Indeed. Assuming he wasn't in cahoots with the seller, engineering something t stay active for 12 years is still a challenge. Also, is that video real? I mean sure it shows a mechanism, but the knie blades look sideways and it really wasn't clear how the painting was fed through in a way that made any kind of sense.
I like the key fob idea. That's nice and reliable. But what's the power draw? If they're deigned to switch a high load they're probably not heavily engineered for low power draw.
For this to have worked, the frame must be quite heavy to allow the shredder mechanism to be hidden within a hollowed out area and not be noticed by being heavier at one end. Along with that, the canvas must have seemed to be mounted in an atypical fashion so that the feed and guides were invisible. Finally, I presume that the shredder was controlled by something like a cell phone - I presume there would be a big honking battery in there because I would have to think would be days/weeks between receiving the art, having it on display and then starting the auction.
I disagree.
First hardwood frames are REALLY heavy, like surprisingly so. The shredder mechanism isn't going to be an office-type shredder which can handle 6 sheets at once and has a service life of thousands of sheets. It had to shred half a thing once ever. So, it could be of a much lighter construction; it's not like banksy had to worry about it getting blunted through use.
For the power source, a stack of primary lithium AAs would be more than adequate. And they have a very long shelf life (95% after 20 years).
Triggering is an interesting one. Banksy was clearly there or sent someone there since he's subsequently posted a video of the shredding. So, the triggering could have been local either by RF or infra-red. That leads to a lot of interesting options. Sensors based on those are much, much lower power than a cell phone. And you could do something like wake up for a second every hour to listen for a signal, then either deep sleep or stay alert depending.
It would take some decent EE nouse to design that to last for a long time, but then again a smoke alarm can last a decade off a lithium PP3, and this thing could have had a lot more battery power in it.
It was represented as a complete & undamaged painting.
Was it? Auctions are cavet emptor, provided the auction house discolses anything it is reasonably expected to have known. Given the rarity of hidden shredders, I thik it's a fair assumption that it was reasonable for them to not have known about it.
It was sold as a complete and undamaged painting.
Was it? It was sold as:
signed and dedicated on the reverse spray paint and acrylic on canvas, mounted on board, in artist's frame 101 by 78 by 18 cm. 39 3/4 by 30 3/4 by 7 in. Executed in 2006, this work is unique.
Additionally
Colour: The colour in the catalogue illustration is fairly accurate although the frame tonality is slightly warmer in the original. Condition: Please refer to the department for a professional condition report. "In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
The buyer should absolutely be able to reject the item, as materially different from what they bid on
It's no though. It is and remains a genuine Banksy. The shredding was materially always part of it.
The original image is that of a child losing a balloon to the wind. Any parent who considers it feels a sinking in their stomach knowing how upsetting this is for the child. Great art is that which can make you experience an emotion. At the moment the shredding began, the buyer was immediately inserted into the body of that little girl losing the balloon. The buyer thought they were going to acquire a prized Banksy art piece and suddenly it was stolen from their hands by the wind, just like that balloon.
It's actually got a bunch of nerds yourslef included debating the meaning of art. Was the art destroyed or completed? Was the shredding an inherent part of the work? Does the buyer have recourse? Is it worth more?
Is it art?
Given how much trolling goes on here I'm surprised at the number of people who don't seem to appreciate that they have just been trolled massively.
It's provoked thought and discussion. Achievement unlocked.
Look at it this way. Banksy got (among other things) a bunch of tech nerds yelling at each other about the meaning of art rather than vi versus emacs, Linux vs windows or republicans vs democrats.
What is the point of art if not to provke emotion?
Just look at the audiences faces in his video (he posted it recently). A 12 year setup for 3 seconds of some of the most epic trolling the world has seen.
Nevertheless, the action house or seller would be responsible for any loss that happens to the item before the buyer takes possession of it.
What loss? The work was and remains a Banksy artwork. The built in shredder was clearly always a part of it and it worked as designed. Auctions are caveat emptor and as long as the auction house doesn't fail to reveal anything they could reasonably have known about.
if the item gets stolen by a robber running in and grabbing it from display or destroyed by a sudden natural disaster or other casualty before delivery is made to the buyer, then the buyer can say the item changed from what they agreed to buy,
Those are all external. The self-shredding was part of the artwork.
The action house had no reasonable way of knowing and the item was as described, but actions are caveat emptor. And Banksy didn't device the buyer: someone else owned it. One could also quite reasonably argue that it was part of the artwork.
And what a phenomenal piece of performance art it was!
Then yokels like you find a problem in one small neighborhood in the most populous state and you get an erection trying to pretend CA is a shithole.
I don't think you understand. California is full of liberals. Probably SJW liberals at that. We know that thay're basically evil and break everything. Also they have laws and that's evil too because basically all government is bad[*]. Therefore it's logical that california has to be a shithole. I mean look at the argument; the logic is flawless.
People like that are not trying to pretend it's a shithole because of those things, they know in their heart that it must be a shithole (because of the liberals) so they jump all over those reasons to add proof to what they already know to be true.
We're fine dude.
Facts are irrelevant.
[*]I've probed extensively on this with some people here. Turns out that not all government is bad when you really push, what's "right" is to have presicely the amount to pretect them and no more.
1. "I can't log in" 2. "OK, reset it by pressing that reset button on the bottom. The password is now 0000" 3. "OK, I'm in, it wants me to enter a password" 4. "So... enter a password then" 5. "Oh done, thanks bye"
I enirely agree about diesel electric subs by the way. And about nuclear ones.
They also in practice require a nuclear weapons program to produce the fuel.
This is Japan we're talking about. At any given point in time they're probably about 6 months to a year away from having nuclear tipped ICBMs, should they so choose.
They've got a large, active nuclear industry including reprocessing and uranium enrichment for their reactors.
Also, they have probably the world's current best solid fuel rocket. If you can reliably places catellites in low earth orbit, geosynchronus orbit or sun synchronus orbit, then you can easily hit any point on Earth.
They have the education level, tech level, supercomputing expertise and manufacturing prowess to produce them.
Christ alive, you're simple. Whatever the Dem's did has no bearing on whether the Republicans have put forward a suitable candidate. Pull your head out of your arse and stop being blindly partisan.
If you can't hear criticism about a republican without ranting about the Dems then you are part of the problem.
I agree. We should put this crappy guy on the Supreme Court for life to even the score against Bill Clinton. Having a sane rule of law means nothing if you can't settle old grudges against another tribe.
Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix?
I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.
Good for you. But in answer to your question:
Why? Because it's of benefit to your son both directly and indirectly. Directly, HPV causes cancer in men too. Indirectly it would suck if he transmitted HPV to a future partner and she got cancer.
I suppose the explanation for things like the hyperspace tracker is that in Star Wars it's very soft sci-fi and they will happily invent a McGuffin if it suits the plot. I think it's interesting that a lot of people are bothered by stuff like that though, because the movie was really about the characters and their personal journeys.
I'm fine with macguffins, but it popped out of the middle of nowhere part way through the movie. It violated the Checkov's Gun principle. If it was there from the beginning then fine, it's the way it suddenly arrived and honestly didn't fit all that well with the plot up to that point.
The Monte Carlo stuff was so that Finn could build some empathy for the rebel cause on his journey to becoming a rebel himself.
Sure, but it was poorly done. It looked visually and felt like an afterthought. The visual thing to me was the mismatch. Stylistically it was somehow "off". Hard to define really. Plot wise it was a bolt on that could have been done in better ways. It was overall pretty cack-handed.
Sure. But it was so cool I don't need an explanation. That whole moment in a packed cinema was like... woah. Rule of cool and all that.
I enjoyed the film and am happy to point out all the flaws. I like liking things apart and that only works if you're specific.
WTF was with the magical hyperspace tracker with silly plot properties (only the front ship can use it). That felt jammed in. It would have all made much more sense if there was a mole in the rebellion (rose, anyone? ). Then the admiral's extreme reluctance to share anything would have been a better fit (though I didn't mind that).
The space Monte Carlo (as someone here called it) was tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie and was just generically rich bad people. Visually inconsistent style and boring character design. Smbc boring with a generic chase scene. Should have been cut entirely.
I liked rose's entry then her character just fell apart and got annoying. And she almost got the last of the rebellion wiped out. She ended up whiny and wet after a good start.
Why didn't a hyperspace battering ram happen before? Though it was so cool I don't really care.
the alt-right movement is just a bunch of guys who can't find good jobs and, as a result, women.
I odn't think it's as strongly causal as that. They're obnoxious and entitled which makes it a problem to find partners or jobs. Getting a job wouldn't make them magically couple up.
it is funny in American media for white men to be raped in prison but not funny anywhere for women of any kind to be raped, why is that?!?
Because despite the howls of anguish from the usual suspects it appears we still do need to teach people that rape is bad. This is not something people seem to pick up nearly as readily as one might think.
You can also see it in the comments here when some dude that people don't generally like might get sent to prison, there's distinct glee in the idea he might get raped.
You cannot be a physicist without being able to take onboard logical arguments backed up by data.
lolwut. It the words of a physicist, that's not even wrong.
Even when it does apply it tends to only apply within the narrow area of expertise. Physicists are not better than average people at applying such things to the rest of their lives.
it is also for the benefit of those listening.
Fair point.
If you shoot down an argument like that with simple logic and data
Thjat's much harder to do live. If someone's made a very twisty argument from hours of research into the data it's a tall order to unpick it succinctly not only in in 3 minutes but without any prep.
How many people heard this story and thought that he was factually correct and so was silenced for raising a valid argument that was not 'PC'?
And how many of those would be convinced of that no matter what? People are awfully good at picking up stuff that confirms whatever they already believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Assuming he wasn't in cahoots with the seller, engineering something t stay active for 12 years is still a challenge. Also, is that video real? I mean sure it shows a mechanism, but the knie blades look sideways and it really wasn't clear how the painting was fed through in a way that made any kind of sense.
I like the key fob idea. That's nice and reliable. But what's the power draw? If they're deigned to switch a high load they're probably not heavily engineered for low power draw.
For this to have worked, the frame must be quite heavy to allow the shredder mechanism to be hidden within a hollowed out area and not be noticed by being heavier at one end. Along with that, the canvas must have seemed to be mounted in an atypical fashion so that the feed and guides were invisible. Finally, I presume that the shredder was controlled by something like a cell phone - I presume there would be a big honking battery in there because I would have to think would be days/weeks between receiving the art, having it on display and then starting the auction.
I disagree.
First hardwood frames are REALLY heavy, like surprisingly so. The shredder mechanism isn't going to be an office-type shredder which can handle 6 sheets at once and has a service life of thousands of sheets. It had to shred half a thing once ever. So, it could be of a much lighter construction; it's not like banksy had to worry about it getting blunted through use.
For the power source, a stack of primary lithium AAs would be more than adequate. And they have a very long shelf life (95% after 20 years).
http://data.energizer.com/pdfs... (page 14)
Triggering is an interesting one. Banksy was clearly there or sent someone there since he's subsequently posted a video of the shredding. So, the triggering could have been local either by RF or infra-red. That leads to a lot of interesting options. Sensors based on those are much, much lower power than a cell phone. And you could do something like wake up for a second every hour to listen for a signal, then either deep sleep or stay alert depending.
It would take some decent EE nouse to design that to last for a long time, but then again a smoke alarm can last a decade off a lithium PP3, and this thing could have had a lot more battery power in it.
It was represented as a complete & undamaged painting.
Was it? Auctions are cavet emptor, provided the auction house discolses anything it is reasonably expected to have known. Given the rarity of hidden shredders, I thik it's a fair assumption that it was reasonable for them to not have known about it.
It was sold as a complete and undamaged painting.
Was it? It was sold as:
Additionally
The buyer should absolutely be able to reject the item, as materially different from what they bid on
It's no though. It is and remains a genuine Banksy. The shredding was materially always part of it.
The original image is that of a child losing a balloon to the wind. Any parent who considers it feels a sinking in their stomach knowing how upsetting this is for the child. Great art is that which can make you experience an emotion. At the moment the shredding began, the buyer was immediately inserted into the body of that little girl losing the balloon. The buyer thought they were going to acquire a prized Banksy art piece and suddenly it was stolen from their hands by the wind, just like that balloon.
That is a brilliant interpretation, I love it.
Crap like what?
It's actually got a bunch of nerds yourslef included debating the meaning of art. Was the art destroyed or completed? Was the shredding an inherent part of the work? Does the buyer have recourse? Is it worth more?
Is it art?
Given how much trolling goes on here I'm surprised at the number of people who don't seem to appreciate that they have just been trolled massively.
It's provoked thought and discussion. Achievement unlocked.
Look at it this way. Banksy got (among other things) a bunch of tech nerds yelling at each other about the meaning of art rather than vi versus emacs, Linux vs windows or republicans vs democrats.
What is the point of art if not to provke emotion?
Just look at the audiences faces in his video (he posted it recently). A 12 year setup for 3 seconds of some of the most epic trolling the world has seen.
Nevertheless, the action house or seller would be responsible for any loss that happens to the item before the buyer takes possession of it.
What loss? The work was and remains a Banksy artwork. The built in shredder was clearly always a part of it and it worked as designed. Auctions are caveat emptor and as long as the auction house doesn't fail to reveal anything they could reasonably have known about.
if the item gets stolen by a robber running in and grabbing it from display or destroyed by a sudden natural disaster or other casualty before delivery is made to the buyer, then the buyer can say the item changed from what they agreed to buy,
Those are all external. The self-shredding was part of the artwork.
Shitty stunt? I say performance art of the highest order.
Bravo!
Sue for what?
The action house had no reasonable way of knowing and the item was as described, but actions are caveat emptor. And Banksy didn't device the buyer: someone else owned it.
One could also quite reasonably argue that it was part of the artwork.
And what a phenomenal piece of performance art it was!
Then yokels like you find a problem in one small neighborhood in the most populous state and you get an erection trying to pretend CA is a shithole.
I don't think you understand. California is full of liberals. Probably SJW liberals at that. We know that thay're basically evil and break everything. Also they have laws and that's evil too because basically all government is bad[*]. Therefore it's logical that california has to be a shithole. I mean look at the argument; the logic is flawless.
People like that are not trying to pretend it's a shithole because of those things, they know in their heart that it must be a shithole (because of the liberals) so they jump all over those reasons to add proof to what they already know to be true.
We're fine dude.
Facts are irrelevant.
[*]I've probed extensively on this with some people here. Turns out that not all government is bad when you really push, what's "right" is to have presicely the amount to pretect them and no more.
Why? It's not like having 1234 on a padlock makes it easy for some third party to use your crap padlock to DDOS other people.
Your post is nothing more than a tired variation on "durr teh gubmint".
This is idiotic, can you imagine tech support ?
1. "I can't log in"
2. "OK, reset it by pressing that reset button on the bottom. The password is now 0000"
3. "OK, I'm in, it wants me to enter a password"
4. "So... enter a password then"
5. "Oh done, thanks bye"
I really don't see what's idiotic about that.
I enirely agree about diesel electric subs by the way. And about nuclear ones.
They also in practice require a nuclear weapons program to produce the fuel.
This is Japan we're talking about. At any given point in time they're probably about 6 months to a year away from having nuclear tipped ICBMs, should they so choose.
They've got a large, active nuclear industry including reprocessing and uranium enrichment for their reactors.
Also, they have probably the world's current best solid fuel rocket. If you can reliably places catellites in low earth orbit, geosynchronus orbit or sun synchronus orbit, then you can easily hit any point on Earth.
They have the education level, tech level, supercomputing expertise and manufacturing prowess to produce them.
How about you prove it, or STFU.
No need. His performance in the hearing showed beyond reasonable doubt that he is wildly unsuited to the post.
Face facts: here's something I made up because I like it.
That video really should be on heavy repeat.
Christ alive, you're simple. Whatever the Dem's did has no bearing on whether the Republicans have put forward a suitable candidate. Pull your head out of your arse and stop being blindly partisan.
If you can't hear criticism about a republican without ranting about the Dems then you are part of the problem.
I agree. We should put this crappy guy on the Supreme Court for life to even the score against Bill Clinton. Having a sane rule of law means nothing if you can't settle old grudges against another tribe.
Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix?
I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.
Good for you. But in answer to your question:
Why? Because it's of benefit to your son both directly and indirectly. Directly, HPV causes cancer in men too. Indirectly it would suck if he transmitted HPV to a future partner and she got cancer.
I suppose the explanation for things like the hyperspace tracker is that in Star Wars it's very soft sci-fi and they will happily invent a McGuffin if it suits the plot. I think it's interesting that a lot of people are bothered by stuff like that though, because the movie was really about the characters and their personal journeys.
I'm fine with macguffins, but it popped out of the middle of nowhere part way through the movie. It violated the Checkov's Gun principle. If it was there from the beginning then fine, it's the way it suddenly arrived and honestly didn't fit all that well with the plot up to that point.
The Monte Carlo stuff was so that Finn could build some empathy for the rebel cause on his journey to becoming a rebel himself.
Sure, but it was poorly done. It looked visually and felt like an afterthought. The visual thing to me was the mismatch. Stylistically it was somehow "off". Hard to define really. Plot wise it was a bolt on that could have been done in better ways. It was overall pretty cack-handed.
Sure. But it was so cool I don't need an explanation. That whole moment in a packed cinema was like... woah. Rule of cool and all that.
Overall thmbs up from me for the film. Great fun.
I enjoyed the film and am happy to point out all the flaws. I like liking things apart and that only works if you're specific.
WTF was with the magical hyperspace tracker with silly plot properties (only the front ship can use it). That felt jammed in. It would have all made much more sense if there was a mole in the rebellion (rose, anyone? ). Then the admiral's extreme reluctance to share anything would have been a better fit (though I didn't mind that).
The space Monte Carlo (as someone here called it) was tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie and was just generically rich bad people. Visually inconsistent style and boring character design. Smbc boring with a generic chase scene. Should have been cut entirely.
I liked rose's entry then her character just fell apart and got annoying. And she almost got the last of the rebellion wiped out. She ended up whiny and wet after a good start.
Why didn't a hyperspace battering ram happen before? Though it was so cool I don't really care.
the alt-right movement is just a bunch of guys who can't find good jobs and, as a result, women.
I odn't think it's as strongly causal as that. They're obnoxious and entitled which makes it a problem to find partners or jobs. Getting a job wouldn't make them magically couple up.
it is funny in American media for white men to be raped in prison but not funny anywhere for women of any kind to be raped, why is that?!?
Because despite the howls of anguish from the usual suspects it appears we still do need to teach people that rape is bad. This is not something people seem to pick up nearly as readily as one might think.
You can also see it in the comments here when some dude that people don't generally like might get sent to prison, there's distinct glee in the idea he might get raped.
Fragmentation is fine if there's no silly barriers to entry.
Food shops are very fragmented, but I can easily wander into any of them and get food.
If the streaming services sold a la carte DRM free shows for a reasonable price, the fragmentation wouldn't matter.
RPGs are great for taking out cars and jeeps and low-flying aircraft, but they're only good for telling a tank exactly what bearing you're on
1950s era ones like the RPG-7 sure. Not so much recent one like the RPG-29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have you met, like... physicists?
Yes, to put it mildly.
You cannot be a physicist without being able to take onboard logical arguments backed up by data.
lolwut. It the words of a physicist, that's not even wrong.
Even when it does apply it tends to only apply within the narrow area of expertise. Physicists are not better than average people at applying such things to the rest of their lives.
it is also for the benefit of those listening.
Fair point.
If you shoot down an argument like that with simple logic and data
Thjat's much harder to do live. If someone's made a very twisty argument from hours of research into the data it's a tall order to unpick it succinctly not only in in 3 minutes but without any prep.
How many people heard this story and thought that he was factually correct and so was silenced for raising a valid argument that was not 'PC'?
And how many of those would be convinced of that no matter what? People are awfully good at picking up stuff that confirms whatever they already believe.