Reuter’s Photography: Shooting the Drama of Preakness

Oh, the sounds of Preakness. Its that time of year again, the time when Baltimore gathers at Pimlico to listen to the birds chirping, horse hooves pounding, the crowds cheering and the booze guzzling. Good times and gambling are just a few of the things that go with this traditional Baltimore passtime, but what about the tech behind it? Where do all of those beautifully-composed front page photographs that make us say, “How the hell did they get that photo!?” come from?

Well, I stopped over at Wired just to find out how those photo wizards capture the magic of Baltimore’s favorite race. Turns out that all those great shots are actually done by remote, and it looks like there aren’t any humans laying on the ground in front of the horses, hoping to not get trampled. Reuters Photography lets us in on some industry secrets, here’s an excerpt from the post on Wired.com:

“Once again the Reuters pictures team (Jim Young, Molly Riley, Jonathan Ernst, Tim Shaffer and I ), were armed with spools of electrical wire, switches and cases of extra cameras and lenses as we arrived from Washington 10 hours ahead of the 6pm race to set up our ‘remotes’.

Remote cameras are triggered either by a cable or wireless transmitter, allowing a photographer to shoot multiple angles of an important moment like the finish of a horse race. They can provide an usually high or low angle to vary the type of pictures we like to provide to our clients. On news assignments remotes can also yield an alternative angle from a tight position or one that does not allow a camera to be hand held. The only limit to shooting remotes is the photographer’s imagination!!”(thanks, Reuters)

Regretfully, the tech that YOU can bring to Preakness is a little less impressive than that of the professional photographers. Race officials are only permitting fans to bring cellular phones, personal cameras (up to 35mm), small camcorders and binoculars. You can read all about it at the Preakness website.

Apple and Adobe just can’t play nice.

A grand-scale war of words erupted between two giant software and computing industries when Apple’s Steve Jobs announced that the ipad, iphone and other Apple products would no longer be supporting the video-playing, user-engaging web application, Adobe Flash.

Here’s the deal. Apple’s camp claims that Adobe’s Flash isn’t open enough to web programmers and web users (as it follows different standards than most open technologies on the web, forcing programmers to use Flash for complicated applications). This caused an outcry of negative reactions in Adobe, mainly because its platform has a bit of a monopoly on dynamic web content. Here’s both sides of the story:

Adobe says:
“We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,” the letter reads. “No company – no matter how big or how creative – should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.” (thanks, BBC News)

Apple says:
“Flash is not an open web standard like HTML. It is a proprietary Adobe product. Just ask the W3 consortium that controls web standards – they have chosen HTML5 as the open web standard to move forward with.” (thanks, BBC News)” “Mr Jobs justified the decision…by saying that experience had shown that the tools [Adobe Flash] resulted in ’sub-standard apps’. (thanks, BBC News)”

In my opinion, nobody is wrong, but I don’t think anyone is exactly right either. Jobs is correct when he states that HTML 5, the newest HTML programming language (trust me, you are more familiar with this than you think. Your web browser interprets HTML everytime you get on the internet), is more open and probably the best way for Apple products to go.

However, there is something to say about having freedom on the internet. I believe that if you own an Apple Iphone, for example, that you should be able to access any web content you choose, regardless of whether or not it pisses Steve Jobs off. Keep in mind however, that Adobe is trying to limit your internet freedom as well by claiming that their platform the best way to display dynamic web content.

MY VERDICT: Both of these guys want your money. It’s best to keep both of them at arm’s length. This entire argument is about financial gain. Don’t be fooled by words like “Internet Freedom” and “Open Source.” Both behemoths just want control over something that belongs to us, not them. The Internet must remain free for as long as it can, it allows for citizens to freely express their ideas and promotes progressive, sensible thinking in policy and in culture.

Click here for more information.

Dirty Deeds

The powers that be have caught an espionage agent acting on behalf of The People’s Republic of China.

It looks like, “Chi Tong Kuok, of Macau, told Defense Department and Customs investigators that he had been ‘acting at the direction of officials for the People’s Republic of China,’ according to a government affidavit in the case. Kuok indicated he and PRC officials sought the items to figure out ways to listen to or monitor U.S. government and military communications.”

Kuok was snatching our tech and sending it to China for dissection. Apparently we kept him on the leash for a few years, and probably fed him disinformation to send home. What lesson have we learned? Don’t spy on the United States.

That’s 1 for Amurika, 0 for the Peep’s Republic.

Click here to read the full story.

Also, some theives flooded victim’s cellphones with calls while looting their bank accounts. More about that here.

Just for Fun…

Check out this crazy multi-touch hi-def display here. Or, just watch the following video.

That’s all for now

It’s been fun, catch you next week when we’ll talk about the exciting technology that’s rocking our crazy little world.
Yours, Chad.

Chad Smith is a Graphic Artist and Web Designer at The Baltimore Guide. Note: He is actually not a robot as pictured.

YOU ARE NOW A CAVEMAN…CREEPY.

A Neanderthal. Kind of looks like your Uncle Carl mixed with Wilford Brimley, doesn't it?

Thanks to the Neanderthal genome project, you no longer have to worry (as long as you have European ancestors from around 30,000 years ago). That’s right, it seems like most Europeans share about 4% of their genome with Neanderthals, meaning that not only did old-school homo-sapiens mate with Neanderthals, both (i.e.: you) are probably the same species.

Here’s a quick summary to get you caught up:
“The discovery of interbreeding in the nuclear genome surprised the team members. Neandertals did coexist with modern humans in Europe from 30,000 to 45,000 years ago, and perhaps in the Middle East as early as 80,000 years ago.”

Want to learn more? Stop in at CNN.com to get the full story. (Creationists should instead relax and watch a few reruns of “I Love Lucy” and reminisce about the good-old-days when the earth was flat.)

SCIENTISTS TALK TOUGH TO CLIMATE CHANGE RIVALS

Scientists have had enough harrassments and threats from politicians and other agenda-pushing, head-in-the-sand businessmen and released a “We’re not gonna take it,” statement to prove it. No word yet on whether D. Snyder has any involvement.
Read more about it here.

IRON MAN 2 TECH

Frightening-ness.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, I think we’ve moved out of the “it seems like everyone is on facebook” days and into the “what, you mean you DON’T have a facebook?” days (by the way, I still think its hilarious that people call it “a” facebook).

Now most will argue that facebook is a wonderful thing. They’ll say things like, “People are becoming more connected, isn’t that wonderful?” And while I think people connecting with others is a wonderful thing, I’m not quite sure why it has to be done digitally instead of face-to-face. Doesn’t it seem that this kind of behavior may have some kind of adverse effects we haven’t foreseen. I mean, people ARE supposed to have emotionally engaging, real-life relationships with each other, right?

But don’t get me wrong. Back in 2004, I thought facebook was an absolute blast. I was in college and had a large social life to keep up with. Facebook was just another way to let all of your acquaintances know where to go for a party or organize an event. So why wouldn’t this social network be a gift from the gods? After all, look how much MORE interaction you can have with MORE people without even leaving your home!

Well, see, there’s the catch. With social networking sites, we’ve definitely increased the BREADTH of our relationships while at the cost of the DEPTH of those relationships. (Read this story I found about Anna, a facebook addict, for a little more perpective.)

After 6 years with facebook, I’m no longer sure its such a wonderful thing to be basing your incredibly important emotional life on a “social application,” made up of only pixels, advertisements, and only the things that your “friends” (or acquaintances that you normally wouldn’t keep in your life) want you to see. I’ll repeat that again. Your friends are only posting things that they WANT you to see.

Which leads to my next question: What if facebook is becoming a new form of social advertising?

What if all of this is just a new way to display your social wealth, a digital form of peacocking? Why does your friend posts photos of herself with myriads of friends at fun places, but her pose is always the same in each picture? Why does your buddy brag about his new vehicle and post photos of it from every angle possible? Why do I need to know what strangers are having for dinner, or where they are going this weekend, or if they had a flat tire, or if they failed a test, or if they don’t like rainy days? The list goes on. (Author’s note: Check out this fun website, which features an extensive listing of embarrassing and unnecessary status updates)

Now, I’m not saying that facebook is completely useless, and I’m not saying that social networking sites aren’t sometimes an incredible tool. I’m a web designer, and I’m fully aware of what all social networking sites have to offer. Trust me, I still go on facebook a few times a week, and I still like talking to a few of my friends on it. I’d love to be totally anti-facebook, but I also believe that some good comes from being on facebook. But, when we let it change who we are by changing how we interact with others, its more likely that we will be left unsatisfied with our social life. There is no replacement for real human relationships.

In conclusion, facebook itself isn’t the enemy. But maybe we shouldn’t be regarding it as something important enough to check everyday, or in some cases, update while driving. I think it’s more important to focus our time on developing ourselves and loved ones, rather than gossiping, judging, and comparing their lives to strangers who we shouldn’t really care about.

(Should you quit facebook? Check out The Top 10 Reasons to Quit Facebook.)