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