I was going to go the more fun route of just saying "Get a Mac" but you kind of beat me to it. :)

But seriously, I enjoy using Aperture. I've tried lightroom, and while it's nice, it seems a bit clunky and unintuitive for a real workflow. Aperture keeps your information in a database, but will also export tagging et al back into EXIF information upon export allowing for everything that was requested by the poster. Obviously the poster is using Windows, but I wanted to throw this gold nugget of information out there for people who may be running a mac with lightroom and looking for an alternative to Adobe (on the off chance said apple users weren't aware of Aperture) and it comes in at a pretty reasonable price point. For the more casual user, iPhoto does pretty much the same thing, though I personally wouldn't reccommend it for a really large library or professional workflow. For the people who only ever have a photo every once in a great while, the Preview app that is built into OSX will do basic adjustments and I think exif modification and tagging.

You're right. I'm glad you said this, now I don't feel like the only loser storing his photos and videos permanently on his phone! :P

It could also imply that they'd like to see this function across carriers and platforms. I'd love to use something like this with my friends, not all of whom can afford or want an iPhone. Steve Jobs has a fair amount of charisma and could be a catalyst to help push this sort of tech forward. Think about how fractured MMS/SMS was for the longest time. You couldn't get a photo out of your network to another network. Thankfully market forces encouraged this to change. Perhaps something like this will be a shortcut to accomplishing the same kind of interoperability between phones/networks.

I don't know a whole lot about wireless bandwidth, but one thing I did notice about this display is that the 3GS apparently had no problem loading the NYT website, while the iPhone 4 wouldn't load it. In my eyes it appeared to be more of a glitch with the hardware, rather than a problem with the network. Also, how else could the people in the audience use that same network (probably pretty slowly I'd guess) if the network were that saturated. At the very least even if it were a dead connection, why would you just keep your laptop open and connected while watching the presentation.

For the price that people pay to go to the conference ('ve been to one) It's interesting that that many people would be on their computers during something that one would assume is fairly important. Were there really ~570 reporters liveblogging the event?


I'm not Apple bashing, just pointing out what I noticed. Please don't mod me to hell.

I'm genuinely curious about how this works. I only read the live engadget blog, but I didn't see a mention of how this application connects to another iphone. Does it do it via phone number, mobileme/AIM, or jabber type of connection (via email addy)? Is there some sort of user agent checking that tells the application it's really talking to another iPhone or what?

What would be interesting to see, is if this is some way to appease the telcos until the feature goes live and then one day they just open it up to connect to all sorts of video confrencing/video IM applications.

Honestly, I would love to have this iPhone. It looks great and reminds me of a sony ericsson that I had quite a few years back. I agree that there really isn't anything super revolutionary about this particular iPhone, but I don't really think that Steve Jobs is an innovator in tech, as much as he is a diplomat with a keen eye for style. The real revolutionary stuff that comes from Apple is more in terms of design and simplified function than real technological progress. Even the Apple haters will give Apple some credit for the aesthetics of their machines. I could be wrong, but until Apple came along with bolder machine cases, everything was beige, white, and sometimes black. I don't really think that would have changed a whole lot in the mainstream had it not been for them. Even the newer phones are riding Apple's design coattails in form and function. For another company to de-throne Apple, that company would have to take some design risks and (I hate saying this,) think outside of the box. I'm not the guy to come up with it though. I really can't imagine something better than a rectangle for a mobile phone.

Thank you for your insight.

Since you seem fairly knowledgeable about this subject, i'd like to know, if they compel me to present my recording as evidence, is the video considered property or can I ask for it to be dismissed as a form of testifying against myself?

Yeah. That was kind of what I was on about. Having the opportunity to show my side as well would be great. It would be a somewhat double edged sword though, if they show their video to use at prosecution, I can also use their video in my defense. If I were planning on using my video in my defense, would I also have to allow the prosecution to use it as evidence, or would that be a 5th ammendment issue (self incrimination)?

I had read about this the other evening and was really disturbed. My first reaction was the tired and cliched "if you're not guilty, then you have nothing to worry about."

The thing to me though, is that after they started putting cameras in police cars it was trumpeted as being such a great thing for the officers. How the cameras have saved so many officers and/or brought criminals to justice, that otherwise may have gotten away with their crimes. Think about all of those shows with police car footage, where someone gets pulled over, shoots a cop, and drives off. The storyline is something like "if it hadn't been for dashboard cameras, this officer's killers may have never been brought to justice."
But things work both ways. There have been some grievous abuses of citizens by the police, that may have never come to light if someone hadn't been there with a camera.

There are good cops and bad cops. I've had encounters with both types. Fortunately for me I've never had my skull cracked open by either. But I feel like, if we don't have the option to record our encounters with law enforcement on the same level that law enforcement has to record their encounters with us, then we are all in trouble. From the police standpoint, I can see the argument that a citizen's recording could be biased or doctored as it doesn't have the same type of safeguards that police footage is supposed to have. But again, this works both ways. I don't know if there is citizen oversight or some type of neutral chain of custody for police dashboard video, but I've heard more than a few accounts (first hand and news stories) of video becoming "lost." To me it's not right that the people in authority are the only ones with a copy of the tape. Citizen or cop, there can be bias and misuse either way, but this can be compensated for by combining videos from both as well as eye-witness accounts to reconcile the stories to gain a more accurate description of events.

In addition to having a camera available mounted in their car, the police also have the option of calling for backup to assist on the scene. As a citizen (I've been arrested before) I've never had the option of calling for backup/witnesses to my arrest. In a one on one encounter with a police officer, who is there to guarantee my safety and tell my side of the story? As far as I've ever experienced when it comes time to go to court, you already have a strike against your credibility because, to have an encounter with the police means that you had to have been doing something to get their attention. What hasn't really been brought up is why you've gotten their attention. Did you actually do something to warrant their attention or did the officer have you pegged for some other reason. The way you look, the car you drive, the people you know, the places you go, etc.
As someone already pointed out, a lot of authority amounts to trust. Who do we trust to safeguard our liberties and protect society in general. As people we mainly have to trust each other. I could create a nightmare for some random stranger right now by calling the police and making some false accusation. There are laws against this, but in the time it would take to sort this out, damage would be done. In the same way, a rouge police officer could do the same. I could have an encounter with the police right now and levy some accusation against an officer. Again, in the time it would take to sort this out, damage would be done.
I think that the police and citizenry are both well served with the right to record our interactions with each other. It could only stand to increase the amount of trust we have to place in each other and be an effective deterrent to any possible abuse of that trust by rouge authority. The best possible thing to happen right now for the police (nationally) would be for their union to stand up, support and encourage the rights of the people to record the police in the course of their jobs just as the people have encouraged the police to do the same.

Redundant facts in the course of figuring out a crime certainly could only help to serve justice and any differences between the facts (recordings) would strengthen a case one way or another. Why should the police be the only arbiter of the facts and evidence?

Exactly. As a photographer it's my responsibility to archive my negatives/chromes/digital files. I'm certainly NOT using Flickr as an archive. I'm definitely NOT putting print resolution files out there for the world to download either. Generally I'm ok with the average person seeing my image and using it in a non-commercial way, such as a desktop wallpaper or to just enjoy looking at. It's why I put it out there. To be seen and enjoyed. I think the parent is wrong to say that these images won't matter in 5-10 years. Different images will withstand the test of time for different reasons. One good example would be of photos of the Word Trade Towers circa 2000. 10+ years later, and you're not getting another new photo. These guys have effectively robbed photographers of their control over their images and the kiss to go along with this screwing is that you have to ask them to take the images down. That's like some guy stealing my bike and then having to go ask him for it back.

I'll stick to the old way of getting crabs.
Hookers.

I agree with you, that in the instance you specified, distractions could have been a very serious problem. Yet, I would chalk this instance up to flat out irresponsibility. My opinion is that having some tasks at hand to keep the pilot's mind functioning during a flight is fine. I feel like with the responsibility and lives being at stake, if the plane is going down, the pilot isn't going to say "oooo, I've almost beaten my high score! Give me one more minute..." My guess is they would drop their GameBoy and get to the task at hand ASAP. Even still, there are idiots out there that will be problematic once in a while, but I'm guessing they are pretty good about screening them anymore. I'd rather have the pilot pass the time playing video games/reading/surfing porn than drinking (like they used to).

That's my chicken pot pie!

I semi-agree with you. I feel like CC's stance should have been "Whatever. Eat it." Viacom in their willingness to kowtow to this group, just gave them a huge voice. In a lot of ways, that is just as bad as this group's threats of murder. I'm sure Matt and Trey knew what they were doing and are up to the risk that mocking these fruitbats involves. I don't think the location of their studios is something that couldn't be found in less than 5 minutes by searching google. Exactly what did this group of extremists do, that any other radical group wouldn't have already wanted to do had they actually taken this seriously? I'd hate to see Matt, Trey, the production staff, or anyone from Comedy Central murdered over something like this, but at the same time, where do we draw the line? Obviously banning Islam and it's practice is a bad idea, but how do we deal with a religion that feels it's rules take precedence over the law?

Also, for some purchases, shipping is cheaper than or equal to sales tax. At the point that you add tax+shipping, then purchasing online has really lost most of it's appeal and it just makes more sense (from a budget perspective) to go to the brick and mortar store and but it.