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