pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cybernesco

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
1
GLStock / Re: GL News
« on: August 05, 2016, 23:40 »
GraphicLeftovers, I do own a better sounding domain name parked away if you're interested.  I think a good name needs a lot of money to market it, which I don't have. When I started my own site I had coined the name UsefulImage.com but decided to change it for my name denispepin.com thereafter for a more personal touch. 

2
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 15, 2016, 07:56 »
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.

And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.

Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."

Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?

It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.

The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... you get the point
Yes I do but you obviously do not.

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk

over 10,000 people get killed unecessarily every single year....you don't have a point
Ok. Read how many die in car accidents. And then twll me who doesnt have a point.

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk

Cars are a necessary evil, what I mean by "necessary evil" is banning it would caused more death than having it, (read my previous post.)

Guns are not a necessay evil as banning most of it from the civilian population would decrease the death toll not increasing it as demonstrated in other countries

3
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 15, 2016, 07:47 »
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.

And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.

Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."

Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?

It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.

The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... you get the point
Yes I do but you obviously do not.

Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk

over 10,000 people get killed unecessarily every single year....you don't have a point

4
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 15, 2016, 07:37 »
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.

And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.

Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."

Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?

It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.

The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... it is a necessary evil, guns are not


5
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 15, 2016, 04:59 »
We need to ban trucks.

In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.

At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
You would be surprised at how much money is in the business of making/selling/transporting guns, hence it is good for the economy from business side. That being said, I am not saying that I am for guns. Like I stated in my first post on the subject, the laws should be strict when one is getting a gun.

What is the the purpose of having a gun economy at the expense of killing 13,000 people a year? If guns mean getting "protected" than why the US, with more guns per capita than any other industrialized countries, are getting more people killed with guns than any other industrialized countries? What part of that math is so hard to understand?


6
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 14, 2016, 21:50 »
We need to ban trucks.

In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.

At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?

7
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 13, 2016, 00:41 »

I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.


Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.


As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.


It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead



As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!

What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.


Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons,  he had  a gun.

Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others.  Do you get it?

8
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 11, 2016, 18:59 »


You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.

It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road  all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.

You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.


No, you are wrong, firstly you're talking about one guy with an ak47 in the open as he exited a bldg which give a lot more room to maneuver as oppose to multiple guys with ak47 in an enclosed area where there are absolutely no room for a good strategic defense. Secondly, that MP was a trained police officer not a regular civilian. Military and polices are trained professional dedicating their life handling guns for the sole purpose of saving civilian lives and theirs not the other way around. In a world were everybody would have guns nobody would be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.

Lets say on that same base, before that MP showed up, a civilian guy pulled up his gun and started shooting at the guy with the ak47 but in the process accidentally killed a kid, than the MP shows up. How that MP is supposed to know that the regular guy with the gun is a good guy as well? Yes the MP could accidentally kill that kid too, but at least everybody would know he is the good guy.

This is the heart of the problem which you seem to willfully omit.

You see there is a reason for the police to wear a uniform and to carry a badge. It is to tell us that in a bad situation they are the good guys. At least most of them are


9
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 11, 2016, 04:13 »

Not just mass shootings but any incidents involving an armed assailant. There was a website that supposedly kept track of this but then it was exposed as almost entirely BS, with most of the cases actually putting more innocent people in danger of being hit by stray bullets while people took pot shots at shoplifters and the like. If there are any verifiable cases among the hundreds of incidents of gun violence per year it would be good to know. Guns are for highly trained professionals, members of the public shooting bullets about in public spaces makes no one safer.

It's becoming apparent that even the training given to cops in the US is insufficient for them to use guns safely. I am sure that one of the outcomes from the black lives matter movement will be much better training for members of the police force for when to use a gun, not just how to shoot straight. Apparently there's very little of it at the moment, a police firearms instructor was on the news yesterday saying that most forces don't have any at all and it is a huge oversight. They have to be put in high pressure high stress training exercises. It must be terrifying for a policeman not knowing if anyone they stop could be armed, even worse when they know the person is armed. As in the recent case with the guy getting shot reaching for his ID in the car. The driver terrified staring down the barrel of a gun frantically trying to tell the cop his gun is legal and reaching for his permit, the cop terrified pointing a gun with shaky hands hearing the guy say he as a gun. How easy is it for someone to get shot in that kind of situation?


Yes, and it is not too farfetched to think that this situation could have turned out far worse if the girlfriend had a gun too and in a state of panic, started to shoot back at the police officer to protect her boyfriend while her 4 year old daugther watch the carnage and see her mother get shot at too by other officers...

10
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 11, 2016, 02:41 »
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.

It is statistically proven that, per capita, there are more deaths caused by firearms in the US than any other industrialized countries.

It is statistically proven that, per capita, there are more firearms in the US than any other industrialized country.

Now like all statistics, it is to be treated as a general rule and not on a very unique highly publicized situations as the one you describe.

As an example, it is now widely accepted and statiscally proven that seat belt save lives. But what about if you drive into a river, get tangled up in your seat belt and can't get out of your car? What about if your car burst into flames and while in a state of panic can't undo your seat belt?

Statistics are not about those very unique situations but about the general thrend of the all population. Yes, in that unique situation in France someone with a gun may have had an edge for the same reason not having a seat belt while your car burst into flames might give you an edge as well.

Quite simply the odds of not getting shot at are just better when there are less guns around and those very unique situations, as you mentioned, are not significant enought to offset those odds.  To put those odds in perspective, in 2015, there were over 13,000 deaths caused by firearms in the US. 

Having the all population carrying guns would be very frightening as domestic violence would escalate into more deaths. Each knock on your door and each wrong look from a stranger would make you fear for your life. At what point people will start premptively shooting at each other just out of fear?  What do you think made that police shoot this guy? If a trained police officer can't control his fear, how do you think the general population would?


11
Douglas, I did get a response from photodek regarding the unusual high traffic from Romania (and now spreading from other European countries) as per following:

Hello Denis,

This is very hard to tell, but from what you describe it does sound like
automated traffic indeed. I don't see many pages being accessed though,
that would be a tell-tale sign. It might also be that a link to your
website was posted on a Romaninan forum.

The best way to make sure is to double-check with Google Analytics if
you use it. Automated bots usually don't use Javascript and therefore
don't trigger Google Analytics.

Kind regards,
J-F



As I mentioned  I use google analytics and therefore, like you said Javascript could maybe have been used to do the automation. I presumed if I had a link posted on a Romanian forum that it would have shown in Google Analytics, but so far the source is only from google or directly. The traffic is still getting larger every few days.  I'll probably break over 150 unique visitors today, which is a record for me, 77 so far at 11:21am. Denis


12
Douglas, thanks for your input. My site is powered by photodeck, hence the look of it is just a skin on top of their structure, for which, with all their expertise, would make such a scenario, such as PHP email injection, less likely but I guess, not totally impossible.

You are welcome to check if you wish.

Since my last post, a similar pattern has evolved into other european countries as well. Here below is a visitors path sample from Stacounter which is the same as Google Analytics but in a simpler format. At first, Romania visitors would google my name to access my site (like the Czech visitor did in the example below), thereafter, they would access it without the help of Google.  I did write to Photodeck support and waiting for their response.

Orange Romania (109.166.139.46) [Label IP Address]    (0 returning visits)
Romania     
www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:17:16
www.denispepin.com/m/in-action
www.denispepin.com/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
10 Oct
07:17:23
www.denispepin.com/m/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
www.denispepin.com/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
10 Oct
07:17:40
www.denispepin.com/m/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/e177fa58-151f-11e1-891b-390c1dc44e91-coyote-on-top-of-a-hill
www.denispepin.com/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
10 Oct
07:17:41
www.denispepin.com/m/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:17:43
www.denispepin.com/m/in-action
www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:18:09
www.denispepin.com/m/in-action
www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:18:12
www.denispepin.com/m/in-action
10 Oct
07:18:29
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025163149.htm (Exit Link)


Rcs & Rds Residential (79.117.130.187) [Label IP Address]    (0 returning visits)
Craiova, Dolj, Romania     
www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:35:19
www.denispepin.com/m/in-action
www.denispepin.com/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
10 Oct
07:35:27
www.denispepin.com/m/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day
www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:36:17
www.denispepin.com/m/in-action


O2 Czech Republic (90.183.0.53) [Label IP Address]    (0 returning visits)
Tabor, Jihocesky Kraj, Czech Republic     
www.google.cz denis pepin
10 Oct
07:40:30
 www.denispepin.com/in-action
 www.denispepin.com/in-action
10 Oct
07:41:11
www.denispepin.com/-/galleries/wild-animals/-/medias/67f2e8ae-1525-11e1-ae7a-f9bce8ca22b8-coyote-on-a-spring-day





13
It has been a while since my last post, however,  something weird happened to my site recently which might be of interest to the ones selling images from their own sites and at the same time I would welcome inputs from your theories.

I haven't added any photos on any sites including mine for over a year. Got busy in other stuff and sort of lost a bit the interest.  Despite this, still getting $400-500 a month from approx 1200 images.

Since 2011, from my site I never got more than $5-6 every two months and according to Google Analytics never more than 4-10 unique visitors a day, however, recently, in the last 7-8 days this has jumped to an average of 60-80 unique visitors a day.

After further examination through Google Analytics, most of that traffic is from most of all the towns in Romania and they all appear to be from legit IP addresses. They all follow similar patterns to get to my site. Most of them google my name "denis pepin" and than click on one of my photos of a coyote directing them to my site landing on a secondary page called "Images in Action". Then, they click again on that coyote to see it bigger. Thereafter they flip to the next 2-3 images in that gallery an then exit.

For the last few days, this has been going on hundreds of times from diffrent towns, different computers, tablets, phones, browsers ect.. but mostly from Romania? The only differences in the pattern is the number of images being flipped after seeing that first coyote.

Of course no sales.

Not all googles from all countries can see that coyote on the first page when my name "denis pepin" is googled, however, google from Romania "google.ro" and a few other European countries can see it.

The big question is, how someone would know me and why someone would google  "denis pepin" just to see a coyote. Why not just google "coyote"

Could it be fake traffic? Could it be that a small script took control of all those computers? But why someone else would do this without any benefit?

Maybe Leaf with all his experience or someone else could shed some light. I just love puzzles. Thanks


15
What I find interesting is it seems that the old saying about having your copyright "registered" with a government office to get statutory damages no longer apply which is great if that is the case. Anyone would like to comment on this...

16
Selling Stock Direct / Re: Your Stock Site: Link Exchange
« on: August 13, 2013, 14:22 »

Added a new page to my site:

Create Your Own Work Of Art, Hang It And Love It!

http://www.denispepin.com/-/galleries/create-your-own-work-of-art

Denis

17
Thanks for the laugh. I needed that, it is accounting all day.

The ones they chose would be funny to open over a cup of coffee!

thank you
Denis

18
Just kidding...we do need models.   I have 100 photos of my face out of 1360 images and usually I have various subject selling. However, this morning total surprise to see this...this is funny

Denis

19
Stocksy / Re: Stocksy - Are You Curious? Response?
« on: February 28, 2013, 15:12 »
My guess is they want niche and artsy stuff, not so much the girl holding a blank sign, the fruit basket and travel photos. Not that they don't want ordinary stuff, just that they probably have chosen them already and don't want a million variations of the same thing. This is just a wild guess. Denis

22
Off Topic / Re: Finally reach 1,000 Accepted Images on Shutter
« on: February 12, 2013, 10:44 »
Congrats Tom!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements