6 ms·

People are too sensitive. I'm a hetero male, and I don't find the image 'fun' at all... it's just an image. It doesn't send a message to anyone. If anything, I

People are too sensitive. I'm a hetero male, and I don't find the image 'fun' at all... it's just an image. It doesn't send a message to anyone. If anything, I don't really care for it for image algorithm tests because the palette is fairly flat. No matter how you feel about the image itself, though, there is value in continuing to use it... people are familiar with it, to the point of it becoming almost cliché. This takes the focus off of the image and subject and puts it squarely on the image algorithm.

minikites 12y ago
> I'm a hetero male ... it's just an image. That's the exact privilege you get to enjoy as a hetero male. You get to ignore things like this when your female colleagues (if you're lucky enough to work with any) have to look at the image and be reminded that many people continue to view them as objects.
- gambiter 12y ago
  Not sure if you're trolling, but I have a spare minute... - If I post a picture of a cute kitten, does it mean I look at a cat as an object? That I will only under-appreciate all animals because I liked a photo of one? - If I post a picture of my mother or father, am I objectifying them? - What if I take a picture of a street performer who's doing some awesome thing and post it... am I reducing them to simply an object of attraction? I just said it didn't affect me one way or another... that it is just an image. If someone thinks this image means I view a woman as an object, they are projecting THEIR OWN ISSUES onto me. That is the ONLY way that it could be offensive, in that they are choosing to be offended by something that 99% of the population think nothing about.
  - geofft 12y ago
    This isn't just about having a picture. I'm not sure how you got that impression. It's about the context where it comes from and the repeated use of the picture in a scientific context. If you have a picture of your parents on your desk, that's great and I respect your love for your family. If you keep using a crop of your mother from her Playboy centerfold in the '70s as a test case for your algorithms, and you encourage other scientists to use the same picture, I might be a bit weirded out.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >If you keep using a crop of your mother from her Playboy centerfold in the '70s as a test case for your algorithms, and you encourage other scientists to use the same picture, I might be a bit weirded out. And who wouldn't be! But that begs the question, is there a son or daughter of Lena Soderberg who is also a researcher or software engineer working in image compression algorithms? http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html
      - j2kun 12y ago
        It does not "beg" any questions. It is still a question of context. Sexualizing women has nothing to do with image processing research.
        fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        >It does not "beg" any questions. Yes it does. geofft wants to imply that it is somehow equivalent of using a nude of one's own mother, which is absurd. >Sexualizing women has nothing to do with ... Tell me why you think this one[1] is okay, as opposed to the Lena image; and what it has to do with whatever it is you do. [1] http://jeremykun.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/gala-dali.jpg?w=500&h=664 http://jeremykun.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/gala-dali.jpg?w...
        j2kun 12y ago
        Sure. This picture was painted by Dali, inspired by a Scientific American article about the minimum number of pixels needed to recognize an image. He was making an artistic statement that has a direct connection to Fourier analysis (and if you read the context article that image came from you might know this). This is a painting whose context is "fine art" (i.e. you can have tasteful nudity). That is a different context from pornography, whose purpose is sexual. You clearly do not understand how the context of an image matters in interpreting it.
        12y ago
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sp332 12y ago
The smallish downside of continuing with it may outweigh the very small upside. The image by itself might not be a big deal, but we're trying to disrupt the pattern of women being used only as objects, not perpetuate it.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  No, the upside of continuing to use it is to show the politically correct bullies that we aren't afraid, and you aren't going to get everything you want.
  - sp332 12y ago
    CS enrollment is down. I think it's because the industry is full of inconsiderate assholes.
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      There is nothing inconsiderate about using the cropped image "Lena". Nothing. It is not an offensive image. Only hypersensitive people who choose to be offended by everything find it offensive, and those people should be fought against, not placated.
      - sp332 12y ago
        Look, you're under no real obligation to stop being an inconsiderate asshole. I'm just pointing out that there are practical consequences. You don't have to be offended by the image. You don't even have to understand why people are offended, that's fine. But if you don't take other people's feelings into consideration, that's the inconsiderate part. Other people are going to have different opinions than you do. Telling other people they're not allowed to be offended is why you're an asshole.
        FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
        I'm just saying that anyone who IS offended by it is a whiny, oversensitive asshole who wants to force the world to accommodate them, and that is wrong. Standing up to them does not make me the asshole: babying them makes you the asshole. Edit: just take another look at the cropped picture "Lena". If your argument is that that is somehow offensive, you are wrong, plain and simple.

minikites 12y ago

> I'm a hetero male ... it's just an image. That's the exact privilege you get to enjoy as a hetero male. You get to ignore things like this when your female colleagues (if you're lucky enough to work with any) have to look at the image and be reminded that many people continue to view them as objects.

gambiter 12y ago
Not sure if you're trolling, but I have a spare minute... - If I post a picture of a cute kitten, does it mean I look at a cat as an object? That I will only under-appreciate all animals because I liked a photo of one? - If I post a picture of my mother or father, am I objectifying them? - What if I take a picture of a street performer who's doing some awesome thing and post it... am I reducing them to simply an object of attraction? I just said it didn't affect me one way or another... that it is just an image. If someone thinks this image means I view a woman as an object, they are projecting THEIR OWN ISSUES onto me. That is the ONLY way that it could be offensive, in that they are choosing to be offended by something that 99% of the population think nothing about.
- geofft 12y ago
  This isn't just about having a picture. I'm not sure how you got that impression. It's about the context where it comes from and the repeated use of the picture in a scientific context. If you have a picture of your parents on your desk, that's great and I respect your love for your family. If you keep using a crop of your mother from her Playboy centerfold in the '70s as a test case for your algorithms, and you encourage other scientists to use the same picture, I might be a bit weirded out.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >If you keep using a crop of your mother from her Playboy centerfold in the '70s as a test case for your algorithms, and you encourage other scientists to use the same picture, I might be a bit weirded out. And who wouldn't be! But that begs the question, is there a son or daughter of Lena Soderberg who is also a researcher or software engineer working in image compression algorithms? http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html
    - j2kun 12y ago
      It does not "beg" any questions. It is still a question of context. Sexualizing women has nothing to do with image processing research.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        >It does not "beg" any questions. Yes it does. geofft wants to imply that it is somehow equivalent of using a nude of one's own mother, which is absurd. >Sexualizing women has nothing to do with ... Tell me why you think this one[1] is okay, as opposed to the Lena image; and what it has to do with whatever it is you do. [1] http://jeremykun.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/gala-dali.jpg?w=500&h=664 http://jeremykun.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/gala-dali.jpg?w...
        j2kun 12y ago
        Sure. This picture was painted by Dali, inspired by a Scientific American article about the minimum number of pixels needed to recognize an image. He was making an artistic statement that has a direct connection to Fourier analysis (and if you read the context article that image came from you might know this). This is a painting whose context is "fine art" (i.e. you can have tasteful nudity). That is a different context from pornography, whose purpose is sexual. You clearly do not understand how the context of an image matters in interpreting it.
        12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sp332 12y ago

The smallish downside of continuing with it may outweigh the very small upside. The image by itself might not be a big deal, but we're trying to disrupt the pattern of women being used only as objects, not perpetuate it.

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
No, the upside of continuing to use it is to show the politically correct bullies that we aren't afraid, and you aren't going to get everything you want.
- sp332 12y ago
  CS enrollment is down. I think it's because the industry is full of inconsiderate assholes.
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    There is nothing inconsiderate about using the cropped image "Lena". Nothing. It is not an offensive image. Only hypersensitive people who choose to be offended by everything find it offensive, and those people should be fought against, not placated.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Look, you're under no real obligation to stop being an inconsiderate asshole. I'm just pointing out that there are practical consequences. You don't have to be offended by the image. You don't even have to understand why people are offended, that's fine. But if you don't take other people's feelings into consideration, that's the inconsiderate part. Other people are going to have different opinions than you do. Telling other people they're not allowed to be offended is why you're an asshole.
      - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
        I'm just saying that anyone who IS offended by it is a whiny, oversensitive asshole who wants to force the world to accommodate them, and that is wrong. Standing up to them does not make me the asshole: babying them makes you the asshole. Edit: just take another look at the cropped picture "Lena". If your argument is that that is somehow offensive, you are wrong, plain and simple.