> Unless you want to deny a woman the right to permit
Not doing something you are permitted to do is somehow denying their right to permit? It's nice of her permitting the use, however her permission doesn't force us to use it. By the same logic, it would be perfectly okay use goatse image if the guy permitted it, right?
By the same logic, it would be perfectly okay use goatse image if the guy permitted it, right?
If the ability to represent the goatse image were a critical part of the evaluation process for a compression algorithm, then yes. However, we evolved to recognize and respond to subtle features in human faces, not human colons. So, no, goatse would not be an appropriate reference image.
If her face is the only face that is critical to the image compression analysis, yes, you are completely right.
I have a hard time understanding the knee jerk reaction to the change and the willingness to maintain the status quo. We have nothing to lose if the image is swapped with one that is less ostracizing --which is something Mozilla did in the past. Why defend it?
Technically, the Lenna scan is indeed a bad reference image for numerous reasons, such as being blurry, heavily quantized, and composed of various shades of magenta and purple. Its value is more or less entirely nostalgic.
So it wouldn't be worth defending at all, if it weren't being attacked on grounds I strongly disagree with, by people who I believe shouldn't gain any more influence over our culture than they already have.
> So it wouldn't be worth defending at all, if it weren't being attacked on grounds I strongly disagree with, by people who I believe shouldn't gain any more influence over our culture than they already have.
I'm having trouble understanding what this means, concretely. Do you think it would be a bad thing if computer science became less of a boys club? Or do you not believe that is why people dislike the picture? Who is it exactly that has too much power over "our" culture -- women? Politically correct killjoys?
> So it wouldn't be worth defending at all, if it weren't being attacked on grounds I strongly disagree with, by people who I believe shouldn't gain any more influence over our culture than they already have.
Is it putting words in someone's mouth if said words are their own, I wonder?
He's not saying "I'm disagreeing with you because I dislike you," he's saying "I dislike you because I disagree with your ridiculous PC policemanship and the fact that a lot of people actually take it seriously."
I disagree! You have the cause and effect mixed up. It's normal to dislike certain groups of people you strongly disagree with. For example, I imagine we both dislike gay bashers pretty strongly.
You, on the other hand, were suggesting that CamperBob2 was arguing with you purely because he didn't like you, which would be pretty silly if it were true.
Not doing something you are permitted to do is somehow denying their right to permit? It's nice of her permitting the use, however her permission doesn't force us to use it. By the same logic, it would be perfectly okay use goatse image if the guy permitted it, right?