It's like hearing you say, "Aren't we getting tired of all the inane posts on Facebook? I never post comments on the Internet unless it's to report a crime on the city police web site."
You deal with "noise" on the Internet all the time.
Your comment about a "real" camera makes it inherently obvious to the most casual observer that you are not a "real" photographer.
I teach young people how to use digital point and shoot cameras. I tell them, "See this toggle dial? Go up, down, left and right until you like what you see." (we're in Program mode)
Some of them consistently produce art.
If you ask them, "What F-stop and ISO settings did you use?" they will give you a blank look and direct you to the exif information inside the file to see all that historical settings data.
When I was a young lad and Moby Dick was a minnow, I studied special relativity. The math requires extracting a square root.
I was really frustrated because doing square roots with paper and pencil is a game whose quest is coming up with the same answer three times in a row.
When calculators with the square root function finally arrived, my learning accelerated because my goddamn objective was not to find square roots... it was to visualize, through the math, what special relativity "looked like."
In that sense, the technical stuff you covet is a waste of a good photographer's time.
I learned photography on a.3Mp (not a typo... POINT 3Mp) camera and even today, 13 years later, those old photographs tickle the eyeballs. It didn't have any knobs, so screw the technical bullshit like ISO and F-stop.
With so many capable instruments in the hands of so many young minds, art is bound to happen.
To keep our eye on the ball, we must appreciate that, in this case, the ball is not the little round thing. It's not the photographer and it's not the camera... it's the photograph.
If Snowden can show that he applied due diligence by going through the channels to discuss his concerns and was ignored or he felt threatened, he can still try to use whistle-blowing as a defense.
Otherwise, he may have had legitimate concerns, but bypassed normal procedures and just ran off with the stash and caused them to be made public, which is a federal offense, whistle-blower or not.
Snowden certainly should have covered his ass by retaining email messages to/from superiors, and wouldn't it be excoting if he has those in his hip pocket to trump the government somewhere along the way?
If the NSA says they can't find the emails and Snowden produces them, it's game over for the NSA.
Suppose he had a pair of binoculars looking for a fleeing prisoner and he stopped EVERYONE within sight and grabbed their wallets, phones, took fingerprints and asked them, "Say... do you belong in a prison?"
I'm bucking for the Constitution of the United States, Bubba, and, indeed, "he seems to have exceeded his statutory jurisdiction in pursuit of actual crimes."
A person can do that right now by disallowing people to ride oh "their" WiFi, now.
One of the places I go to offers "free WiFi." You have to get today's password from them and it's an Internet cafe where they casually monitor the network.
As for doing anything to other people's WiFi? Strictly illegal.
People discussing cell phone interruption are missing the design point. It's a "gett off my network," not a radio frequency jammer.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mod it, but did you read the part about they are on dial-up and not allowed to do email by browser?
I don't think you are a professional photographer. Sorry, but you just don't smell right.
Bulldust.
It's like hearing you say, "Aren't we getting tired of all the inane posts on Facebook? I never post comments on the Internet unless it's to report a crime on the city police web site."
You deal with "noise" on the Internet all the time.
Your comment about a "real" camera makes it inherently obvious to the most casual observer that you are not a "real" photographer.
I disagree, somewhat.
I teach young people how to use digital point and shoot cameras. I tell them, "See this toggle dial? Go up, down, left and right until you like what you see." (we're in Program mode)
Some of them consistently produce art.
If you ask them, "What F-stop and ISO settings did you use?" they will give you a blank look and direct you to the exif information inside the file to see all that historical settings data.
Bulldust. You are being elitist, at best.
When I was a young lad and Moby Dick was a minnow, I studied special relativity. The math requires extracting a square root.
I was really frustrated because doing square roots with paper and pencil is a game whose quest is coming up with the same answer three times in a row.
When calculators with the square root function finally arrived, my learning accelerated because my goddamn objective was not to find square roots ... it was to visualize, through the math, what special relativity "looked like."
In that sense, the technical stuff you covet is a waste of a good photographer's time.
I learned photography on a .3Mp (not a typo ... POINT 3Mp) camera and even today, 13 years later, those old photographs tickle the eyeballs. It didn't have any knobs, so screw the technical bullshit like ISO and F-stop.
It's all about the photograph.
With so many capable instruments in the hands of so many young minds, art is bound to happen.
To keep our eye on the ball, we must appreciate that, in this case, the ball is not the little round thing. It's not the photographer and it's not the camera ... it's the photograph.
We're not talking forefathers and family values here.
We're talking about Snowden.
... it's "he said, she said."
Let's post it again when we have obtained the consumer's recording of the phone calls.
Actually, there's a deeper issue.
If Snowden can show that he applied due diligence by going through the channels to discuss his concerns and was ignored or he felt threatened, he can still try to use whistle-blowing as a defense.
Otherwise, he may have had legitimate concerns, but bypassed normal procedures and just ran off with the stash and caused them to be made public, which is a federal offense, whistle-blower or not.
Snowden certainly should have covered his ass by retaining email messages to/from superiors, and wouldn't it be excoting if he has those in his hip pocket to trump the government somewhere along the way?
If the NSA says they can't find the emails and Snowden produces them, it's game over for the NSA.
That's fine with me, but I'll go for the derivative of the 4th Amendment.
It's not cool to throw wide nets.
For you analogy to apply:
Suppose he had a pair of binoculars looking for a fleeing prisoner and he stopped EVERYONE within sight and grabbed their wallets, phones, took fingerprints and asked them, "Say ... do you belong in a prison?"
I'm bucking for the Constitution of the United States, Bubba, and, indeed, "he seems to have exceeded his statutory jurisdiction in pursuit of actual crimes."
Right on! And take his badge away while you're at it.
You are zeroing in on child porn.
The court is addressing the activity of a military investigator stepping out of bounds.
Or ...
You could use TCPView and Microsoft Network Monitor to see if you are delusional or stuff.
Google has an article, About 11,400,000 results (0.36 seconds), on "capitalism."
Oops, my bad.
Sorry.
Your post makes sense.
Thanks.
Absolutely. If I were running drugs, I'd just avoid all that shit's that listed.
What's the grid got to do with fleecing Canadians?
Microsoft is too late to the phone party.
That space has been up and running for a LONG time and the competitors have too big a lead.
Says my Nexus 7 is not compatible.
Rats.
Nothing else matters.
Except posting at /.
... for all cops.
Then we could do product placement.
Tasers, guns, radios ... help pay expenses and provide documentation for courts and some reality shows.
I will have Internet Explorer installed at the core.
... on "your WiFi with no legal problems.
A person can do that right now by disallowing people to ride oh "their" WiFi, now.
One of the places I go to offers "free WiFi." You have to get today's password from them and it's an Internet cafe where they casually monitor the network.
As for doing anything to other people's WiFi? Strictly illegal.
People discussing cell phone interruption are missing the design point. It's a "gett off my network," not a radio frequency jammer.