|
|
Post by Dreamfire on Jun 25, 2007 19:19:08 GMT -5
I did a contract with a company that insisted we take our laptops home every night for security reasons. While this started out as a novelty, ( we were running mac when I had PC at home) it became a chore to unhook it and carry it and rehook it every day. I used to sneak it into the back of my filing cabinet at night.  So, for me it seems reasonable that he would be allowed to take his laptop home. Plus I expect, especially in the early days, he'd take longer to to "read' all the reports and things comming down the lines and from the other detectives, so he'd need to catch up after work. I always assumed the dept. paid for it as I believe the Americans with Disabilities legistature places the responsibility of making the workplace user friendly on the business or the department. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 25, 2007 20:38:21 GMT -5
it became a chore to unhook it and carry it and rehook it every day. Exactly!!! Plus I expect, especially in the early days, he'd take longer to to "read' all the reports and things comming down the lines and from the other detectives, so he'd need to catch up after work. Right. But still, a lot of the reports and other info he might need must be accessible online so he could acccess that from his home computer as well, not needing to take the office laptop home every night. If for instance he had a draft on his computer that wasn't online yet, all he had to do was to store it on an USB stick and bring that home with him, much less effort, still assuming of course, that he would probably have a computer at home regardless. - Chris  |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Jun 25, 2007 21:08:15 GMT -5
After a careful study of screencaps from the Pilot ;D, I can offer the following. When he goes to work on the first day, Jim is carrying the messenger bag:  Earlier, before he leaves home, we see him put his cane into the bag, and something that looks like a laptop is already in the bag. On his second day at work, there is a laptop on his desk, but no scanner:  It looks like the bag is on the desk at the right. (Note that the desk lamp is turned on – another one for the blooper reel!) But when he leaves work on the second day, he isn’t carrying the bag:  We know he gets a scanner, but it doesn’t turn up until the second episode:  . . . and he has one at home:  It’s unclear when and how he got the special software that enables him to read his own reports (as he describes it in the Pilot). In the Pilot, he says he’s got this software, but in a later episode (either “Four Feet Under” or “Rub a Tub Tub”) he tells Dr. Galloway that his software came in, and he can now read reports, and it’s 99% accurate. This may simply be a little continuity glitch. Now what was the original question? Oh, yes, I’m sure any special equipment and software he needed would have been part of his “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA. As far as I can recall, Jim is the only detective we see taking his computer home at the end of the day – but not every work day. This is probably just another of those little Blind Justice mysteries, like why Jim takes off his dark glasses sometimes, and why he leaves them on at others. |
|
|
|
Post by rducasey on Jun 25, 2007 21:34:23 GMT -5
And then of course there is the day (second episode) that he leaves home with the computer.  But sometime before he gets knocked down in the street, he has lost the computer. Did he leave it on the train?  |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Jun 25, 2007 22:11:50 GMT -5
In my experience, the employer usually provides all work-related equipment, so the NYPD would have provided the laptop and scanner and special software for Jim's use on the job. And -- as has already been pointed out -- it would have been part of the NYPD's obligation under the ADA to provide "reasonable accommodation." Possibly he took the NYPD supplied computer home for reasons of security, that is, maybe he had to have an NYPD computer to access the files or databases he might need for his work. They probably wouldn't want information about pending investigations on someone's home computer, accessible to the wife and kids. Of course, this still doesn't explain why we don't see the other detectives taking their laptops home -- although occasionally we do see one of them carrying a bag of some kind when leaving. Maybe they're less conscientious -- or, as previously suggested, faster workers -- than Jim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2007 6:07:11 GMT -5
And then of course there is the day (second episode) that he leaves home with the computer. But sometime before he gets knocked down in the street, he has lost the computer. Did he leave it on the train? HooRoo, Mary, and karma! Now, to that end, aside from the mysterious computer disappearance, I want to know what in Sam Hill is he doing allllllllll the way up on Broadway in the theatre district if the squad is near Canal Street, waaaaaaaaaaaay downtown Manhattan?  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 26, 2007 6:32:32 GMT -5
Now, to that end, aside from the mysterious computer disappearance, I want to know what in Sam Hill is he doing allllllllll the way up on Broadway in the theatre district if the squad is near Canal Street, waaaaaaaaaaaay downtown Manhattan? He got lost? Or likes the train rides??? Or maybe he just likes a nice loooong walk before work ;D - Chris |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2007 8:53:28 GMT -5
LOL Chris! Mary brought up a great point to me in an e-mail that I'll mention here. Broadway certainly runs downtown, but from the pictures I'm seeing, that's MIDTOWN, where he is. One shot has a flag off a building that says "27..." something and I've seen it before (live and in person) - and it looks like Central Park behind him; but for better clarity, I'll watch that segment tonight for sure. My first indication is that the streets downtown are much more narrow than indicated in the picture that Mary posted. Sure, it's picky, I know; but these are some of the bloopers I caught during the show and I'm thinking "hello?" Jump ahead to Doggone, when Jim and Christie meet Artie. LA's lot version of a New York city street is so off the mark, I laughed out loud then!  Just sayin'...... |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Jun 26, 2007 9:16:49 GMT -5
LA's lot version of a New York city street is so off the mark, I laughed out loud then! Just sayin'...... You...you mean the lot in LA that represents NYC in almost all the TV shows isn't perfectly accurate? I'm crushed! I've actually been on that lot. My psycho ex-roommate was working on a film for a class and she filmed on that lot in Studio City and asked me to be an extra and we ended up walking back and forth, putting on hats and jackets to look like different people each time. It was funny, watching them coordinate the cars and everything on the fake little street. They told us that was the same set as was used on Seinfeld and many many other TV shows and movies. I thought it was pretty funny but, since I had never been to NYC at that time, it looked okay to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2007 9:23:41 GMT -5
LA's lot version of a New York city street is so off the mark, I laughed out loud then! Just sayin'...... You...you mean the lot in LA that represents NYC in almost all the TV shows isn't perfectly accurate? I'm crushed! I've actually been on that lot. My psycho ex-roommate was working on a film for a class and she filmed on that lot in Studio City and asked me to be an extra and we ended up walking back and forth, putting on hats and jackets to look like different people each time. It was funny, watching them coordinate the cars and everything on the fake little street. They told us that was the same set as was used on Seinfeld and many many other TV shows and movies. I thought it was pretty funny but, since I had never been to NYC at that time, it looked okay to me. LOL - SCREAMING WITH LAUGHTER!!! You're too cute. First, what a GREAT experience!!!! HooRoo to you!!!!!! Secondly, umm.....yea......no, not so much. Sorry.  Not even close. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jun 27, 2007 17:54:50 GMT -5
After a careful study of screencaps from the Pilot ;D, I can offer the following. Karma for all your hard work! Maybe the writers should have spent just a little more time explaining some of what Jim had to go through to 'make it work'. Would it have killed them to have given us some more background? It would probably have interfered with the flow/pace of the show and their emphasis on the crime of the week but I, for one, would have welcomed more of the human interest element. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jun 28, 2007 21:53:28 GMT -5
Maybe the writers should have spent just a little more time explaining some of what Jim had to go through to 'make it work'. Would it have killed them to have given us some more background? It would probably have interfered with the flow/pace of the show and their emphasis on the crime of the week but I, for one, would have welcomed more of the human interest element. Uh . . . huh? I thought we were discussing the veracity of the location shoots here! Jim supposedly being in the 8th when he was really in Midtown, bits of LA passing for Manhattan, stuff like that. Do you mean that the show should have eliminated all the location and establishing shots -- which were obviously intended to impart a gritty New York atmosphere -- so they could have spent more time on the psychological aspects of the story? Now that would be worthy of a new thread . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jun 28, 2007 21:57:37 GMT -5
Hey, hoosier, on reflection that really is a great idea for a new thread. In the meantime, this thread is now IMPOSSIBLY long, so I'm copying some terrific posts here into a new thread called The Pilot Blooper Reel. mlm and rducasey have given us some great stuff to chew on! |
|
Not even close.
