http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html


...and now I'm kinda worried about my chair at home. That gas cylinder 
has been acting weirdly for a while now.

I wonder if you can buy replacements?

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html

  Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the internet?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the internet?

I think they just assume that if they find them on Google image search they 
are free to use on their own website.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html
> 
>   Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the internet?

Oh, *is* that an actual pov-ray image? I thought it was just "gee, this 
looks like something people have been doing with pov lately."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the internet?

> I think they just assume that if they find them on Google image search they 
> are free to use on their own website.

  Even though google image search warns about possible copyright?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/5/2009 11:11 AM, Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html
>
>    Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the internet?
>

I'm sure Jamie could answer that for us ...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4aca2515$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html
>>
>>   Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the 
>> internet?
>
> Oh, *is* that an actual pov-ray image? I thought it was just "gee, this 
> looks like something people have been doing with pov lately."
>
It looks quite like !
http://www.povray.org/community/hof/office-13.php

Marc

Post a reply to this message

>>>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html
>>>   Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the 
>>> internet?
>>
> It looks quite like !
> http://www.povray.org/community/hof/office-13.php

...the HELL?!

How in the name of God did you recognise that some arbitrary office 
scene was actually a tiny segment from part of an existing image?! O_O

You're one scary dude.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ...the HELL?!

> How in the name of God did you recognise that some arbitrary office 
> scene was actually a tiny segment from part of an existing image?! O_O

> You're one scary dude.

  Maybe because he has seen the hall of fame images some time in the past?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-10-2009 23:00, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17561_6-things-that-shouldnt-explode-but-did-anyway.html

>>>>>
>>>>   Do these people ask for permission for images they use from the 
>>>> internet?
>>>
>> It looks quite like !
>> http://www.povray.org/community/hof/office-13.php
> 
> ...the HELL?!
> 
> How in the name of God did you recognise that some arbitrary office 
> scene was actually a tiny segment from part of an existing image?! O_O
> 
> You're one scary dude.
> 
I think Mike is more impressive. He saw it and recognized it without 
knowing there was something wrong with it.

Post a reply to this message

m_a_r_c wrote:
> It looks quite like !
> http://www.povray.org/community/hof/office-13.php

Oh! I was looking at the lake at the bottom. I didn't even catch that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/05/09 16:00, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> It looks quite like !
>> http://www.povray.org/community/hof/office-13.php
>
> ...the HELL?!
>
> How in the name of God did you recognise that some arbitrary office
> scene was actually a tiny segment from part of an existing image?! O_O
>
> You're one scary dude.

	It's one of the most famous POV-Ray rendered images out there.

-- 
The missing link between ape and civilized man has been found. It is us.

Post a reply to this message

>> How in the name of God did you recognise that some arbitrary office
>> scene was actually a tiny segment from part of an existing image?! O_O
>>
>> You're one scary dude.
> 
>     It's one of the most famous POV-Ray rendered images out there.

...of an ordinary-looking office. It's remarkable in that it's 
completely unremarkable. It looks like an ordinary office. (Rather than, 
say, a computer-generated image.) There must be a million offices that 
look extremely similar to it. To recognise this amoung all similar 
possibilities is pretty impressive, IMHO.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4acafa50@news.povray.org...
> ...of an ordinary-looking office. It's remarkable in that it's completely 
> unremarkable. It looks like an ordinary office. (Rather than, say, a 
> computer-generated image.) There must be a million offices that look 
> extremely similar to it. To recognise this amoung all similar 
> possibilities is pretty impressive, IMHO.

As  Warp, andrel and Mueen said, it is a famous render and Mike gave a kind 
of a hint in his initial post :-)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

>> ...of an ordinary-looking office. It's remarkable in that it's completely 
>> unremarkable. It looks like an ordinary office. (Rather than, say, a 
>> computer-generated image.) There must be a million offices that look 
>> extremely similar to it. To recognise this amoung all similar 
>> possibilities is pretty impressive, IMHO.
> 
> As  Warp, andrel and Mueen said, it is a famous render and Mike gave a kind 
> of a hint in his initial post :-)

Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I 
could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary 
office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office 
they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.

I mean, hell, if I posted an image of cs_office, the only reason anybody 
would know it's cs_office is the low polygon count...

Post a reply to this message

>> I think they just assume that if they find them on Google image search 
>> they
>> are free to use on their own website.
>
>  Even though google image search warns about possible copyright?

I doubt many people read all the text, I certainly never noticed before it 
said that (usually just because I click the "show full image" straight 
away).  And even if they did read it, I'm sure it wouldn't stop most people 
who are just looking for a nice image to put on their website.

Post a reply to this message

>> As  Warp, andrel and Mueen said, it is a famous render and Mike gave a 
>> kind of a hint in his initial post :-)
>
> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I 
> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary 
> office

I think it's quite distinctive actually, I certainly recognised it as soon 
as I saw the link in the OP.  Wasn't there another thread on here a short 
while ago which also showed someone using this image?

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4acb121c@news.povray.org...

> I think it's quite distinctive actually, I certainly recognised it as soon 
> as I saw the link in the OP.  Wasn't there another thread on here a short 
> while ago which also showed someone using this image?
>
Well it is an extraordinarily ordinary office, so it is a good choice when 
you are needing one... (if you don't mind the copyright break of course... ) 
:-)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> most people who are just looking for a nice image to put on their website.

And you know, of all the images to steal, the image of *office furniture* 
was one of them? Where do these writers work, Hawaii bungaloos?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/6/2009 3:23 AM, Invisible wrote:

>> As Warp, andrel and Mueen said, it is a famous render and Mike gave a
>> kind of a hint in his initial post :-)
>
> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I
> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary
> office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office
> they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.

There were some tells in the image that I recognized right off. 
Particularly, the plant on the desk.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I
>> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary
>> office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office
>> they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.
> 
> There were some tells in the image that I recognized right off. 
> Particularly, the plant on the desk.

See, now I hadn't even *noticed* the image contained a plant until 
now... I noticed the water and the desks and stuff, but not the plant.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

http://www.taranfx.com/blog/photosketch-draw-sketch-get-real-images-awesome

Expect to see even more image scraping. This is quite awesome, actually.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.taranfx.com/blog/photosketch-draw-sketch-get-real-images-awesome

> Expect to see even more image scraping. This is quite awesome, actually.

  Is it just me, or is the significance of photography diminishing over
time, faster and faster as technology develops? In the future photographs
will have no value at all. Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.

  Already today people will cry "fake!" to every photo which has something
even slightly unusual. I can only see this going worse and worse. Soon
nobody will take any photo seriously whatsoever. "Here I am at the beach."
"Yeah sure. How many mouse clicks did it require?" "Here's a photo of a
squirrel on my backyard." "Sure, and yo mama too." Soon all photographs
will be fake by default. Fakery will be so ubiquitous that nobody will
even bother to think "hmm, could this actually be a real photo?"

  What's the value of photography if you can get *whatever you want* with
just a couple of mouse clicks?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/09 03:23, Invisible wrote:
> Well, if it was a render of an office with orange walls or something, I
> could understand. But how somebody could recognise a completely ordinary
> office as just happening to be like another completely ordinary office
> they've seen somewhere else before... that's pretty incredible.

	The angle, dude, the angle.

	The bands of light don't hurt, though.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.

Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

>   What's the value of photography if you can get *whatever you want* with
> just a couple of mouse clicks?

It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the 
special effects, too. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>> most people who are just looking for a nice image to put on their 
>> website.
>
> And you know, of all the images to steal, the image of *office furniture* 
> was one of them? Where do these writers work, Hawaii bungaloos?

I assume they just did a google image search for "office" and took the first 
one with a chair in view.

Post a reply to this message

> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
> being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

Hi-end digital cameras have security features to prove the image has not 
been tampered with since the camera wrote the file.  I have no idea how it 
works but it would seem something like this might propagate down to cheaper 
cameras if there is a demand for proving the image is original.

Post a reply to this message

>> Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.
> 
> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the 
> photographer being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

At least, until we invent the technology to alter human memories.

Damn, that's gonna be SO COOL! I can change my memory and wake up 
thinking I'm actually a cool guy that people like...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Hi-end digital cameras have security features to prove the image has not 
> been tampered with since the camera wrote the file.  I have no idea how 
> it works but it would seem something like this might propagate down to 
> cheaper cameras if there is a demand for proving the image is original.

You could have the camera write a digital signature and make it really 
awkward to get at the encryption key [which must, necessarily, be 
present inside the camera somewhere]. But when, if you have an image in 
RAW format, I would imagine it's fairly easy to fake anyway.

Most people don't just happen to have a Nikon DSLR in their pocket when 
they witness a robbery. They shoot people with camera phones and stuff.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Damn, that's gonna be SO COOL! I can change my memory and wake up 
> thinking I'm actually a cool guy that people like...

I like you, and coolness is overrated.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:14:20 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> At least, until we invent the technology to alter human memories.

That "technology" already exists.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/implanting-false-memories-lost-in-mall.php
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0613011.htm



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>> At least, until we invent the technology to alter human memories.
> 
> That "technology" already exists.
> 
> http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/implanting-false-memories-lost-in-mall.php
> http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0613011.htm

Heh. Well in that case, I guess all we need to do is get everybody in 
this newsgroup to tell me how awsome I am, constantly, and maybe in a 
few weeks' time I'll wake up honestly believing that I'm actually a 
worth-while human being...

[Theoretically, at least.]

Post a reply to this message

Michael Zier wrote:

> I like you, and coolness is overrated.

Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's name 
properly. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:48:14 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Michael Zier wrote:
>
>> I like you, and coolness is overrated.
>
>Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's name 
>properly. ;-)

Oh! no he is not. :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Heh. Well in that case, I guess all we need to do is get everybody in
> this newsgroup to tell me how awsome I am, constantly, and maybe in a
> few weeks' time I'll wake up honestly believing that I'm actually a
> worth-while human being...
> 
> [Theoretically, at least.]

I think we've been doing that for a couple of years now.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. Well in that case, I guess all we need to do is get everybody in
>> this newsgroup to tell me how awsome I am, constantly, and maybe in a
>> few weeks' time I'll wake up honestly believing that I'm actually a
>> worth-while human being...
>>
>> [Theoretically, at least.]
> 
> I think we've been doing that for a couple of years now.

Really? Because all I seem to hear is "learn how to use Google", "that's 
not how you spell that", "Haskell is for math nerds", "shouldn't you be 
working?"...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2009 6:47 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Heh. Well in that case, I guess all we need to do is get everybody in
> this newsgroup to tell me how awsome I am, constantly, and maybe in a
> few weeks' time I'll wake up honestly believing that I'm actually a
> worth-while human being...

You're world famous, Andrew. World Famous.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:48:14 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>> Michael Zier wrote:
>>
>>> I like you, and coolness is overrated.
>> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's name 
>> properly. ;-)
> 
> Oh! no he is not. :P
Ach, he was Scottish after all ;)

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. Well in that case, I guess all we need to do is get everybody in
>> this newsgroup to tell me how awsome I am, constantly, and maybe in a
>> few weeks' time I'll wake up honestly believing that I'm actually a
>> worth-while human being...
> 
> You're world famous, Andrew. World Famous.

I think you're confusing "famous" and "infamous". :-P

Post a reply to this message

>>> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's 
>>> name properly. ;-)
>>
>> Oh! no he is not. :P
> Ach, he was Scottish after all ;)

Heh. You should have seen it. "Bach? Bach? Who is Bach? Oh, you mean 
BAAHHHHCHPT!" *wipe*




Hmm, yeah, I guess you had to be there...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I assume they just did a google image search for "office" and took the 
> first one with a chair in view.

Right. As opposed to picking up your camera and turning around and pushing 
the shutter button?  I mean, how lazy do you have to be to steal a picture 
of an office when you're sitting in an office?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> You could have the camera write a digital signature and make it really 
> awkward to get at the encryption key [which must, necessarily, be 
> present inside the camera somewhere]. But when, if you have an image in 
> RAW format, I would imagine it's fairly easy to fake anyway.

And then what? Everybody at Canon can forge image signatures? Better (at 
least legally speaking) to have the photographer say "Yes, I took that." 
Then it becomes just another detail, rather than an actual piece of 
evidence. I.e., it becomes a quick way of saying "this is what the 
photgrapher saw" instead of having him sit and describe it.

It's like your signature on a contract. Very rarely does someone try to 
claim that their signature isn't really what's on the contract. That's why 
the credit card companies don't care if you sign your name with a picture of 
  mickey mouse or something. The actual signature doesn't matter, only that 
you wrote on the line that says "by writing on this line you agree to pay."

> Most people don't just happen to have a Nikon DSLR in their pocket when 
> they witness a robbery. They shoot people with camera phones and stuff.

Well, it's also police photographing evidence. It's not like you can leave 
the bullet casings on the floor until it's time for the trial.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Really? Because all I seem to hear is "learn how to use Google", "that's
> not how you spell that", "Haskell is for math nerds", "shouldn't you be
> working?"...

You seem to read just different lines than me.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

>> You could have the camera write a digital signature and make it really 
>> awkward to get at the encryption key [which must, necessarily, be 
>> present inside the camera somewhere]. But when, if you have an image 
>> in RAW format, I would imagine it's fairly easy to fake anyway.
> 
> And then what? Everybody at Canon can forge image signatures?

Yeah, but that's have no motive.

A much bigger problem is that it only takes one single person to 
successfully extract the key from a single camera and put that on the 
Internet, and all signatures become worthless.

Alternatively, perhaps if every camera had a unique key... (Then you'd 
be able to prove which camera took the shot too.)

> It's like your signature on a contract. Very rarely does someone try to 
> claim that their signature isn't really what's on the contract. That's 
> why the credit card companies don't care if you sign your name with a 
> picture of  mickey mouse or something. The actual signature doesn't 
> matter, only that you wrote on the line that says "by writing on this 
> line you agree to pay."

Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to 
actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)

>> Most people don't just happen to have a Nikon DSLR in their pocket 
>> when they witness a robbery. They shoot people with camera phones and 
>> stuff.
> 
> Well, it's also police photographing evidence. It's not like you can 
> leave the bullet casings on the floor until it's time for the trial.

Well, that's another matter entirely, yes. I think you have to take 
police evidence as valid, because if the police themselves are trying to 
frame somebody, there's not a lot you can do in a courtroom...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Alternatively, perhaps if every camera had a unique key... (Then you'd 
> be able to prove which camera took the shot too.)

And then you'd have to explain to a jury how that works.

> Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to 
> actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)

Probably because they trusted the guy cashing the check, or he'd been a 
long-term customer, so if it came back, they knew they could get the money 
back.

> Well, that's another matter entirely, yes. I think you have to take 
> police evidence as valid, because if the police themselves are trying to 
> frame somebody, there's not a lot you can do in a courtroom...

O J Simpson.

There's all kinds of things you can do about it, yeah. Certainly you have 
less recourse than someone who *isn't* the police, simply because people 
trust the police more.  But we've been getting all kinds of situations hwere 
where people with survalence videos or cell phone cameras keep the cops from 
getting away with crap and framing people.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>> Alternatively, perhaps if every camera had a unique key... (Then you'd 
>> be able to prove which camera took the shot too.)
> 
> And then you'd have to explain to a jury how that works.

Which, fortunately, isn't that complicated.

>> Well, that's another matter entirely, yes. I think you have to take 
>> police evidence as valid, because if the police themselves are trying 
>> to frame somebody, there's not a lot you can do in a courtroom...
> 
> O J Simpson.
> 
> There's all kinds of things you can do about it, yeah. Certainly you 
> have less recourse than someone who *isn't* the police, simply because 
> people trust the police more.  But we've been getting all kinds of 
> situations hwere where people with survalence videos or cell phone 
> cameras keep the cops from getting away with crap and framing people.

Trouble is, since the police control all evidence and control everything 
that does or does not enter the courtroom, it seems an obvious 
consequence that if the police try to frame you, it is provably 
impossible to do anything about it.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Which, fortunately, isn't that complicated.

You call yourself stupid, and you think proving that digital signatures work 
isn't that complicated?

> Trouble is, since the police control all evidence and control everything 
> that does or does not enter the courtroom, 

Not quite.

> it seems an obvious 
> consequence that if the police try to frame you, it is provably 
> impossible to do anything about it.

O J Simpson.  One counter-example disproves "provably impossible".

And no, the police (in the US at least) don't control all the evidence or 
what shows up in the courtroom. If the cop says (real example) that you 
attacked him in the elevator, and the video tape from the elevator camera 
shows the cop punching you first, chances are you'll get off.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

> Right. As opposed to picking up your camera and turning around and pushing 
> the shutter button?  I mean, how lazy do you have to be to steal a picture 
> of an office when you're sitting in an office?

I think the fact is the people involved do not realise it is stealing. 
Anyway, grabbing one off Google is an order of magnitude faster than doing 
it yourself, plus you get to choose the best one rather than being stuck 
with your office and your poor photography skills :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I think the fact is the people involved do not realise it is stealing. 

Of course. I was being sarcastic. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message