Guess who’s got a new webcam!



No surprise that $APPL is down 8% on this news.
He clearly hasn’t quite got the hang of this press conference thing.
… I can’t help but feel if this was you or me instead of a football legend the police would have perhaps not been so diligent in their pursuit of the offenders.
Matt Smith is the new doctor — the eleventh.
Quick, name the other ten! (William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann, Christopher Eccleston, and David Tennant).
He’ll need to be good to live up to the lineage. Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker are often quoted as the classic doctors (and they’re certainly the ones I grew up watching) but I actually thing David Tennant is my favorite. He’s been an excellent doctor.
I need help. I need to find a good name under which to publish and/or sell my photography.
I registered the Goldfield Images domain name (it goes to SmugMug, here) but it’s pretty lame. It’s also too close to Goldfield Image Makers, and I don’t really want to be confused with their crooked camera-phone quality work.
So, dear reader, can you suggest a better name? I have no imagination at all.
Anyone in Victoria has no doubt heard about this:
Two Victorians charged after their baby daughter allegedly swallowed ecstasy are free on bail after a court appearance in north Queensland this morning.
- Baby ‘swallowed ecstasy’
- Cairns court bails parents
- Child emerges from comaThe couple, who cannot be identified under Queensland child protection laws, showed no emotion as they appeared in Cairns Magistrates Court charged with grievous bodily harm and possessing a dangerous drug.
The man, 24, had short, brown hair, a tattooed right wrist and wore jeans and a white buttoned shirt. The woman, 22, had dark, bobbed hair and wore three-quarter-length jeans, a loose green top and thongs.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
When I took this photo I got challenged for the first time ever.
I had parked across the road from the garage and shot from inside the car. The lady who owns the garage came over the road and said “Can I ask why you’re taking this photo?”. I said it was simply for personal use. Her reply was “Make sure it stays that way.” It wasn’t quite rude, but wasn’t far off it.
I was a little miffed, but didn’t want to cause a scene, so I politely indicated again that it was purely personal. She went on to explain that someone else had taken a shot of the garage from a different angle — one that didn’t show it was a garage at all — and used it in some of their own advertising material. She said there was a legal battle afterwards regarding ownership of the image.
I can’t quite understand her point of view. It’s a building that’s in plain public view. There isn’t even a footpath between the road and the garage; it’s on the shoulder of the road, and it’s a bit rich to claim no-one can capture images of a building that’s in such plain public view. It might have been polite of the other photographer to ask permission to use the image, because it is private property, but it’s a bit of a blurry line.
I certainly didn’t like the way I was presented with a negative situation just because I was taking a photo. I’d like to go back and get a better shot, but I’ll do it early one morning before anyone is there.
Who said what?