Recently in Technology Category

No, I am not talking about Brent Spiner, I am talking about all those 1s and 0s that live on your computer.  Today I am talking about how do you take care of all of your important, digital information?  Is it protected?  I don't know about other people but EVERY photo of my daughter since birth was taken with a digital camera and thus lives on the computer.  No negatives and very few have ever been printed.  I bet many people of my generation are in the same boat.  Digital photography has taken off over the past 5 to 10 years and uncountable terabytes of photos have been taken.  I wonder, however, how much of those photos are protected from disaster.  Think about your own photos.  Would you lose everything if your hard drive crashed?  How about if your house was destroyed by fire?  By flood?  Would the only record of little Johnny's first steps be lost?  How about that last birthday party for your grandmother?  The digital video of your wedding?  The sad truth is that most people don't think about the worst until it has already happened and then, sadly, it is too late.

For a long time I felt the first line of defense was an external hard drive.  It worked great.  I had a second copy of all of my data that could be restored to any computer.  I was protected.  Right?  Not so much.  Having that second hard drive was better than nothing but it didn't protect my data from the aforementioned fire, flood, or other act of nature.  In truth, all I would have then was TWO completed destroyed copies of my data.  Then there is the concern of viruses ruining everything connected to an infected PC INCLUDING the backup drive.  Having an on-site copy of your data can certainly be useful but obviously it is not an effective backup strategy.

It was then that I decided that I should also burn copies of everything to DVD.  Surely I would be protected then right? I could make the DVDs and send them to work or to my parents' house.  Off-site backup would be perfect!  Right?  Wrong again.  While backing up to DVD and putting those disks off-site is an improvement, there are problems.  How long does a DVD remain readable?  There have been some studies into the degradation of optical disks, nothing has been proven.  Some disks last mere months while others can last years.  The fact remains that optical disks do degrade and fail.  Imagine losing all of your data at home only to find out your disks are unreadable!!!  All those wonderful shots you took of little Ann Marie's first day at school would be nothing but memories.  Optical disks also have the inherent problem of obsolescence.  Who knows how long the optical disk will be around.  Probably some time yet but there is clearly a time in the future when computes will no longer have optical drives.  How do you restore all that backed up data then?  I know this is a minor concern but ask around and see how many people backed up to Zip Disk only to find Zip Drives discontinued.  Finally, when it comes to backing up to optical disk the worst part is how much of a pain it is to actually do.  It is complicated to setup automatic backups to optical disk and they are limited in size.  Yes, even Blu-Ray disk will eventually fill up.  This kind of backup requires more time at your computer.  Not fun for a geek and darn near impossible for anyone else.  Have hope though, there is a better way!

Online backup has become affordable if not cheap and is my recommended backup of choice.  There are many services out there for online backup and while I don't want to recommend any one service over another I personally choose Jungle Disk.  Online backup has many advantages over the other methods listed above.  1.  It is completely off-site.  2.  It can be setup to run automatically.  3.  Size will never be an issue.  4.  With most services you can access your data from anywhere and at any time.  5.  You don't need a particular drive or media reader to restore the data.  Overall I think online backup provides the best protection for critical data as well as making the backup process dead simple.  Online backup solves all the issues discussed previously and adds features not possible with other backup strategies.

Of course nothing is perfect and using a cloud type service does have some downsides that one needs to understand.  The first issue is upload speed.  Broadband connections vary in their upload speeds.  The first backup can take days, weeks, or even months to complete depending on how much you are backing up and your upload speed.  Once the first upload is complete, the incremental backups are much faster.  The second issue is related but concerns how fast you can download the data.  If you need to restore a lot of data in a hurry online backup can be troublesome depending on your connection to the internet.  Generally data will download faster than it uploads, but completely restoring a dead PC could take some time.  It is also important to think about how critical it is to be able to access your data at moment's notice.  If your internet connection is down will this be a problem?  Since we are just talking about backup, I doubt internet connectivity up-time is a concern for most people but if your needs require backups to be available 24/7 be sure to consider this possible gotcha. 

Another issue is the reliability of the backup service provider.  You are entrusting your data to a third party and there is really no way to know what they do with the information.  Most services use encryption and other methods to keep your data secure but there is always the chance someone could crack into your data.  I feel this is a minor concern but it is worth pointing out.  The best thing to do is pick a reputable provider and be sure you understand their privacy policy as well as their security options.  Picking a reputable provider is also important because companies do fail.  What happens to your data if the company shuts its virtual doors?  Finally there is the issue of the monthly fees.  I don't like the growing trend toward monthly services fees but there is little one can do in this case.  Shop for rates and be sure you are clear on costs for uploading and downloading data as well as the monthly storage fees.  Again, picking a reputable provider that fits your needs is critical.

Given all the options for backup, I like a two pronged approach.  I backup locally to an external hard drive first.  This gives me a backup on hand if I need to restore something quickly.  Secondly I backup online.  My online backup covers me in case the main copy of the data and the external hard drive fail or are destroyed.  It also provides the additional benefit of being able to access my data from any internet enabled computer OR certain mobile devices like the iPhone.  Regardless of your backup needs, however, I highly recommend incorporating online backup.  Many plans start at under $10.00.  Don't wait until after you have lost everything to think about protecting your digital life.
    

I have to admit that I am slowly but steadily becoming an Apple Fanboy.  The very first Apple product I ever owned is a 4th Gen iPod which I still use today.  I am now an iPad user and continue to lust after the iPhone.  I listened to Apple's announcement early this week and found a few things that interested me as a traditional Windows user. 

The first thing is the new iPod Touch.  It is past time to upgrade my iPod.  The battery only lasts 15 minutes and it has overall taken a beating in the five or so years I have owned it.  I haven't upgraded yet for a few reasons.  Mostly it was because I was waiting to see if I would buy an iPhone when my current mobile contract was up.  I am still not sure I will.  It would require a carrier switch and the Android phones available to me are looking pretty sweet.  The other reason I have not upgraded is that the price to storage space ratio hasn't gotten to where I want it yet.  My current iPod is a 30G and is almost full.  $299.00 for the new 32G version seems a little steep to me considering I won't have all that much more storage space.  $199 would be a better price point as it would bring the 64G down to $299.00  I would consider the 64G at that price.  I have gotten very used to the IOS interface on the iPad and would like to carry that through to my mobile device.  The iPod Classic, while a great device, just seems antiquated in the face of the Touch.  Even tough I am not happy with the price, I like the newly announced features and the device is very attractive to me.

The other Apple announcement was for the new Apple TV device.  At first I thought it was junk but for $100.00 it makes perfect sense as a streaming device.  I don't like the Apple model of "renting" content but I guess in some way that is what I am doing with Netflix...only at pennies per single show/movie I consume.  I see the Apple TV fitting into 2nd bedrooms, guest rooms and place where having a full cable/satellite connection is a little overkill.  I also guess it can fit in the living room but some of its features seem a little limited compared with other devices like the Xbox 360 and most Blu-Ray players.  Still, the price point and size are nice.

Apple certainly has reinvented itself over the past decade and a company I once dismissed is back on my radar.  So, anyone want to give this old Windows guy one of them fancy, new iMacs?

We flirted with shutting off our satellite system last year.  I turned the system back on after a month due almost exclusively to Battlestar Galactica.  Well that and college basketball I guess.  Anyway...Time has passed and I am back to considering shutting down the pay television service. 

Things have changed over the last year to make this an easier adjustment to get used to.  We are heavy XBOX 360 users at my home and Netflix streaming is a big part of the usages.  Netflix streaming alone gives us more choices for entertainment than we can ever watch so just in shear volume Netflix can replace much of the stuff I watch on satellite today.  The problem, however, comes in trying to watch first run shows and sports.  Although I am not a rabid sports fan I certainly enjoy particular events with the aforementioned college basketball being my primary interest.  The good news is that ESPN is bringing their ESPN 3 service to the XBOX later this year.  While details are still sketchy, it looks like this service may be able to replace much of the sports content I watch on satellite. 

The final piece of the puzzle may debut in early 2011.  Hulu is in the process of launching Hulu Plus.  This service is supposed to offer full seasons of current shows, movies, and all kinds of other content.  While the service is available for things like the PC, iPad, and PS3 today, the "custom" XBOX version will not be available until next year.  The service is currently priced at $10.00 a month.  I have taken a wait and see attitude about Hulu Plus but signs are encouraging.  I could cancel my $60.00 satellite service and replace it with a $10.00 service.  I already pay for Netflix so the cost is already covered.

All of these services plus over-the-air, OTA, high definition local television make a pretty compelling argument against paying for cable/satellite.  There are other issues to be considered including DVR service and viewing in multiple rooms but this can be dealt with through different technological solutions.   I am excited about the move toward ubiquitous streaming and it won't be long until we can access anything, anywhere, anytime. 

The only real question left is "Should we be watching any of it?" 

Seriously, what's up?  I feel like I have been out of touch with most of the world for the last few months.  The unending routine of work, home, sleep, work, home, sleep has become so monotonous that I often feel more like a robot that has been programmed to walk between point A and B until its gears wear down than a living, breathing human.  It must be the crushing heat we have been experiencing here in the south.  It is slowing my mental processes and I am falling back on automated responses. 

With that being said I have some random thoughts to throw out.  I hope something in the coming jumble of miscellaneous stuff is interesting. 

I. - LIMBO

If you have an XBOX 360 take some time and download the demo of this game.  It is beautiful and engaging.  I haven't purchased it yet myself but I plan to when funds are available (and hopefully the price comes down a bit).  It really captured my imagination and my daughter and I have had several conversations on what the nature of the world is and what the boy is doing there.  From my understanding, this is all left open by the designers.




II.  Typos

I know I have talked about this before but my writing is just plagued with typos these days.  This is especially concerning when it comes to Twitter.  I just can't seem to catch my fat fingered typing mistakes fast enough.  It is a more glaring problem on Twitter because the Tweets are so short to begin with.  I don't know if it makes me look lazy, stupid or both but it is really bothering me personally.  I just have to work at getting better at reviewing what I right before I publish it.  Even if the content is poor at least I can make it look professional.

III.  Rage

Stephen King published a novella called Rage under the pseudonym Richard Bachman back in the 70s.  It is about a high school student who takes his math class hostage.  After a rash of school shootings in the 90s King took the book out of print after connections to the book and the shooters came to light.  I have owned a paperback collection of Bachman stories since high school but for some reason never got around to actually reading the book.  I stumbled across the book recently while combing the attic looking for stuff to sell in a yard sale and decided it was high time to read it.  It wasn't long after starting the story that all the thoughts I had in high school came flooding back.  All the anger and hatred for my classmates flared up fresh after almost 20 years of being forgotten.  I am a different person now but that bitter 16 year old is still in me and while reading the story I couldn't help but remember how I often thought about what it might be like to take over the school and exact some revenge.  Obviously a clearer head prevailed and I made it out of high school like most everyone eventually does.  The sharp, visceral reaction I had to reading the story however took me a bit by surprise.  I had thought I had gotten over that period of my life but apparently some thing are just too formative to ever truly go away.

Today I am more concerned for my daughter and what she will experience growing up.  I would save her a lot of those experiences if I could.  The fights on the bus, the being afraid to go to the bathroom during school because of the nefarious acts that tended to go on in the restroom, the cliques, the insults, and all of the other things that occur in American institutionalized education will still be there when she gets to high school but maybe, somehow she can avoid them.  If not...well...I hope I can teach her to deal with them and get through it.  Living with rage is a bad thing and I would spare her that as well.

IV.  Religion

No, I am not about to go off again but I did want to share the following video.



There are some interesting thoughts on the end but what most interested me is the picking and choosing parts. There is plenty to be learned from the Bible. I have never denied that. The value that the Bible provides, however, does not make the rest of it true. One can find plenty of value and inspiration from any number of works of fiction but truth is often harder to come by.  It has been argued recently by people I know that the morality of the Bible is so self-evident (a questionable statement at best)  that the mere goodness of the morality is evidence enough for the existence of the Christian God.  That statement is akin to saying the values expressed in Heinlein's A Stranger in a Strange Land are also so "good" that it proves there are aliens on Mars.  Ultimately what I believe Jacobs is pointing out is that we can find worth in the Bible even if some if it is junk.  I would agree with that.

V.  Batman

Grant Morrison's work on Batman is controversial at best but one thing you have to admit is that it is always engaging...even if you have no idea what is going on.  It looks like he is bringing the yellow bat symbol back to the costume and I couldn't be happier.  I have always liked it and I am glad to see it return.  Check out the LA Times for more Morrison and Batman goodness.


That's good for today.  Hopefully I will be back tomorrow but as always...we'll see.

Facebook is beginning to be more of a sore spot for me than something I really care about.  The recent, and not so recent, problems with the site's stand on privacy is annoying but I have mostly ignored it.  I have locked my profile down a bit and generally don't do much on the site.  I read the "news" feed through Tweetdeck and rarely go to the Facebook site during the day.  So while I have been kept up with the buzz surrounding the privacy issue, I have mostly stayed out of the fray.  The real problem I am having is dealing with how Facebook handles external RSS feeds.  More specifically I am referring to how Facebook completely mishandles entries from my blog.

The problem is fairly simple.  Facebook is horrible at processing the feed.  When I post a blog entry it usually takes AT LEAST 24 hours to show up as a note on my Facebook profile.  Not only that, but the version the system posts is almost never the current version of what is on the blog.  I often edit my posts after I publish them.  Usually this is because I am lazy and don't edit BEFORE hitting the "Publish" button.  Once it goes live, I find mistakes and I generally want to correct them.  The posts are never perfect but I like to fix problems when and if I find them.  The weird thing about Facebook is that the version of the post that ends up on my profile THE NEXT DAY is almost always the first version of the post and not the version that is live on my blog the day it shows up on Facebook.  This is insane to me because what seems to be happening is that Facebook grabs the feed when I publish it but doesn't put it on my profile until the next day.  The end result is that I have two similar but slightly different posts on the two sites with my blog being the most current and accurate version. 

There are other problems as well.  Sometimes the Facebook version shows my embedded images and sometimes it does not.  It also NEVER shows embedded videos.  Although this isn't a huge deal, I do take some thought into what I put into my posts other than text.  I might suck at this, but I still have a look I want to portray...even if that look is pathetic.  The images and graphics often add context to what I am writing about and Facebook's spotty replication of this when it imports the feed is frustrating.  In some cases the images and video are critical to understanding what I am saying and Facebook destroys the effectiveness of these posts by not importing the entirety of the code.  Certainly this may be a problem with what I embed but other services don't have a problem with this so why should Facebook? 

Outside of the delay and presentation problems, however, I like the concept of having my blog posts (sporadic as they have been lately) as well as tweets show up on Facebook.  I decided at some point that it was useless for me to try and maintain different, private "personas" on the Internet versus real life.  I have taken the view that if you are going to be on the internet you need put some thought into how you come off to the rest of the world.  This is important for many reasons including the simple fact that employers and potential employers are taking the time to research their people and possible hires and what those people say and do on the Internet.  I am doing better at this but I am not perfect and I still make mistakes of discretion.  Nevertheless, it is clear to me that whatever I say and do on the Internet as any one of my screen identities can easily be traced back to me, the real person.  With that in mind, I found that although I want a presence on sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Flickr, Twitter, and my blog, I don't want to manage updating all of those services individually.  For me it became clear that my Blog and Twitter were the two places I wanted to make updates and then feed all of that to other services so they all have some sort of fresh content on a regular basis.  This processes keeps my presence "active" while having to do less work.  I certainly understand the value of dealing with separate audiences differently but right now that is not a goal of mine. 

There are many reasons for this approach.  Mostly it is because I am lazy.  I just don't have the time or the desire to manage my presence at half a dozen different sites.  The technology exists to link these things together and that is just what I have decided to do.  I feel a need to have accounts on the sites because I am connected to people in different ways.  People that are my "friends" on Facebook may not follow me on Twitter or read my blog.  There are different pockets of people that I am connected to at each site/service but I want them all to get the same information from me no matter if it is worthless Twitter updates or something else that may have more value.  The other, more selfish reason, is that I have some weird desire to increase the size of my connections at all services so connecting them together seems to help.  I can't explain that desire but it is what it is.  In the end, however, it is just easier for me and IF I am doing things right, the "different audience" issue isn't a concern.

Facebook, however, just doesn't do a lot of things the way I want it to to and for me that is a problem.  Using Facebook as a catch-all for stuff I write elsewhere seems to be breaking the model I had hoped to create.  It screws up my blog posts and then doesn't link back to the RSS feed for people to find the actual post.  Often I have resorted to posting a link to the blog in the actually post but I shouldn't have to do that.  Feeding the RSS into Facebook also creates two places where discussion of the same topic can happen and then I have to move back and forth between the discussions.  This also stinks because a good discussion on Facebook doesn't get feed into the blog or from the blog into Facebook.  It would really make sense to have all of the comments exist in one place.  Not only is this better for the actually sharing of ideas, but it makes it easier for me to keep up with what I have said where.  Taken as a whole these issues make me spend more time managing information on Facebook than I would like.

So, what is the solution?  The simpliest thing may very well be to give up on the "one post / multiple publishing locations" model.  I could wall them off and treat each audience separately.  I have already said I really don't want that hassle so the option isn't great.  I could come up with a more selective repost workflow (I call it work...how hilarious is that?) where I choose what goes where at the time of posting.  I feel pretty confident from a technological standpoint that this is possible but again this breaks my original desire for a single post model.  Or, I could just throw up my hands and just saw "screw it" and let it continue to be what it is.  Right now I am leaning toward the second choice.  I am sure it would be better for the people who follow me (why anyone follows me is often a question I can't answer) but it would require a little more thought and work on my part.  No big deal I guess really.  I know I can't stand how Facebook handles my blog RSS feed so I have to do something about that.  The solution I am thinking of right now is to break the feed and just tweet when I make a new blog post.  That will feed in Facebook and anyone who wants to read it can click the link and come over.  I don't like regular blog pimping on Twitter though so I am a little wary of doing that on a regular basis.  We shall see.

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this issue.   



 

            

*****Updated 5/17/2010*****

I have a version of the video formatted for this website.



 
**********************************

No matter how many times I write about the "Pale Blue Dot" passage by Carl Sagan I am always compelled to listen to the speech when ever it comes up.  I can't think of any other words that seem to affect me as much as these words do.  The multitude of videos that exist that use Sagan's speech as a background are of varying levels of quality but no matter how well or poorly the visuals are, the words transcend any attempt to create the same feelings visually.  The version shown above uses great moments in film and is well done but even as I watched the video I only casually registered the clips.  I was caught up in the understanding of how insignificant we are in the cosmos and by the idea that it is that very insignificance that makes our lives so precious and so important. 

I spent the weekend with my family doing fairly mundane things.  We went to a birthday party, we played outside, we went hiking but what we really did was take time to just enjoy life.  It is in these little things that I find the most joy.  The most expensive, destination vacation can never compare to the few hours I spent in the woods with my wife and daughter just enjoying a beautiful spring day.  It is so hard to let go of the things we think are important and just be happy to be alive.  Hearing Sagan's words reminds me that no matter how crushed I feel under the weight of responsibility none of it really matters but using the time I have to enjoy the world around me.  It is in those few, fleeting moments that I think I come closest to understanding the purpose of our lives.

One of the domains that leads here is thefilmfanatic.com.  In fact, this site had its origins as a film review and discussion site and I have been unwilling to let go of that domain for the past twelve years or so.  I never really launched a full site under that domain and ended up using it for the blog once I got interested in self-publishing software.  Eventually the title of the blog became the main domain and thefilmfanatic.com idea got put into the "file" for later use.  For some time now I have just pointed that domain at this site.  I assumed that since I had some film content and discussion here it wasn't such a bad thing.  Backstory aside, I'd like to discuss something that has become quite the big deal in movie-making and film going over the past few years.  That something is the new wave of 3D.

On the whole I am not a huge supporter of watching films, or television for that matter, in 3D.  Certainly the technology has come a long way since I watch The Creature from the Black Lagoon in 3D with the classic red and green glasses nearly 30 years ago.  Granted this was a network television presentation but what I remember from that experience is that the movie just ended up looking a little fuzzy even after "calibrating" the TV.  Since then I have experienced 3D in many forms.  The best had always been the 3d presentations at DisneyWorld.  Things like Muppet Vision 3D made a big impact on me but even those short experiences convinced me that 3D would never be more than a gimmick.  The problem I seem to have with the concept is that you have to wear glasses.  I don't like wearing glasses.  I have bad eyes and wear contacts 90% of my waking hours but I know what it is like to have to wear glasses.  They are uncomfortable and just a general nuisance.  With 3D they are even worse because obviously they have to be made generic enough to fit everyone so comfort becomes even more of an issue.  I can't imagine what it is like for someone already wearing glasses to have to but another set on top of the ones they need to see.  The comfort issue is really just one problem and probably a small one over all.

The bigger problem I have with the way 3D is done, even in this modern age, is what it does to the film going experience.  I, like a lot of other critics including Roger Ebert himself, believe 3D ruins the presentation.  Unless the theater is tweaked just right the 3D glasses darken the image.  Even my two showings of Avatar felt too dark and that film by far is the best utilization of the 3D process that I have ever seen.  Granted I might be a little sensitive to presentation given I work in an industry where I am constantly looking at the quality of projected images but when a film looks to dark it takes away from the enjoyment of the experience.  I think this is my biggest complaint with the state of the technology today but even if that issue can be solved there are other problems I don't know if I can get past.

Wearing glasses limits your vision.  No matter how directly you stare through the lens you are always aware of the border.  I dislike the obstruction and it takes me out of the moment.  It also makes me remember how uncomfortable the glass become as soon as they are put on.  I am just the kind of person that is annoyed by anything that takes away from my enjoyment of the experience and after fighting babies in R-Rated pictures, chatty first daters, and the persistent phone users one more annoyance is just too much.

Finally comes the effects of 3D on film-making itself.  Many film-makers tend to pander to the technology.  The days of throwing pies at the audience are over but there are still those weird moment that you know were inserted just for the 3D aspect of the scene and not to further the story.  Who likes this? 

Ebert said it best this way, "Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D?"  No.  Not once have I ever wished a movie was in 3D that wasn't.  In fact, I have seen many recent 3-D films in 2-D just because I didn't feel like dealing with the hassle of 3-D.  I even support the idea of seeing Avatar in 2-D.  The 3-D usage in that film is amazing but overall it has a limited effect on the film and if you don't see it in 3-D you are not ultimately missing much.  I will say though if you want to see a film that uses the technology well then Avatar is the one to see.  I saw Burton's Alice in Wonderland in 2-D and never wished I had seen it in the other format.  That, I think, is the biggest thing.  It just doesn't add enough to the experience for me to care.  I certainly don't think the technology is worth the inflated cost of the ticket. 

I won't go into the price thing other than to say I understand why it costs more buy really can I not get at least a little discount if I save the glasses?  Yes, I understand the projector is the biggest reason for the increased price but how about we encourage people to bring back the glasses?  Wouldn't this be one of those "green" initiatives?  I like the recycling idea but I have to assume they are being cleaned somewhere which leads to pollution.  Oh, and how about the hundreds of little plastic bags that are thrown away every day?

At the end of the day it comes down to economics.  The movie industry doesn't like this technology because of what it adds to the experience.  The industry likes it because it inflates prices and gives people a reason to come back to the multiplex.  People can't get the 3-D experience at home so digital 3-D is a selling point.  It is the same reason 3-D was invented in the 50s.  People were not going to the movies because of TV and the industry had to find a way to get them back.  3-D was one of many gimmicks tried which ultimately failed.  This time the gimmick seems to be getting a better hold.  Yes it is better than the old version but overall it still doesn't really do much.  Better film-making and story telling would go a long way to getting people to come to the theater.

So, in general think 3-D isn't a good thing.  I will continue to see the occasional film in 3-D just to see how things are progressing.  In fact, there is one coming that I am really looking forward to.  I think Tron Legacy could be as important as a 3-D release as Avatar.    Maybe it is the geek in my but this film seems to be the perfect subject matter to really make 3-D part of the story.  Maybe I will revisit this post after that movie.  Until then...FLYNN LIVES.

Coca-Cola Museum
Originally uploaded by Shadowhelm

The modern age of electronics brings with it a scourge to tourist destinations everywhere and that scourge is the camera phone.

The camera phone seems to be a great invention but the issue is that everyone has one and I mean everyone. From preteens to the geriatric set everyone is carrying a camera phone these days. While the technology itself is convenient in moderation, it is a royal pain in the rear in practice. Can't see why? Let me explain...

Take a trip out to one of America's great tourist destinations. It doesn't matter where just pick one and go. What you will find is thousands of people, all with camera phones and all taking pictures of everything...all the freaking time. So, what 10 years ago was one camera per family is now four or more cameras per family. If you do my little experiment the problem will be clear. Basically, it take 4 times as long to see something because people are taking that many more pictures. Therefore, people end up lingering longer trying to get a shot with what is still pretty bad hardware. This backs up lines and just causes chaos. Of course in the current society where courtesy has all but disappeared patrons are also subjected to people jamming their arms into the field of view to gut that critical, low res photo. Camera phones are just murder when it comes to people getting the opportunity to enjoy the attractions they have paid to see.

My eyes were opened on a recent trip to Atlanta to visit the World of Coca-Cola and the Georgia Aquarium. At just about every corner there was ten or more people shooting low quality photos which require the "photographer" to stand exceptionally close the subject. All this accomplishes is making it harder for the rest of the people to see and it really slows down traffic flow. On top of that the pictures can't be very good so why would anyone want to take a couple of hundred pictures on these cameras. To me it just doesn't make sense. It seems to me a lot of people are spending way too much time taking crappy pictures and too little time actually enjoying what they came to see.

Down with camera phones!