|
|
1
I use an iPhone and iPad and don’t have a laptop. I’ve got loads of photos and I’d like to try and organise them a little.
I have to admit I’m a bit ignorant in my understanding of how the photo storage works. I’ve not tried to organise anything for about 15 years, back in the days of laptop & crappy digital camera. So please bear with me…
On a laptop, all of my photos would get either put directly into an album/folder once taken off the camera. Or if they were just in “My photos” I could move them into the relevant album/folder.
On my iPhone/iPad, everything is currently in “All photos”. I know I can make albums, and I have a few, but the photos still stay in “All photos”. This means that making an album is a pain as you are never reducing the number of photos that you have to go through and select from.
Am I missing anything obvious, or is that just how it works?
Is there a good way to organise photos without getting a laptop/mac, transferring all of the photos onto the hard drive, and then doing it similar to how I would have done 15 years ago?
2
« Last post by Fiend on Today at 09:58:34 am »
 That's a dank Saturday sorted then.
3
« Last post by duncan on Today at 09:40:57 am »
Have attempted a belated thread split since, bafflingly, shark seems more focused on trivial things like the future of the BMC and a trip to Mingulay. Apologies to anyone whose bon mots were accidentally left in the car park as we drove off.
4
What really didn't make sense was when bouldery bolted sport routes in the UK got E grades that bizarrely just followed a physical difficulty logic -simultaneously with us having unbolted routes that didn't. So you got an E6 tick for Entrée  -But no one gives sport routes E grades anymore.
I get your point about bouldery grades, but the compression of technical grades did not help. IIRC didn't Ron give Strawberries E5 7a in 1980? And Ben gave Statement E7 6b in 1984? I spoke to Jerry the day he did the 2nd ascent of Statement and he confirmed E7. Rain Dogs was also uncontentious at E7 in 86- so the debate over E vs technical grade was there from the start and the E-for-effort approach was adopted initially. It’s the popularity of Buoux that changed everyone’s perspective on that I suspect.
5
« Last post by Duma on Today at 09:05:10 am »
It would be really sad if members left or reduced their contribution, because of this result. I would encourage some careful thought on the matter, given the good work that has continued through the difficult times in the last few years, especially in Access & Conservation. The importance of the BMC is the core staff and volunteer cohorts, not the governance structure.
It is sad. It is also easily avoided, but you (ie the BMC) have chosen to patronise, obstruct, and stifle members voices at every turn.
6
« Last post by Dac on Today at 08:36:41 am »
I too am very disappointed with the BMC’s responses and communications throughout this whole process. For what I had thought to be an organisation that represented the interests of its members it appears intent on maintaining a very condescending ‘we know best’ attitude.
2 things continue to confuse me:
If the BMC response to 1st proposal is in essence “well we’ll be doing this anyway”, then why has so much time and effort been put into opposing it? (I am aware the response will be “ we’ve done everything to support, ect, ect” but that is not how it appears.) The BMC could have gone, yup 25 names easily, we’ll talk about that one, rather than complaining about how much staff time has been needed to check names on a petition.
Secondly, reading the response:
“The decision of the Council is final in this regard and the proposed resolution, or materially similar resolutions, may not be raised again under Article 11.8.2 until at least 12 months have elapsed since the date of the submission of the first resolution to the Council under this Article 11.8.2.” The date of submission is recorded as 26 April 2024; i.e. the date you sent the email requesting Council review.”
The date of submission is 26 of April? This has been rumbling along for far far longer than that. Why do I suspect the date of 26 April has been chosen as the latest date that could be justified, meaning that insufficient time would exist to raise similar resolutions between 26 April 2025 and the 2025 AGM. Which may well be imperative if in the next 12 months comp climbing continues to spend money like a drunken sailor, and a clear explanation of GBC and wider BMC finances turns out to be a couple of vague pie charts.
Frankly that date of 26 April feels like bullshit, and naked attempt the stifle any debate for the next two years.
7
« Last post by stone on Today at 08:09:32 am »
Exactly although with regards liz truss’s economic policy I might be a little more like fultonius….. incredulous at the idea anyone could truly believe that it might be a good idea…
People with income north of £300k probably thought abolishing the 45p rate was a great idea.
I'd entertain the possibility that Truss herself genuinely believes that throwing money at the richest people is the best way to help society. I think she is a believer in this sort of stuff: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/redistributing.htmlPS I think it is moronic garbage myself
8
« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Today at 07:58:29 am »
Sorry Offwidth, that’s rather patronising.
I have yet to see anything other in any BMC response.
Clearly, the BMC no longer values the views of the membership.
Change is hardly a new thing, nor is it untrusted.
The bar set at such a high number of members requesting/responding, whilst refusing to accept a petition on Change, seems clearly designed to make it as hard as possible for members to act.
Do you expect them to pick up pen and paper and write in?
It seems Simon suggested plenty of quite straight forward ways to further verify signatures and yet…
Sham.
And shame.
9
« Last post by shark on Today at 07:26:28 am »
If Council had to support every motion like this there would literally be no point in such a Council decision and as such the 0.5% rule we have to follow would be equally meaningless.
Not everything was done to try and validate. I requested that the validation criteria was relaxed in recognition of Change worked such that if a name was unique on the BMC database then if it matched a signatory with a postcode within 5 or 10 miles of the BMC recorded address. I’m fairly sure this didn’t happen. I also requested that if the thresholds weren’t met that a last ditch email was sent out by the BMC Office to the non matched names to ask if they had signed the resolution. This definitely didn’t happen. Given the numbers submitted (512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary) a common sense view is that there were at least 382 members in there. MC as a members representative body should have supported inclusion on the AGM agenda on that basis and are out of touch IMO
10
« Last post by andy moles on Today at 07:18:49 am »
The best two types of climbing right?
I'm pretty conventional myself, I quite like multiple pitches of immaculate flowing climbing up compelling features on impeccable rock (I know,  right?), but each to their own.
|
|
Recent Posts