>> 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

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> 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".

I don't think that's a definitive counter-example; I think it's a good 
example that you get the verdict you can afford.

But I don't dispute your point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>>> 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".
> 
> I don't think that's a definitive counter-example; I think it's a good 
> example that you get the verdict you can afford.

Well, yes. Hell, I mean, the guy was *guilty* and he got off because people 
thought the cops *might* have been framing him.

It costs a lot more to get off when you're guilty than when you're innocent.

-- 
   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> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4acc4a83$1@news.povray.org...
> I assume they just did a google image search for "office" and took the 
> first one with a chair in view.

Actually Jaime's POV-Ray image is the *** first *** image returned by GIS 
for "office", which is impressive.

See also:
http://www.tarbija24.ee/121106/esileht/olulised_teemad/tarbija24/tervis/227835.php 
(note the caption)
http://www.gardianul.ro/2006/11/16/economie-c1/cele_mai_tari_firme_romanesti_valoreaza_75_miliarde_de_euro-s86940.html
http://www.pronis.com/solutions.asp
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123
http://www.indiamart.com/essarr/aboutus.html

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123

Wow. If he didn't get paid for *that* one, there's some definite bucks he 
could pick up. :-)  A book publisher should definitely know better.

-- 
   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:
> 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."

  As if eyewitness testimony would be more reliable than photographic one...

> >   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. :-)

  What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
it as a CGI effect.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

More:

http://tineye.com/search/cb78477880f746dfeff92fec8c62ffd5149506b2



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:18:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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".
>> 
>> I don't think that's a definitive counter-example; I think it's a good
>> example that you get the verdict you can afford.
> 
> Well, yes. Hell, I mean, the guy was *guilty* and he got off because
> people thought the cops *might* have been framing him.

Exactly my point.

> It costs a lot more to get off when you're guilty than when you're
> innocent.

True, and Simpson did have the best lawyers he could afford, and at the 
time, he was able to afford quite a lot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

I didn't say *proving it works* is easy. I said explaining *what it 
does* is easy.

> 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.

If one cop says you hit him, and everybody else follows the evidence, 
you should be OK. If the entire judicial system actively tries to frame 
you, there is no hope. The police can edit the video tape, alter the 
medical reports, hire witnesses... you can't beat that.

Still, as I understand it, in the American justice system, whoever has 
the biggest wallet wins, regardless of minor details like "evidence"...

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:12:21 +0200, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide> wrote:

>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 ;)

No, you're thinking about Jock Bach :)

Going from Andrew's reply he's talking about his surname. We kelts can pronounce
"ch" without it sounding like "ck", bach :-) (Welsh for "little" similar to
"pet" in English) 

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:12:52 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

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

LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:50:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:12:21 +0200, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide>
> wrote:
> 
>>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 ;)
> 
> No, you're thinking about Jock Bach :)

Now you're reminding me of a Peter Schickele joke.  He went to meet 
Robert Bach (this is part of one of his recordings), and upon meeting 
Robert, he handed him a small pebble.

You see, it apparently was always a goal of his to give Bert Bach a Rock.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Oct 2009 16:15:53 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:


>Now you're reminding me of a Peter Schickele joke.  He went to meet 
>Robert Bach (this is part of one of his recordings), and upon meeting 
>Robert, he handed him a small pebble.
>
>You see, it apparently was always a goal of his to give Bert Bach a Rock.
>

<groan>
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:20:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7 Oct 2009 16:15:53 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Now you're reminding me of a Peter Schickele joke.  He went to meet
>>Robert Bach (this is part of one of his recordings), and upon meeting
>>Robert, he handed him a small pebble.
>>
>>You see, it apparently was always a goal of his to give Bert Bach a
>>Rock.
>>
>>
> <groan>

That was my reaction as well. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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."
> 
>   As if eyewitness testimony would be more reliable than photographic one...

It's how our legal system works. The testimony isn't taken to be reliable. 
It's up to the jury to judge whether it's reliable. It's not uncommon for 
some medical problem to result in both sides bringing up doctors, one to say 
it was a terrible lack of care and attention, the other saying it was an 
inevitable result of the illness.  The jury figures out which doctor they 
believe more.

Note that in the case with the photo, it's not that eyewitness testimony is 
more reliable than the photo, but eyewitness testimony that the photo shows 
what was actually there.

Kind of like getting the guy who measured the amount of alcohol in your 
blood to show up and say "yes, I did that, the results match the person, 
etc" instead of just a piece of paper that says "this is how much alcohol 
was in his blood" that you can't question to find out if it's accurate.

>   What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
> even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
> it as a CGI effect.

That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 03:09, 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.

	I'd like details. In court, though, I assume they use prints. Now 
unless those high end digital cameras actually print the images live in 
the courtroom...

-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 10:27, Invisible wrote:
> 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?)

	Been there. Done that. Learned not to trust banks.

	


-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 12:02, Warp wrote:
>> It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
>> special effects, too. :-)
>
>    What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
> even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
> it as a CGI effect.

	At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from 
real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?

-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/07/09 10:27, Invisible wrote:
>> 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?)
> 
>     Been there. Done that. Learned not to trust banks.

What, giving someone a check intentionally not signed, or cashing a check 
that wasn't signed?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 18:34, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 10/07/09 10:27, Invisible wrote:
>>> 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?)
>>
>> Been there. Done that. Learned not to trust banks.
>
> What, giving someone a check intentionally not signed, or cashing a
> check that wasn't signed?

	Well: Half way. Giving checks signed in the wrong place. Always got cashed.

-- 
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any 
difference. - Steven Wright

Post a reply to this message

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

Back in 1988, when making Die Hard, John McTiernan actually blew out the 
windows on the first three floors of the Fox tower (despite having 
signed a release saying the building itself wouldn't be harmed :) ).

These days, they would blow the whole d*** building with CGI.

It's just not the same :(

...Chambers

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...

We've tried that.  You almost always respond with, "No, I'm not" :(

Try telling yourSELF that you're awesome every day for two weeks.  Maybe 
you'll listen to yourself more than you do to us.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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?)

The vast majority of all checks get cleared automatically, with no human 
intervention.  The software will read the routing and account 
information, the amount, and look to see if something is on the 
signature line which could conceivably be a signature.

As long as the check was wrinkled, it could have seen enough smudges to 
assume that there was a signature there.

In cases like that, the person would have to file a dispute with the 
bank, stating that they didn't write the check.  Since they *did* write 
the check, they wouldn't get their money back.

If, on the other hand, the check were fraudulent, then the bank would 
credit back the account holder, and deal with recovering the funds 
themselves.  And believe me, banks are *very* good at recovering money 
owed to them.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 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.

Wouldn't Rodney King be a better example?  I don't recall there being 
much evidence that the police tried to frame O J.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123
> 
> Wow. If he didn't get paid for *that* one, there's some definite bucks 
> he could pick up. :-)  A book publisher should definitely know better.

Ouch. That's just nasty...

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 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?)
> 
> The vast majority of all checks get cleared automatically, with no human 
> intervention.  The software will read the routing and account 
> information, the amount, and look to see if something is on the 
> signature line which could conceivably be a signature.

Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
cheques per week is much different.

> If, on the other hand, the check were fraudulent, then the bank would 
> credit back the account holder, and deal with recovering the funds 
> themselves.  And believe me, banks are *very* good at recovering money 
> owed to them.

Haha. Yeah, banks know how to extract funds. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4accc7d7$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123
>
> Wow. If he didn't get paid for *that* one, there's some definite bucks he 
> could pick up. :-)  A book publisher should definitely know better.

The publisher is a print-on-demand company, aka a vanity press (at least 
they seem to be relatively upfront about this). Authors pay 500$ to get 
published, do the editing and the design work themselves and sign a 
disclaimer saying that they're the sole owner of the copyright (a CYA for 
the publisher I suppose). Even if the author asked Jaime for permission, I 
doubt that there's any money to be made here.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:

> If one cop says you hit him, and everybody else follows the evidence, 
> you should be OK. If the entire judicial system actively tries to frame 
> you, there is no hope. The police can edit the video tape, alter the 
> medical reports, hire witnesses... you can't beat that.

What you describe would actually be the /executive/ trying to frame you.

And no, I don't think they have a /too/ easy time to fool the judicial 
branch of power.

Of course, if those two would team up against you, you'd be in /really/ 
deep trouble (which is why the two are separated in most democratic 
states in the first place... and the legislative power is in yet other 
hands, for that matter).

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> 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. ;-)

"Michael Zier" - that sounds German, so it's not a big surprise he can :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's 
>> name properly. ;-)
> 
> "Michael Zier" - that sounds German, so it's not a big surprise he can :-)

Indeed. It wasn't until recently that I realised that Bach was a crazy 
German guy.

Well, I mean... I figured out he was crazy when I was 12 or so. But it 
wasn't until this year I found out he was German. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.

  It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
just dismiss it as a computer model.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from 
> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?

  Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
making the film.

  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Wouldn't Rodney King be a better example?  I don't recall there being 
> much evidence that the police tried to frame O J.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit!

Yes, the whole point was the cops used racist language, didn't properly 
label the evidence, etc etc.

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

Post a reply to this message