NANOG-futures

[Fergie]

I don't really don't see how you could _really_ stop it even if you
wanted to anyways -- I mean, with the advent of cellphone cameras,
etc.  ;-)

$.02,

- ferg



-- "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@tier1research.com> wrote:


Randy said...
> 
> fwiw, i do not particularly like this result.  but at least i
> no longer have to pay much attention to people telling me
> whether or not it is appropriate for me or the sc to research
> or discuss it (yes, this was tried.  talk about censorship!).
> 
> consider not responding with your opinion of what the situation
> *should* be unless either you are a lawyer, you have consulted
> one and are passing along their opinion, you have some new and
> absolutely brilliant idea, or you are one of our community
> trolls and just need to get it out (i won't be reading your
> email anyway).  this is a messy and easily muddied issue.

As one of the community trolls, I'd like to point out that lots of
conferences ban flash photography because it tends to disrupt the
proceedings (by blinding the speakers). This is such a common (and
reasonable) restriction that the press tends to accept it, if they are so
informed. Brand them with a special ribbon on their nametags to warn people
about them, tell them they must pay full registration like the little
people
(us), and inform them of the no flash photography policy. 

Since we do our talks in a darkened room, that effectively prevents most
photography, I think (photography experts, please say if I'm wrong). 

- Dan