous for me to ask if you work as a rentacop? Mind if I ask if you have a metal badge or one of those gold colored cloth ones?
From my quick analysis beyond the article, it seems like there really isn't much to see here other than Thomas Hawk raising a stink about being kicked out of the museum. This has received fairly good coverage on sfist.com.
The museum had a policy of no photographs. This is hardly uncommon: not only do many people find it annoying to stumble over photographers and deal with flashes while they're trying to look at art, but repeated exposure to light flashes can damage art.
Fucking fail. You posted this drivel without even bothering to do even the most basic research. Then you pretended to know exactly what the guy was thinking, when in fact, the opposite is clearly true.
Cameras Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed.
hey, this still happens all the time in Romania. Trying to take a picture of a dam especially. Like there's no google earth and such... some parts of the romanian army are still in the 20th century (or 19 ??)
To be fair, there wasn't anything like google earth in the 70's, 80s and 90s. Army regulations and attitudes take a long time to change.
Sorry, but even ignoring the fact that your stats are an order of magnitude off that's pretty inaccurate. If you count the value of a camera purely in megapixels and zoom range, then sure a compact is every bit as useful as an SLR. But in actual function, those cameras have sensors a fraction of the size of SLRs, meaning lower sensitivity, less information per pixel, and more noise and distortion. Just try shooting at an ISO higher than 800 and see what happens. On top of that, the included lenses have tiny apertures, distortion and chromatic aberration that wouldn't compare to the cheapest SLR lens, and in many ultracompacts you have next to no control over aperture, shutter speed, or focus.
It sounds like he's talking about a Canon S5 IS - I have one of those, as well as an Canon XTI. The S5 isn't a supercompact, but it is much smaller than a DSLR. Yes, the sensor is smaller, and yes, the noise is a bit worse, but my XTI looks terrible at ISO 800 too, to say nothing of 1600 which is borderline unusable on both (I'm picky about noise)
The lens is quite decent - CA and distortion is much better than the Canon EF 75-300 4.5-5.6 I have. I know the 75-300 is a bit of a piece of shit, but you did say "cheapest SLR lens" IS is great at 12x optical.
Oh... on the S5 you do have control over aperture, shutter speed and ISO and it has a really decent manual focus, which lets you zoom in on the focus point and make sure you have the focus dead right. Some of the new live view cameras have that, but this feature was in the S3, which was released a few years ago.
The hacked firmware for it (CHDK) lets you do all sorts of nifty things - stuff that you won't find until you buy a Canon camera that starts with "1". Raw support too - sure only 6 bit, but still.
The S5 is about 300 bucks. My DSLR and lenses add up to about 3 grand. Don't get me wrong - DSLRs are superior and that's what I drag around, but the difference is growing smaller and smaller every year.
The problem with the UK is PCSOs. Poorly trained, poorly paid, unsworn (to protect the local council's ass in legal situations) and with very limited knowledge of the law. They are also generally not psychologically screened to weed out the... I'll just say it - the fuckups who really shouldn't be given any sort of power. Many of the cases of "the uk police don't want us taking pictures" have involved PCSOs, not the actual police.
Hard to tell, of course, since the uniforms are virtually identical.
Grow a spin. When Mr Security says "I'll take your camera" you say "just fucking try"
Of course, if it's a corrupt off duty cop (yea, I know... it's unlikely you'll find of one those in Chicago), you're liable to get your ass kicked, your camera broken, arrested, peppersprayed while cuffed for "resisting" and spend the night in the drunk tank on BS charges.
In a bunch of states, college "rentacops" are actually sworn police officers equivalent to a state patrol or other "the entire state is our jurisdiction" police department.
Slashdot Mirror
Yours is hardly a unique situation. PNY's "Department of Arbitrary Denials" has pretty much made ex-PNY customers out of every single person who has ever had any interaction with them.
In hindsight, they're based out of New Jersey, so their behavior is hardly surprising.
Basically what he said was "I am smarter than all of you, so I will do things my way, and trust me, you'll be better off."
Well he was the guy who built it from the ground up and the only one who could administer it.
Not exactly sure who else you want making decisions in that situation. The fact they haven't been able to physically find a device that discovered on August 28th - that's 2 full weeks ago... well, that speaks volumes. At the very least, they should of have been able to narrow it down to a single building or something.
If they don't have that level of competency, it's hard to argue that they are capable of even understanding a network like the SF WAN, let alone administering it or dictating how it was laid out.
That all said, he should of have had his lawyer talk for him a lot more.
2. The Red Alert download link uses HTTP transfers rather than Bittorrent for 2x500MB files. And it was just posted on Slashdot.
Yeah, fucking morons. Clearly they should use a transfer method that is blocked or QoS'd to shit almost everywhere. Also one that requires you to upload a lot, which screws up voip, etc, on the line.
If they can handle the load (they could and speeds were decent) and if they are willing to pay for the bandwidth costs, more power to them. Why are you bitching again?
Fail. You post a half dozen responses, all of which are useless.
Just stop trying.
And if they die and you lose data, Kodak will be more than happy to send you some brand new disks ;)
They also charge $25 a month for a (i.e. 1) static IP.
Their sales / "recovery" people are great. A persistant bunch of jerks who keep on calling and try to bully people into switching back with high pressure sales tactics and lies.
I turned the tables and made several of them cry (and gotten yelled at by the managers who call me back)
The calls finally stopped after I asked one of the callers to give me a critique about "my new book", which was some sick, graphic sex .txt I found on google.
I'm sure their strategy works to get some people to switch back, but for every person with a working brain in their head, it is a terrible move in terms of PR.
The CRTC exists in Canada, but they don't disagree with anything the telecoms do. Most people are certain that they have been bought off.
I don't think he agrees, he's just not surprised. Telus has a long history of pulling shit like this and getting away with it.
Sure, some people sue, but not enough so they lose money breaching contracts.
It's like "that girl" who keeps on being beat on by her piece of shit boyfriend and keeps going back. One day, he's going to put her in the hospital or kill her. Nobody wants it to happen, everyone agrees that it sucks, but when she does get seriously hurt, it really won't come as a huge surprise.
Americans pay state income and sales taxes too.
Some states are about as bad or worse than provinces in Canada.
Telus has a long history of changing / breaching contracts and having lawsuits filed against it.
Their CSRs will tell you that they can change bandwidth limits at any time and if you go over the new lower limit during your contract period, they will charge you overage. If you quit, they will bill you the ETF (which is abusive) and send you to collections if you don't pay.
They dropped the residential plan data transfer limit down to 20gb a month 2 years ago. Now it's back up to 60.
Oh, and the CRTC is a bunch of spineless, corrupt bitches who "OK" virtually every move a telecom company makes.
Which is why telecom sucks ass in Canada. Not that it's great in the states, but it is better.
Pretty sure that's how San Francisco's work. 20 minutes IIRC - Clock starts when door is unlocked, several warnings before you get soaked.
The WHOLE POINT of the H1-B program was so that when the US had a SHORTAGE of skilled workers in an area of expertise the H1-B would be a CYA until our schools caught up with supply and demand. Instead it has been perverted into a way to turn jobs that require a college degree into McJobs that no American can afford thanks to our high cost of education.
Bears repeating.
When I really need to use iso 800. Usually I shoot at 100/200 and spend a ton on fast lenses ;)
Nikon has this, but it's kind of fail.
http://www.adorama.com/INKWT4A.html
Don't think cell data networks would work that well for large images - RAW on some cameras is 14-18 megs a shot.
OK, freedom vs. (perceived) security, photography, etc. are all good things to discuss. However, Thomas Hawk is a complete asshole. By his own admission:
For years San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art has maintained a "no photographs" policy for their permanent collection, according to Hawk's popular blog -- but he's been taking photographs there anyways.
Fail.
Here... for a start, try taking a look at their official photography policy.
http://www.sfmoma.org/visit/visitinfo_hours.asp
It clearly states
Cameras
Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed.
Also... it's pretty clear he's aware of the rules changing.
http://thomashawk.com/2008/06/sf-moma-changes-photography-policy-non.html
Also, him cheerfully getting a guard fired in 2006 adds to his dossier. Someone should shove Hawk's cameras up his ass, and let him take all the pictures he wants of blood vessels being ruptured.
Would it be presumptuous for me to ask if you work as a rentacop? Mind if I ask if you have a metal badge or one of those gold colored cloth ones?
From my quick analysis beyond the article, it seems like there really isn't much to see here other than Thomas Hawk raising a stink about being kicked out of the museum. This has received fairly good coverage on sfist.com.
In particular, in the first story you'll see a comment from another visitor who witnessed the event which points out that he was acting like a possible perv:
Yes, your analysis was certainly quick.
And using an anonymous comment on a messageboard as a source? Fail.
>
That's a lame excuse; they could simply have a no-flash policy.
They do.
The fuckwit who you replied to was blathering bullshit.
The museum had a policy of no photographs. This is hardly uncommon: not only do many people find it annoying to stumble over photographers and deal with flashes while they're trying to look at art, but repeated exposure to light flashes can damage art.
Fucking fail.
You posted this drivel without even bothering to do even the most basic research. Then you pretended to know exactly what the guy was thinking, when in fact, the opposite is clearly true.
Here... for a start, try taking a look at their official photography policy.
http://www.sfmoma.org/visit/visitinfo_hours.asp
It clearly states
Cameras
Photography is allowed for personal, noncommercial use, except where noted. Flash photography and videography are not allowed in the galleries. Tripods are not allowed.
Again. Fucking fail.
hey, this still happens all the time in Romania. Trying to take a picture of a dam especially. Like there's no google earth and such... some parts of the romanian army are still in the 20th century (or 19 ??)
To be fair, there wasn't anything like google earth in the 70's, 80s and 90s. Army regulations and attitudes take a long time to change.
Sorry, but even ignoring the fact that your stats are an order of magnitude off that's pretty inaccurate. If you count the value of a camera purely in megapixels and zoom range, then sure a compact is every bit as useful as an SLR. But in actual function, those cameras have sensors a fraction of the size of SLRs, meaning lower sensitivity, less information per pixel, and more noise and distortion. Just try shooting at an ISO higher than 800 and see what happens. On top of that, the included lenses have tiny apertures, distortion and chromatic aberration that wouldn't compare to the cheapest SLR lens, and in many ultracompacts you have next to no control over aperture, shutter speed, or focus.
It sounds like he's talking about a Canon S5 IS - I have one of those, as well as an Canon XTI. The S5 isn't a supercompact, but it is much smaller than a DSLR.
Yes, the sensor is smaller, and yes, the noise is a bit worse, but my XTI looks terrible at ISO 800 too, to say nothing of 1600 which is borderline unusable on both (I'm picky about noise)
The lens is quite decent - CA and distortion is much better than the Canon EF 75-300 4.5-5.6 I have. I know the 75-300 is a bit of a piece of shit, but you did say "cheapest SLR lens"
IS is great at 12x optical.
Oh... on the S5 you do have control over aperture, shutter speed and ISO and it has a really decent manual focus, which lets you zoom in on the focus point and make sure you have the focus dead right.
Some of the new live view cameras have that, but this feature was in the S3, which was released a few years ago.
The hacked firmware for it (CHDK) lets you do all sorts of nifty things - stuff that you won't find until you buy a Canon camera that starts with "1". Raw support too - sure only 6 bit, but still.
The S5 is about 300 bucks. My DSLR and lenses add up to about 3 grand. Don't get me wrong - DSLRs are superior and that's what I drag around, but the difference is growing smaller and smaller every year.
it maybe safer just to delete the photo.
And then pocket the card and use recovery software to get the deleted photo back ;)
The problem with the UK is PCSOs. Poorly trained, poorly paid, unsworn (to protect the local council's ass in legal situations) and with very limited knowledge of the law.
They are also generally not psychologically screened to weed out the... I'll just say it - the fuckups who really shouldn't be given any sort of power.
Many of the cases of "the uk police don't want us taking pictures" have involved PCSOs, not the actual police.
Hard to tell, of course, since the uniforms are virtually identical.
Grow a spin. When Mr Security says "I'll take your camera" you say "just fucking try"
Of course, if it's a corrupt off duty cop (yea, I know... it's unlikely you'll find of one those in Chicago), you're liable to get your ass kicked, your camera broken, arrested, peppersprayed while cuffed for "resisting" and spend the night in the drunk tank on BS charges.
In a bunch of states, college "rentacops" are actually sworn police officers equivalent to a state patrol or other "the entire state is our jurisdiction" police department.