Is it. I read the editorial again to see what you were talking about. Maddie never suggests the boys sexual comments had anything at all to do with this picture. She was tuning out the boys sexual comments before this image ever came up. It sounds more like a girls struggling with growing up. Happens to a lot of people. Had nothing at all to do with this picture.
Waterhouse? Waterhouse was a porn artist, plain and simple. The only difference is medium. So you would be ok of the students used : http://www.wikiart.org/en/john... instead of the Lena image? Talk about objectifying and sexualizing women. Just because someone took the time to paint something does not somehow make it automatically better than a photograph. Just because something was done a couple hundred years ago does not make it better than something that was done 40 years ago. Most playboy centerfolds have at least as much right to be called art as anything Waterhouse created.
There are two very obvious gender differences. One males are, on average, far stronger than women. Second pregnancies are far more costly to women.
This means that men are far more likely to be interested in casual sex than women because they have far fewer things to fear from casual sex. Both because men feel less consequence from potential pregnancies but also because men have far less to fear about being physically overpowered.
It is not true for everyone, there's a cultural component as well, and there's nothing shameful or unfeminine about a woman interested in casual sex. But the fact the genders do have very different attitudes is backed up by virtually every study ever done.
You make some pretty bold and sweeping statements there. I would love to see the research that supports them. I can't seem to find any studies that support your claims, but since virtually every study ever done backs it up, it should be easy to provide some details.
You could say any image is objectifying, it is ludicrous. Eventually we need to all stop being offended about everything. Use of the Lena image is not keeping anyone out of the CS field. There is great value in students learning how their research fits into the broader context of the field and learning that in high school is an excellent way to help prepare students to do more advanced work. In this particular field the bulk of the research over the past 40 years was at leasted tested against the Lena image so it is a great image to use.
There is nothing actually offensive about the image. If you have to go beyond what you are looking at in order to get offended, just stop. The problem is you.
Because someone will find something offensive about the picture of your wife and then we will never again be able to establish a common image that can be used as the basis for comparing to previous work. Therefore, why not just use the one we already have.
You know why, your just being deliberately obtuse. If you pull up an article on any of those topics, there is a better than not chance it will use the Lena image. This is a school that is supposed to be developing kids to do advanced work in the field.
I am not sure why I keep responding to people who either being deliberately obtuse or know absolutely nothing at all about research.
Have to wonder if anyone complaiend about those two women using Fabio images. He is looking very suggestive and the image probablly came from the cover of a romance novels. I am offended because romance novels tend to sexualize and objectify men.
Except you don't. Even an image search with safesearch off gives you 1000 rated g images before you give up trying to find porn. No links to playboy on the first 3 pages of standard search either.
Because this is the one that someone chose 40 years ago and there is a lot to compare your work to. Given the fact that there is absolutely nothing at all offensive about this image, other than the source, why stop using it?
Cartman would call you pathetisad and I would be inclined to agree with him. You and Maddie should both take the time to learn why this image was used and grow up a little.
Even with safe search off and on the images page I have no nudity with that search in the first 1000 images... The first 5 pages of standard google results don't lead to any nudity either. Why again was the teacher wrong? The first image under image search is the desired head-shot.
But as a computer vision scientist you can surely understand why that particular image is used. It is used because it has been used before. Sure there are other fairly common images, but none with the same ability to allow wide-spread comparison with other research. New research that doesn't use it is weaker because it lacks the direct comparison. Perhaps if there was a movement to begin establishing a new baseline it could be done away with. Seems like a pointless waster of time and resources to me. the image itself isn't offensive. The fact that it comes from Playboy is only offensive to be people that are looking for a reason to be offended.
Why is it wrong? I didn't try to overstate it. future students will not get the benefit of directly comparing their work against most of the meaningful literature in the field. How will they not be less prepared?
You're the second person to mention Seattle in these comments. I would have never guessed the local government has essentially kept Seattle in the early 90s. It is sad.
Thing is, this is not a generic STEM class (since such a thing does not even exist). This is a CS class that was working on image processing. The image in question has been used in nearly all of the image processing literature for the last 40 years. The teacher would be doing a huge disservice to the students by not using this image. They should be encouraged to compare their work to previous work. It is how technological advancement continues. The time to object to the image was in the 1970s.
I would be interested in the rest of the story. Her editorial is almost pure drivel and it seems likely that she had a lot of input from someone pushing a social agenda. Very little of the editorial discusses the image or why it might have been a bad choice. From an argument standpoint it is a complete failure because it doesn't address the primary counter-argument, that there is no better image, in any way. Maddie has done real damage to all future students at TJ. That is really unfortunate.
Really seems like you are the one missing the context. A CS classroom is far and away the most appropriate context for showing the Lena image. There are at least hundreds of papers written on processing algorithms that reference results for using this image. If the students want to be able to compare their results to the work of others there is no better choice of image. Maggie was wrong, the news paper was wrong to publish her editorial, and the school was wrong to cave into her demands. Now CS students graduating from TJ will be slightly less prepared than they would have been.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but you just made that up and your just an Android user that has never worked for a development company of any kind...
I have never signed anything when filling a prescription.
Is it. I read the editorial again to see what you were talking about. Maddie never suggests the boys sexual comments had anything at all to do with this picture. She was tuning out the boys sexual comments before this image ever came up. It sounds more like a girls struggling with growing up. Happens to a lot of people. Had nothing at all to do with this picture.
By your logic you can't use a picture of anything. In the end, there are many good reasons to use this image in a CS class and no good reasons not to.
Waterhouse? Waterhouse was a porn artist, plain and simple. The only difference is medium. So you would be ok of the students used : http://www.wikiart.org/en/john... instead of the Lena image? Talk about objectifying and sexualizing women. Just because someone took the time to paint something does not somehow make it automatically better than a photograph. Just because something was done a couple hundred years ago does not make it better than something that was done 40 years ago. Most playboy centerfolds have at least as much right to be called art as anything Waterhouse created.
Not even in the top 100 for me. Google must know you like porn.
The image was just remastered from the negative in 2013. But the original one from the archive is still often used as a reference.
There are two very obvious gender differences. One males are, on average, far stronger than women. Second pregnancies are far more costly to women.
This means that men are far more likely to be interested in casual sex than women because they have far fewer things to fear from casual sex. Both because men feel less consequence from potential pregnancies but also because men have far less to fear about being physically overpowered.
It is not true for everyone, there's a cultural component as well, and there's nothing shameful or unfeminine about a woman interested in casual sex. But the fact the genders do have very different attitudes is backed up by virtually every study ever done.
You make some pretty bold and sweeping statements there. I would love to see the research that supports them. I can't seem to find any studies that support your claims, but since virtually every study ever done backs it up, it should be easy to provide some details.
You could say any image is objectifying, it is ludicrous. Eventually we need to all stop being offended about everything. Use of the Lena image is not keeping anyone out of the CS field. There is great value in students learning how their research fits into the broader context of the field and learning that in high school is an excellent way to help prepare students to do more advanced work. In this particular field the bulk of the research over the past 40 years was at leasted tested against the Lena image so it is a great image to use.
There is nothing actually offensive about the image. If you have to go beyond what you are looking at in order to get offended, just stop. The problem is you.
Because someone will find something offensive about the picture of your wife and then we will never again be able to establish a common image that can be used as the basis for comparing to previous work. Therefore, why not just use the one we already have.
You know why, your just being deliberately obtuse. If you pull up an article on any of those topics, there is a better than not chance it will use the Lena image. This is a school that is supposed to be developing kids to do advanced work in the field.
I am not sure why I keep responding to people who either being deliberately obtuse or know absolutely nothing at all about research.
Have to wonder if anyone complaiend about those two women using Fabio images. He is looking very suggestive and the image probablly came from the cover of a romance novels. I am offended because romance novels tend to sexualize and objectify men.
Except you don't. Even an image search with safesearch off gives you 1000 rated g images before you give up trying to find porn. No links to playboy on the first 3 pages of standard search either.
When did Slashdot get filled with so many people who don't have a basic understanding of research?
Because this is the one that someone chose 40 years ago and there is a lot to compare your work to. Given the fact that there is absolutely nothing at all offensive about this image, other than the source, why stop using it?
Cartman would call you pathetisad and I would be inclined to agree with him. You and Maddie should both take the time to learn why this image was used and grow up a little.
No where in any of this is there any hint that there was a parent that complained or even supported the complaint.
Even with safe search off and on the images page I have no nudity with that search in the first 1000 images... The first 5 pages of standard google results don't lead to any nudity either. Why again was the teacher wrong? The first image under image search is the desired head-shot.
But as a computer vision scientist you can surely understand why that particular image is used. It is used because it has been used before. Sure there are other fairly common images, but none with the same ability to allow wide-spread comparison with other research. New research that doesn't use it is weaker because it lacks the direct comparison. Perhaps if there was a movement to begin establishing a new baseline it could be done away with. Seems like a pointless waster of time and resources to me. the image itself isn't offensive. The fact that it comes from Playboy is only offensive to be people that are looking for a reason to be offended.
You should read her editorial it barely talks about anything in the summary or the comments.
Why is it wrong? I didn't try to overstate it. future students will not get the benefit of directly comparing their work against most of the meaningful literature in the field. How will they not be less prepared?
Taxes and fees..
You're the second person to mention Seattle in these comments. I would have never guessed the local government has essentially kept Seattle in the early 90s. It is sad.
Thing is, this is not a generic STEM class (since such a thing does not even exist). This is a CS class that was working on image processing. The image in question has been used in nearly all of the image processing literature for the last 40 years. The teacher would be doing a huge disservice to the students by not using this image. They should be encouraged to compare their work to previous work. It is how technological advancement continues. The time to object to the image was in the 1970s.
I would be interested in the rest of the story. Her editorial is almost pure drivel and it seems likely that she had a lot of input from someone pushing a social agenda. Very little of the editorial discusses the image or why it might have been a bad choice. From an argument standpoint it is a complete failure because it doesn't address the primary counter-argument, that there is no better image, in any way. Maddie has done real damage to all future students at TJ. That is really unfortunate.
Really seems like you are the one missing the context. A CS classroom is far and away the most appropriate context for showing the Lena image. There are at least hundreds of papers written on processing algorithms that reference results for using this image. If the students want to be able to compare their results to the work of others there is no better choice of image. Maggie was wrong, the news paper was wrong to publish her editorial, and the school was wrong to cave into her demands. Now CS students graduating from TJ will be slightly less prepared than they would have been.