POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells? Server Time
29 Sep 2024 05:15:28 EDT (-0400)
  Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells? (Message 61 to 70 of 182)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 16:15:53
Message: <4accf6f9$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 16:20:53
Message: <70upc5l8fhp5mnvik5s98jef0fvkgj9qb2@4ax.com>
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

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 16:21:25
Message: <4accf845$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 17:45:33
Message: <4acd0bfd$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 18:47:00
Message: <4acd1a64$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 18:48:03
Message: <4acd1aa3$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 18:50:43
Message: <4acd1b43$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 19:34:22
Message: <4acd257e$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 22:04:15
Message: <4acd489f$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 7 Oct 2009 23:27:02
Message: <4acd5c06$1@news.povray.org>
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

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.