As a few people can attest to, you're using my exact words. Somehow, Cris, who I am indeed singling out here in this case, seems bent on always bringing this back to me. I don't know why, I don't care why. I use Cris and myself as an example here specifically because of the 4S thread.



Because that quote isn't a perfect example of what it says. Any forum is only as interesting as the people who post or read, at any time, make it. Discounting the veiled disparaging comment which may be targeted at no one in particular, you can't blame the lack of interesting dialog on "someone else" who is no longer participating.

I look forward to seeing interesting topics, but I also make an effort to start threads on topics I find interesting or timely. I think this goes for a lot of people. If anyone feels different, they should start some as well.

This board is not an inviting place to do that these days. Sometimes I feel you have to be apologetic simply for being an American here. Did you know that I have a pistol permit and didn't vote for Obama? If I were to participate in any such threads or start one of my one, I would simply be outnumbered and probably lumped in with that kid from Louisiana that hacked the BBS almost a decade ago. I'm sure people who haven't met me in person are already forming opinions.

You made some crack about Apple buyers a few post back like they'll just drink the Kool-Aid and love everything about the iPhone. I could participate in that pointless discussion, but I might as well do that on Engadget where they have more asses in the seats.

Eh, I think there's some false equivalence going on here. There's a big difference between having different opinions and being an uninformed Neanderthal. This is the kind of place where, if you're in the first category, I think you're treated pretty kindly by most people, whereas if you're in the latter, you're going to get a bit bruised and bloodied.

I do think the makeup of the commentariat has changed over time, and we have lost some of our more prolific and interesting characters. I still think what's left is a great community, and we've had new folks join who have added fresh perspective -- though maybe not enough to replace some who've left.

I participate a lot in off-topic threads here, and I'm not shy about sharing my opinion, but I always aim to do so from an empirical standpoint, trying to understand the other side's view, but also offering data to support my own view. Who you vote for is your damned business, but if you have an opinion on something that's easily undermined by available data, I think it's worth asking you where you're coming from, and for data that supports your view. I've learned things from others here that I didn't know, and those facts have helped inform my views on various matters in a positive way.

So, I really don't think things have gone as far downhill as you suggest, and I certainly don't agree with your suggestion that we're all lock-step lemmings who try to push out people with opposing views -- but if you're going to make a statement, you ought to be prepared to support it.

I find it interesting that you're getting involved since something you said the day after Obama was elected got me pretty irritated. I'm typing this on a phone, so I'll have to get back to it. It was something to the effect of you asking if that had made up for 8 years of Bush.

I vote for my own reasons as should you. Not to please other people or countries or apologize for actions outside of your control.

OK... Mind pointing me at the thread? I don't see anything like that in a search for my posts around that time with "bush" as a search term. Here are all of my posts from that era, if that helps. Just trying to figure out what I said that irked you so much. Would also really appreciate a response to the substance of my comments when you're in a better typing environment.

First off, this is a post from me as a participant of the community. I generally try to avoid being an admin here socially, as this community should be what the people make it, not what I or a few others try and force it to be.

I can see some parts of where Rob is coming from. And I think some of it is due to the difference in free time some people have. I know some people here browse frequently, due to downtime at work or whatever. Others visit less often, once a day, or once a week even. Sometimes the opportunity to make a counterpoint seems lost as the thread has moved on. And with the quick reply at the bottom and some peoples misuse of it, the threaded views don't work well to bring back old points for active discussions.

The quick replies can also put people on the defensive quickly. And this can lead to irritation and fatigue when visiting, as they feel they have this uphill battle to fight just to have a fair chance at sharing their side.

On a more personal note, this is one reason I left the IRC room a while back Tony. What started as me just simply poking fun in a lighthearted way at a parking situation at work involving fuel efficient spots turned quickly into me having to try and defend my situation. This happened early in my morning, at work, with my mind somewhat tired and also being inundated by the days first requests. The mix did put me into a hostile and defensive mood, to the point I decided to just throw in the towel and leave. You appeared to have a goal of proving me wrong, in regards to a situation that started as a joke, or at least thats how my mindset at the time interpreted it. I've seen situations here that mirror that feeling. I bring this up to offer perspective, not as a way to make an attack. I personally don't care about it anymore, nor hold a grudge about it. It just turned into my sign that the IRC room wasn't for me during work hours, and during non work hours there isn't much activity. I reverted back to participating with you and the others here, on my own time and schedule.

The lesson from that for me was to stop multitasking so much, as it is distracting, and leads to misinterpreting a situation due to it lacking my full attention. I now try to read these boards only when I have a fair bit of free time, to make sure I can give my full attention to the words others have typed, and to my own replies.

Over the past year or two, I've been adopting a much more care free attitude, and it's helped a lot. I'm trying to get out of the somewhat common geek nitpick mode, letting the smaller things just not get in the way. I suppose in part it's just part of my own maturity growing over time. I hold this community dear, because it has been a major part of my adult life. I make very few apologies for my past stances on things, but hope people don't also hold me to the mental state I was in when I was still technically a teenager with some of my early posts. And yeah, sometimes I'm a bit unstable, leading to situations like my stress meltdown around this time last year. Backing away for a few months helped, and I'm glad the admin community here is still strong enough to allow me to do so if needed.

I'm sure moving to CA helped a little!

I feel the same way. I've been doing my best to hold back a little more on these things. I'm going to voice my opinion in an attempt to add to the conversation, and if someone disagrees I'm going to do my best to let it roll off. I disagreed with every element of Bruno's reply to me in the UP thread, but at this point it's just not worth it to get into yet another argument. Arguments are not what I always loved about this board, but it seems that's what the board is about now.

You are not the only one!

Yeah, I remember that conversation on IRC. Here's the thing, though. If you and I are talking, and you point out how crappy the weather is, or how much your boss sucks, that's one thing, but by complaining about fuel-efficient parking spots forcing you to drive further to park, you aren't just venting -- you're also making a statement about a policy that you dislike. If someone else disagrees, you can't really be shocked or upset if they respond with a different point of view, and, as I recall, you didn't seem to have a problem engaging in the debate, and were also pretty passionately arguing your own position (though you're now saying it was just a joke, which certainly wasn't apparent at the time.)

Regardless of whether you were serious or joking, are the other participants in the conversation supposed to just hold their tongue if they disagree? Politely acknowledge your rant and tell you to "grin and bear it" or "hang in there"? What's the correct play?

I greatly appreciate your stance that the community should be what people make it, and what people have made it is a place where you can take any position on any issue you like, as long as you're able to defend that position. The way I see it, if someone has the time and energy to make a controversial statement, but suddenly doesn't have the time and energy to back it up when others question it, that person is a fraud, plain and simple. It doesn't boil down to a difference in "free time", it boils down to who is willing to back their opinions up with supporting evidence.

Bleh. Enough with the "forum going downhill" mental masturbation. It is what it is and talking about it won't change it. Let's get back to phones or apples or cameras or whatever the heck we were talking about.

I don't remember the exact details of the conversation clearly enough, nor do I really care to at this point. The basic gist from what I do remember is that there was an amusing e-mail thread about them at work, mostly due to the number of them, located on every floor of a 6 floor parking garage. A parking garage that serviced the building that at the time had us as the only tenants. And the requirements for these fuel efficient spots were so low, a 2011 Mustang could park in one. The overall humor at work about the situation was more about how sad the attempt to "appear green" seemed, vs actually doing something properly green.


Sometimes a controversial statement may just be a lighthearted attempt at humor. And indeed, text (be it here or via IRC) is not always the best way to try and convey this. However, a quick response back that puts someone on the defensive quickly can sometimes result in them not making the most rational response. I did feel like I was put into a defensive mode, possibly before I could explain the humor of the situation as me and my coworkers saw it. Cris also appears to be going into a defensive mode rather quickly here, possibly due to the tone of others peoples comments.

I also personally wouldn't call someone a fraud as quickly as you appear to be willing to do so. Sometimes people do have things come up that cause them to prioritize those things above an internet discussion thread. The rush to prove someone right or wrong sometimes pushes people away from the desire to participate. It's mostly why I personally have been backing away from more and more political discussions these days. Nothing meaningful seems to come from them, because people get stuck on having to prove or defend some little basic points that it turns into a waste of time. Not everyone has the time to be an expert in every field they have an interest in, or a position they may hold. Being called a fraud before having a chance to change my stance would probably push me away from learning the truth if I was on the wrong side of a situation.

And on the flip side, I can understand the frustration that occurs when you present something, and most people gloss over the facts and draw the wrong conclusions. Using your own statement about being a fraud, I could assign that very label to the folks at O'Reilly that caused the location outrage earlier this year with iOS. They didn't do their research, made a big deal out of something based on incorrect information they had, and the internet echo chamber caused such an uproar that even congressional members managed to forget they already knew about this from a previous congressional inquiry in 2010.



With all of that said, I don't want to slide this thread further off topic from the issue at large about the community here. My main point is to try and ensure that some people here recognize that not everyone has the same amount of free time to dedicate to posting here. Their lack of time compared to others to respond shouldn't be seen as a weakness in their stances on a particular issue. I do hope Rob has time to respond and in the future has the desire to remain around a bit more then he has recently. But if he doesn't, I'm not going to hold it against him.

Sorry. I can't find the post, so I'm probably wrong about who posted it. I apologize for jumping the gun there. I will look a bit more, but it's like finding a needle in a hackstack without knowing the exact combination of words.

I'm not here to make enemies. I've just been checking the board over the past few days because I feel the need to back-up Cris. I know he can handle himself, but it's nice to know someone else is on your side. When I would get into arguments on this BBS in the past, people would PM and IM me showing their support, but showing that support in the public forum means more to me.

I'm not a talking head, so I can't articulate my objections to some of the political speak here. I'm really just offering insight into what turned me off to this BBS. Perhaps it's led to the loss of others here, or maybe not. You can take my experience for what it's worth since I tend to come and go these days. Lots have left never to be heard from again. Whether you want them back is really up to the board as a whole. If it continues down this path, I think more and more people will leave. That's all I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, Tom, and like you, I don't remember every detail of that conversation, so I'll just apologize for my role in it, and leave it at that.

There are a few different issues being conflated in this "meta" discussion, though. There's no one single community view of what the BBS should be. I think we could all do with fewer ad hominem attacks, but as long as we can avoid those, I think there are a lot of people who enjoy a serious, passionate discussion of issues, but also some who don't. If someone is bullshitting, though, how exactly is the community served by letting the bullshit go unchallenged?

I agree that people should be allowed to opinions on issues they're not experts in, but I don't think everyone else is required to sit idly by if they disagree, under the guise of being polite. What I usually see around here is people raising objections on the substance of the disagreement. How is that ever a bad thing?

Let me respond specifically to this:



Yes, real life often intervenes, and "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET" is not the most important thing in the world. But I can't help but lose a bit of respect for someone who's perfectly willing to engage in a debate early on, but becomes too busy when asked to defend their position. Of course we all have dozens of other things that are more important than posting here, but if I engage someone in a conversation, I feel like I owe them the courtesy of a thoughtful response -- even if it doesn't come at the best time for me personally. If I'm not able to respond, then other participants are right in thinking my argument is weak, because the right way to judge arguments is on their merit, as they are presented to the community.

I don't consider myself an expert in anything -- not even in my own profession. I do try to learn as much as I can about issues before I share my opinion, and I enjoy hearing from people with different points of view. Being uninformed on foreign policy matters back in the early 2000s led me to supporting U.S. intervention in Iraq, something I'm very ashamed of to this day. After that, I promised myself I'd work as hard as I could to understand issues before forming a strong opinion on them, which necessarily requires hearing from people with differing views. I really enjoy that aspect of the BBS, and I feel like people are cheating the community if they simply use it as a place to proselytize instead of engaging in a real discussion.

Yeah, I think you confused me with someone else, but I'm still interested in knowing what was said that offended you so much that it made you want to come here less. Can you give us more to go on than "asking if that had made up for 8 years of Bush"? Because I don't really even know how to interpret that.

Heh. That sounds like a great start for a stand-up comedy routine.

Trying to get back on the track of discussing the actual technology:

Can someone explain why there's not an option to have all focal planes in focus simultaneously in the final photograph?

Because that, to me, would be the real future market: Point, shoot, everything in frame is always in focus without needing to wait for the autofocus.

I agree that a true photographer would always want to have control over the focal depth, but the *market* for non-photographers, who just want their happy snaps completely in focus all the time, would be massive.

I want to say that it isn't feasible, and as an example reference the demo picture with the bicycle wheel in the extreme foreground, where you can kind of see "through" the spokes when focusing on things in the distance …

but

If each pixel in the image is clickable and focuses around that pixel, what would happen if you clicked on each pixel and then copied that one pixel? I'm almost inclined to write an AutoIt script to do exactly that.

I'm not convinced of this. I suspect the end result would be a bunch of non-photographers who are unhappy with their happy snaps, but don't know why. I don't think most happy snaps would be improved by infinite depth of field.

As a software matter, I'm sure that Lytro could offer an "infinite depth of field" option. Of course, if all you want is a camera with exceptional depth of field, just use your smartphone. The focal length is so short on those things that they have effectively infinite depth of field already.