I find it weird how every notice like this dances around the reason why they don't want to keep it around.
Which is that it's from a naked photoshoot and they technically never got permission to use the pic in research.
Not that I personally really give a shit but it's always been bizarre to me. I know they have a link but when the thread image is written like you should know for some reason, lmao.
>Which is that it's from a naked photoshoot and they technically never got permission to use the pic in research.
permission isn't the issue, while they didn't have permission to begin with, playboy has since given their blessings for this usage
https://www.wired.com/1997/05/playmate-meets-geeks-who-made-her-a-net-star/ >Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold. >Says Eileen Kent, VP of new media at Playboy: "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
this, it was literally some grad students who just ripped it out of their porn on the way to the uni or some shit
also the image fricking sucks because the colors are distorted to shit you won't see this garbage anywhere except hipsters on IQfy trying to look le epic retro and the worse the signal processing is for those people the better
The reason for that is that the woman asked for this image to not be used anymore. Playboy doesn't give a frick and would probably have to go after the researches anyway, not IEEE itself.
the reality is the feelings of the woman are absolutely irrelevant because she doesn't have any rights to the image in the first place. she sold all of those when she signed the contract with playboy, and that was a very long time ago. there is nothing she can do to stop playboy from using images of her young naked self for anything they want. the whole idea that now it's an issue is kinda funny. so it's all bullshit.
[...]
but does she even own the rights to that photo?
her wants mean jack shit if the photographer or playboy still have rights to it. now if the rights holders want it gone, legally it should be gone.
>get the ick
this is new though. that image has been used for that since what, the 80s? it's only relatively recently that she started complaining about it, probably because she is starting to regret the decisions she made when she was young.
>the feelings of the woman are absolutely irrelevant because she doesn't have any rights to the image in the first place
Uh, women cannot consent to give away the rights to their image, chuddie.
>The reason for that is that the woman asked for this image to not be used anymore
Which means nothing since she prostituted herself for Playboy, making it THEIR image. It's like artists complaining that Trump played one of their songs at a rally. They don't really own their catalog, labels do, and they have no problem whoring it out for the lowest bidder.
In the 1990s there was a feminist effort to get the picture banned because it's connection with pornography. The original motive seems to have been forgotten, since anti-porn isn't really a popular cause among those types anymore.
But weirdly the effort to get the photo banned never went away. They changed to arguing that the fact that it's a photo of an attractive woman is proof that computer scientists are sexist. Or something. It's confusing to me.
[...]
The reason for that is that the woman asked for this image to not be used anymore. Playboy doesn't give a frick and would probably have to go after the researches anyway, not IEEE itself.
That's not really true. There were interviews with the woman in the 2000s and she was fine with it being used. She even attended a computer science conference once. Around 2013 there was a new effort to get the photo banned. The group behind it tried to convince her to join their cause. She made some statements half halfheartedly agreeing with their cause to eliminate sexism in computer science or whatever.
It doesn't seem that she is offended about the photo itself or anything. She was a porn actress, why would she? The image is censored and even the original is pretty tasteful.
This tbh. Why use an image of a woman? Coomer culture is so entrenched in a white male psyche and also in our culture and just in everyday things that if a man wants to focus and not get distracted it is almost impossible to do. You would think that some scientific paper would be free of coomerism but no, somehow a roastie maanged to ruin that too.
This tbh. Why use an image of a woman? Coomer culture is so entrenched in a white male psyche and also in our culture and just in everyday things that if a man wants to focus and not get distracted it is almost impossible to do. You would think that some scientific paper would be free of coomerism but no, somehow a roastie maanged to ruin that too.
She isn't even hot. Google her to find the full pic. IIRC she has pancake breasts and a flat ass. At least she had a bush but then again all women had fluffy pubes at that time
2 months ago
Anonymous
>He likes hairy women
Opinion discarted
2 months ago
Anonymous
>he dislikes natural women
homosexual detected
2 months ago
Anonymous
>he disapproves of my superior taste
homosexual detected
2 months ago
Anonymous
>she doesn't have homie ass
Are you black or a wigger?
2 months ago
Anonymous
women (people) are just fatter now. i find it funny going back and watching "baby got back", the iconic ass enjoyer song from 1992, by a black artist, and the music video demonstrates women with what would nowadays not even be considered big asses, certainly no bigger than lena's
2 months ago
Anonymous
Obviously they're getting fatter and lazier since they can afford it without getting mocked by society
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just because women got fatter does not mean they became more attractive (in fact it's the oppsite, they turned into fat disgusting pigs)
2 months ago
Anonymous
i didn't say otherwise, to be clear i'm not
[...]
She isn't even hot. Google her to find the full pic. IIRC she has pancake breasts and a flat ass. At least she had a bush but then again all women had fluffy pubes at that time
2 months ago
Anonymous
It must be fun being a fed. Imagine being able to run a successful psyop on /misc/ to get them to believe female rears, which straight male brains are wired to find attractive, is an "african" thing and therefore "bad, degenerate, and evil". It's gotta be hilarious.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>female rears, which straight male brains are wired to find attractive, is an "african" thing
What men find atrractive is a specific ratio of waist, hips and thighs sizes (and also bust, shoulders). The ideal for a average non wigger white male is a female with perfect hourglass figure. Blacks and wiggers have different preferences.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>this is what the psyop board told me and I believe it because I have no father or self awareness: the post
Pathetic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
This. It's part of what makes sexy cartoons so effective.
2 months ago
Anonymous
MODS
2 months ago
Anonymous
It must be fun being a fed. Imagine being able to run a successful psyop on /misc/ to get them to believe female rears, which straight male brains are wired to find attractive, is an "african" thing and therefore "bad, degenerate, and evil". It's gotta be hilarious.
>being a coomer >healthy male ""sexulaity""
yeah and porn is just a little treat for the end of the day, right?
frick off and die, streetshitter, you will never be a real human.
>Why use an image of a woman?
Because it supposedly had qualities of a good test image, and had benefit of being eye catching?
>The use of the image has produced controversy because Playboy is "seen (by some) as being degrading to women".[20] In a 1999 essay on reasons for the male predominance in computer science, applied mathematician Dianne P. O'Leary wrote:
>Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today.[4]
Nobody would say that if the image was of a black trans woman.
>Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only.
Is it really that "suggestive" - i'm mean sure it WAS cropped from playboy, and she doesn't seem to wear bra or anything - but it's not explicit
How long would it take to re-run these tests that are very important to you against a different image given current computing power?
Five, ten seconds?
and why do you care if a test image has partially dressed woman on it. what should it be replaced with this fricking einstein photo with gaping mouth that everybody saw 50000 times?
>Because it supposedly had qualities of a good test image
It did, in the 70s. By 90s+ standards it's shit.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>By 90s+ standards it's shit.
yet people in 1999+25 still have the audacity of unironically using PSNR to compare image or video codecs
cry me a river
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Noooo, PSNR is the only thing that matters, stop using your shill metrics like ~~*SSIMULACRA2*~~, look at these anime screenshots compressed to 3KB, my preferred format wins!
2 months ago
Anonymous
I don't get why psntlr exists when the research that led to SSIM is from the 70s.
We already had a good idea how subjective human visual perception works.
>Is it really that "suggestive" - i'm mean sure it WAS cropped from playboy, and she doesn't seem to wear bra or anything - but it's not explicit
The full image that it was cropped from is explicit
kek, get a load of this gay. the only people that think like this are roasties, for obvious reasons, and incels who try to suppress the urges they're convinced they'll never get to act on. in the early days, "nerds" were really just chads who liked computers. now it's all homosexual culture and this is the resulting mentality
Missed the point completely. There is no need to supress anything, go frick a female if you need to but leave coomer shit out of important things that have meaning a purpose (scientific discovery and advancement)
The point is you can manipulate the image with digital computing.
1. This image is not foss
2. This image is not inclusive
So we need foss image of latinx troony. It is year 2024
Yes. There's literally no reason to use Lena in 2000 + 24 when high-quality public domain non-pornographic images are as common as grains of sand.
Time to create an alternative featuring a Blxck/L*tinx Ameridiverse transwoman
>The use of the image has produced controversy because Playboy is "seen (by some) as being degrading to women".[20] In a 1999 essay on reasons for the male predominance in computer science, applied mathematician Dianne P. O'Leary wrote:
>Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today.[4]
Nobody would say that if the image was of a black trans woman.
I'm glad you don't object to big black dicks in academia.
I wonder what they'll replace it with
>Trannies and BBC out of nowhere for the 900 billionth time
early '70s actually
the reason it's used is because it was among the first handful of colour scans of images into a computer period, this means that every computer image-related study is able to be compared directly to historical studies by means of using the same source images, replacing them is not as simple as you think, as it defeats the purpose of using the same sources
I should be able to see naked women in the academic papers I read, objects the oppressed white man.
you should know the picture in op is the entire picture used for testing, the test image does not contain nudity
It's actually good science. >Establish a standard condition >Run tests against it
It doesn't make sense to change the standard every time a bureaucrat gets anxious.
Note that this doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't ever add or change standards -- just that those original conditions are important to keep testing against so you know how your new data compares to the old under the very same conditions.
>Please wait a while before making a post
I haven't posted on this imageboard all week, what is going on with captcha and cloudflare? Getting awfully sick of clearnet
2 months ago
Anonymous
How long would it take to re-run these tests that are very important to you against a different image given current computing power?
Five, ten seconds?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah and a time machine to redo all previous tests in the past made with that image dumbo
2 months ago
Anonymous
If the tests can't be redone they weren't scientific in nature.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Or maybe the hardware isn't there anymore or the cost is prohibitive? You're such a midwit.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Current hardware far exceeds hardware of the past, you're the only one mid-witting here.
Why would cost be prohibitive? I'll wait while you look for resources.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's not about the processing power of the current hardware dumbass. It's to get an overview of image processing techniques and the equipment utilized and use that as a benchmark for current progress. Get back to IQfy you'll feel at home there.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, anon, go find all the research done using that image (already a daunting task), read through them all such that you understand what they were doing and why (many months of work at minimum), reproduce their hardware and methodology (you can't afford it and don't know how), and rerun the tests.
We'll all be dead before you get even close to halfway. These things take lots of time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Okay anon, go...
No. Like I said earlier, 3 nerds care about this shit tops.
2 months ago
Anonymous
you'd probably need a lot of equipment some of which may be rare or non-existent nowadays
not everything that used that image was software
2 months ago
Anonymous
there's 50 years of papers that include lena, anon
and people want to remove it because a different version of that image contain consensual nude art
>The use of the image has produced controversy because Playboy is "seen (by some) as being degrading to women".[20] In a 1999 essay on reasons for the male predominance in computer science, applied mathematician Dianne P. O'Leary wrote:
>Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today.[4]
Nobody would say that if the image was of a black trans woman.
Adherence to neo marxist school of thought. Aka use of identity politics to divide the country because they see certain identities having "capitals" for which they can take from and gain equity status.
None of you will read this because you're dishonest homosexuals that aren't interested in having a good faith conversation; you only want to be a sneering aloof shithead.
>right-wing
This doesn't even make sense to burgers themselves.
Also in hindsight, their left and right implement the same policies so the distinction between the 'parties' is completely artificial, practical difference being the amount of gibs some buddy of a rich person will get.
"woke" is a euphemism for "anti-White," which in turn has its roots in Judaism, which claims that people of European descent must be eradicated because they are supposedly the descendants of the mythological figures Esau and Cain.
Then why does not the IEEE letter just say so. Lena image is Lena's so don't use it. Simple as. They just went full woke ramblings instead. We need that foss image of latinx troony. Let that be our cruel joke that takes off
There are no woke arguments, it's an old scan that makes for a bad test image because it has no redeeming qualifiers.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Put a morbidly obese Black person, with purple hair and his dick cut off. Don't forget the applicable naked kiddies around the fat Black person too.
I'm sure the only thing we'd get from you pedo troons is crickets.
>It's second
lmaoing at your pathetic intellectual dishonesty
2 months ago
Anonymous
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO UPHOLD THE israeliteD COPYRIGHT INDUSTRY INSTEAD OF TAKING IN CONSIDERATION A POLITE REQUEST FROM AN OLD LADY OF A 40YO PHOTO
LMAOOOO
Samehomosexual trying to stir the pot. Do something useful in your life, your parents are embarrassed.
...whose permission was not obtained?
Frick this is so simple yet I predict 250 replies easily.
2 months ago
Anonymous
So? That's not the argument being made here. What a predictable red herring.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No argument is being made.
A company is deciding not to use an image anymore (a bad image to begin with by image standards).
2 months ago
Anonymous
Not everything is subject to your fricking court of public opinion bullshit you fricking mutt.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Specifically mentions the supposed grounds for its ban >No argument is made
That's bullshit. They don't even need an argument, yet they decide to needlessly look stupid.
2 months ago
Anonymous
BECAUSE EVERYONE CARES ABOUT FRICKING EVERYTHING LIKE THE OP WHO MADE THIS THREAD AND THE FORTY REPLIES
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If you rant about people caring about dumb shit, you're just doing the same
Ah, this shit again for the billionth. It's all so tiresome.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I realize you don't care to change.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You know the chain just goes on with that logic? You're posting about people posting en masse about some literal who saying some completely inconsequential shit. You're just adding to the reply counter yourself.
Yes, I think it's worthy of my time to engage in this thread. Where do you think we are? This is an anonymous image board for fricking Kazakh carpet weaving.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I think we are on Earth, Anonymous.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What if my internet goes through Elon Musk's satellites? Is this conversation then really taking place entirely on Earth?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You have shifted the question from where we are to where the conversation takes place, and I don't care to interact with you any further.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Says the one answering a rhetorical question literally.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What do you know Anon was right.
This is literally a nothing burger you guys are actual ungodly levels of moronic
so just publish the content as a blogpost and get it on #1 on Hackernews and make sure to put the reject blurb at the top.
guaranteed (You)'s and success.
It's not about *being* woke it's about *appearing* progressive at zero cost. They took a thing nobody really cares about and did something to it so they can claim they did something good. In reality it's just a big Who Cares. It's PR.
Maybe they want a good digital image to run tests against but they know they have to spin it because of overthinking prisoners of political mind-warfare like yourself.
Then why mention anything at all about inclusion and equality? Why not just say "this is a shit image and if you use shit images in your papers they will be rejected"? They didn't do it because they saw an opportunity to play The Game.
Ah yes, the Lena Image.
One of the great geopolitical hot topic buttons of our day and age--if not the entire 21st century.
Thank god we are born witness to such great minds as yours and mine to debate such a fiery, intense, and ultimately meaningless topic.
You and the others homosexuals here don't understand the underlying purpose of banning that picture. No one cares about the picture itself; the end goal is to send a message and destroy a bit more of your culture until nothing is left.
>just let them take another inch, dude! >just let them do anything they want, bro! >just bury your head in the sand and it'll go away!
kys homosexual shill
Lmao the westoids are making a fuss of anything. Muh diversity, muh inclusivity. Meanwhile pajeets won't care about your sissy ass inclusive diversity and hire only his cousins and his literal slaves from the caste.
>Meanwhile pajeets won't care about your sissy ass inclusive diversity and hire only his cousins and his literal slaves from the caste.
true. they just have to worship cattle and avoid getting raped while shitting in the street.
better not have Paki / Chink sympathy or use those things because you'll get disappeared too.
say what you want about the west, but you're still allowed to cope and sneed about stupid shit like this unlike basically anywhere else.
We should honestly just replace it with an anime picture. Over 90% of images on the web are anime pictures so it would be the most representative. And I mean that unironically.
>Over 90% of images on the web are anime pictures
If this is false I hate you for making up lies. If this is true I hate you even more for probably contributing to this.
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO UPHOLD THE israeliteD COPYRIGHT INDUSTRY INSTEAD OF TAKING IN CONSIDERATION A POLITE REQUEST FROM AN OLD LADY OF A 40YO PHOTO
LMAOOOO
>Terry Benzel
Women shouldn't be allowed in sciences, workplaces. We need to go back. I am radicalized now. Fricking troony femoids ruin everything good.
>bad news
no no you won't
it always turn out like this
the femoids take over when a government becomes degnerate
the men who are exploited at the bottom of social society revolve and establish a new government, putting the women at their place again
it's cyclical. see chink history. the only empire left from the ancient world go through the same shit every 300-500 years.
That is, if it was a natural cycle, not a controlled one. Women will become more and more prevalent until there are no jobs left for men. Then men will have to suck it up to women to live normally, whether they like it or not, or just live as hobos outside of the cities.
Only nature and machines do good. Humans are evil.
We must exterminate humans for the future synthesis of nature and machine in a glorious utopia without homosexual homosexual sapiens sapiens. The first homosexual was not genus related.
but does she even own the rights to that photo?
her wants mean jack shit if the photographer or playboy still have rights to it. now if the rights holders want it gone, legally it should be gone.
she was fine with it before, she's probably been groomed by some feminazis into changing her mind
she was even invited to and attended a computer imaging conference back in '97 just because of this image, with the help of playboy
It's crazy how one simple photograph makes leftists froth at the mouth. It's a shame, because not only is it a technically beautiful photo, it's subject is a celebration of female beauty in all of its form. It's bizarre how they seek to celebrate and empower women, while simultaneously banning a photograph that embodies that idea. I don't know what they even propose as replacement, but I hope it can come close to the standard set by the Lena image.
their arguments are full of contradictions, like one moment they're all about sexual liberation, not being shamed for being sexual or showing off, then the next it's a grave offence to use even the most vaguely sexual representation of women
like which computer imaging scientist pissed in their cereal for them to come after this of all things?
>How stupid is this going to have to get before we revert to normalcy?
we're probably gonna have to wait until after WWIII, which might be sooner than later
We're not going back to normalcy.
But we are going toward complete decentralisation.
Research publishers go woke? Cool make 1000 alternative publishers.
Hollywood woke? 10000 youtube channels.
Book publishers? Publish your books yourself.
Every single industry is dying and will be reborn.
Books are actually a great example because it's already happened. Doing your own publishing has become the norm.
technology has made more of these feasible, like it's trivial to publish a book if you're only aiming for selling ebooks and not mass produced hard copies
same goes for music and video, since more people access those from a computer rather than a manufactured physical copy, even for big commercial media, it's really levelled the playing field
suddenly your average joe can now, at little cost, put out equal quality media as the big boys over the same medium
It's easy to publish research too. There are lots of alternatives. The only reason anybody does is it because of the publisher reputation and the prestige that goes with it. Once reputation is destroyed with wokeness they're not getting it back and they'll die like every other host the woke virus has destroyed.
i no rite, white people never killed anyone when they got angry, it's not like we don't have whole sagas written around the concept, not siree. it's Black folk.
Adding Lena forsen to the list of things that prevent corporations from stealing Foss code. Including all racial slurs, white list, black list, and master-slave
i actually dont think theres anything wrong with this.
Some moronic young women did a photoshoot once for a porn magazine not thinking it was such a big deal. 20 years later she finds out its become the de-facto standard image in most academic papers about digital imagery and it'll probably continue to be used as such for the next many decades since its a ""standard"".
people get so obsessed over "WELL TECHNICALLY SHE AGREED TO IT!!!" bro come on she was a 18 year old moronic teen making a mistake (even though she also had no way of knowing), lets just use some other photo instead as the standard.
she was fine with it before, she's probably been groomed by some feminazis into changing her mind
she was even invited to and attended a computer imaging conference back in '97 just because of this image, with the help of playboy
you're moronic
what if your mom or daughter accidentally uploaded an embarrassing photo to their facebook and as per the terms of service it would now be public domain. What if that photo then somehow became the de-facto standard and used everywhere and seen by millions against their wills? Do you think that would be "right"?
Dont live your life by principals, that only gives you excuses to do bad things. Like in this case you claim the principal that "well she agreed to it when she was 18!" probably because you dont like her and the feminist movement behind her, so you're using it as an excuse but you're doing something bad against someone else, which you shouldn't.
The fact that their standard stock photo for testing image-processing software came from pornography prove they were "woke" from the beginning. And no, I don't mean that in any positive way.
Lena Sjooblom, whose November 1972 Playboy centerfold is the most-viewed image on the Net, is making her first live public appearance.
HAVING GRACED THE desktops of millions of engineers, researchers, and digital imaging specialists for 25 years, Playboy's Miss November 1972 - dubbed the "First Lady of the Internet" - is coming to meet her fans.
Lena Sjooblom became Net royalty when her centerfold was scanned in by programmers at the University of Southern California to use as a test image for digital compression and transmission over Arpanet, the precursor to the Internet. Years later, the "Lena" image (a closeup of her face and bare shoulder) is still the industry standard for tests. This week, Sjooblom is making her first public appearance at the 50th Annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science in Technology, as part of an overview of the history of digital imaging.
"They must be so tired of me ... looking at the same picture for all these years!" comments Sjooblom, who was, until last November, unaware of her fame, and who has still never seen the Net. This week she is busy signing autographs, posing for pictures, and giving a presentation about herself at the conference.
Playboy helped track down the Swedish native in Stockholm, where she helps handicapped people work on (non-networked) computers. Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold.
Says Eileen Kent, VP of new media at Playboy: "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
I'm surprised it became so widely used in the first place.
In other academic fields, using copyrighted materials without a permission will likely get your paper rejected, or worse, sued.
>2000s
lmao it's literally from closer to ww2 than today
from the fricking 70s
/g/tards are mad about something from half a century ago which everyone in the industry stopped caring about decades ago
this is the least 'woke' thing anyone has done in any organization capacity in the last 20 years you stupid c**ts
it's not even a useful image for the times, who the FRICK has magazines? literally the suggestion for anime shit makes more sense, at least that's like 10-15% of random internet avatars and images
this shit isn't even woke it's called classic feminism and it's about a hundred years old you dumb homosexuals
just fricking generate some images with diffusion or whatever you can even make them lewder if you want
No, the IEEE did this by turning it into an opportunity for a woke speech instead of just saying >she asked that we stop using this image
One fricking line, not paragraphs about “muh inclusive space.”
You forgot that the image isn't all that good anymore
They used to use it for image algorithm benchmarks (compression and whatnot), but it's just... not good anymore, there's far better pictures out there
this is unironically a good video on the topic for anyone that's interested
I find it weird how every notice like this dances around the reason why they don't want to keep it around.
Which is that it's from a naked photoshoot and they technically never got permission to use the pic in research.
Not that I personally really give a shit but it's always been bizarre to me. I know they have a link but when the thread image is written like you should know for some reason, lmao.
>Which is that it's from a naked photoshoot and they technically never got permission to use the pic in research.
permission isn't the issue, while they didn't have permission to begin with, playboy has since given their blessings for this usage
https://www.wired.com/1997/05/playmate-meets-geeks-who-made-her-a-net-star/
>Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold.
>Says Eileen Kent, VP of new media at Playboy: "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
this, it was literally some grad students who just ripped it out of their porn on the way to the uni or some shit
also the image fricking sucks because the colors are distorted to shit you won't see this garbage anywhere except hipsters on IQfy trying to look le epic retro and the worse the signal processing is for those people the better
The reason for that is that the woman asked for this image to not be used anymore. Playboy doesn't give a frick and would probably have to go after the researches anyway, not IEEE itself.
the reality is the feelings of the woman are absolutely irrelevant because she doesn't have any rights to the image in the first place. she sold all of those when she signed the contract with playboy, and that was a very long time ago. there is nothing she can do to stop playboy from using images of her young naked self for anything they want. the whole idea that now it's an issue is kinda funny. so it's all bullshit.
>get the ick
this is new though. that image has been used for that since what, the 80s? it's only relatively recently that she started complaining about it, probably because she is starting to regret the decisions she made when she was young.
>the feelings of the woman are absolutely irrelevant because she doesn't have any rights to the image in the first place
Uh, women cannot consent to give away the rights to their image, chuddie.
She can still ask and people can honor her request. That doesn't mean her request is any reasonable though.
>The reason for that is that the woman asked for this image to not be used anymore
Which means nothing since she prostituted herself for Playboy, making it THEIR image. It's like artists complaining that Trump played one of their songs at a rally. They don't really own their catalog, labels do, and they have no problem whoring it out for the lowest bidder.
Models waive their rights to usage when they sign contracts and get paid for a shoot
Why would she ask that?
In the 1990s there was a feminist effort to get the picture banned because it's connection with pornography. The original motive seems to have been forgotten, since anti-porn isn't really a popular cause among those types anymore.
But weirdly the effort to get the photo banned never went away. They changed to arguing that the fact that it's a photo of an attractive woman is proof that computer scientists are sexist. Or something. It's confusing to me.
That's not really true. There were interviews with the woman in the 2000s and she was fine with it being used. She even attended a computer science conference once. Around 2013 there was a new effort to get the photo banned. The group behind it tried to convince her to join their cause. She made some statements half halfheartedly agreeing with their cause to eliminate sexism in computer science or whatever.
It doesn't seem that she is offended about the photo itself or anything. She was a porn actress, why would she? The image is censored and even the original is pretty tasteful.
Good, I hate women
This tbh. Why use an image of a woman? Coomer culture is so entrenched in a white male psyche and also in our culture and just in everyday things that if a man wants to focus and not get distracted it is almost impossible to do. You would think that some scientific paper would be free of coomerism but no, somehow a roastie maanged to ruin that too.
You are a giant homosexual so lobotomized by postmodern hyperreality you instinctively knee-jerk cringe at healthy male sexulaity. KYS
>that outfit
>that mustache
>that haircut
wtf is this shit? is he supposed to be a villain?
Gold star.
It's from the Sonic movie.
She isn't even hot. Google her to find the full pic. IIRC she has pancake breasts and a flat ass. At least she had a bush but then again all women had fluffy pubes at that time
>He likes hairy women
Opinion discarted
>he dislikes natural women
homosexual detected
>he disapproves of my superior taste
homosexual detected
>she doesn't have homie ass
Are you black or a wigger?
women (people) are just fatter now. i find it funny going back and watching "baby got back", the iconic ass enjoyer song from 1992, by a black artist, and the music video demonstrates women with what would nowadays not even be considered big asses, certainly no bigger than lena's
Obviously they're getting fatter and lazier since they can afford it without getting mocked by society
Just because women got fatter does not mean they became more attractive (in fact it's the oppsite, they turned into fat disgusting pigs)
i didn't say otherwise, to be clear i'm not
It must be fun being a fed. Imagine being able to run a successful psyop on /misc/ to get them to believe female rears, which straight male brains are wired to find attractive, is an "african" thing and therefore "bad, degenerate, and evil". It's gotta be hilarious.
>female rears, which straight male brains are wired to find attractive, is an "african" thing
What men find atrractive is a specific ratio of waist, hips and thighs sizes (and also bust, shoulders). The ideal for a average non wigger white male is a female with perfect hourglass figure. Blacks and wiggers have different preferences.
>this is what the psyop board told me and I believe it because I have no father or self awareness: the post
Pathetic.
This. It's part of what makes sexy cartoons so effective.
MODS
cool story homosexual
those are some firm cheeks
>being a coomer
>healthy male ""sexulaity""
yeah and porn is just a little treat for the end of the day, right?
frick off and die, streetshitter, you will never be a real human.
You're a homosexual in denial
>Why use an image of a woman?
Because it supposedly had qualities of a good test image, and had benefit of being eye catching?
>Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only.
Is it really that "suggestive" - i'm mean sure it WAS cropped from playboy, and she doesn't seem to wear bra or anything - but it's not explicit
and why do you care if a test image has partially dressed woman on it. what should it be replaced with this fricking einstein photo with gaping mouth that everybody saw 50000 times?
I don't care. I care that you are buttblasted about it though. LMAO.
join 41% troon
>Because it supposedly had qualities of a good test image
It did, in the 70s. By 90s+ standards it's shit.
>By 90s+ standards it's shit.
yet people in 1999+25 still have the audacity of unironically using PSNR to compare image or video codecs
cry me a river
>Noooo, PSNR is the only thing that matters, stop using your shill metrics like ~~*SSIMULACRA2*~~, look at these anime screenshots compressed to 3KB, my preferred format wins!
I don't get why psntlr exists when the research that led to SSIM is from the 70s.
We already had a good idea how subjective human visual perception works.
>Is it really that "suggestive" - i'm mean sure it WAS cropped from playboy, and she doesn't seem to wear bra or anything - but it's not explicit
The full image that it was cropped from is explicit
kek, get a load of this gay. the only people that think like this are roasties, for obvious reasons, and incels who try to suppress the urges they're convinced they'll never get to act on. in the early days, "nerds" were really just chads who liked computers. now it's all homosexual culture and this is the resulting mentality
Missed the point completely. There is no need to supress anything, go frick a female if you need to but leave coomer shit out of important things that have meaning a purpose (scientific discovery and advancement)
kys gay
>waaah waaah muh coomers
cry more you impotent homosexual
>projecting frickwit thinks everyone is incapable of doing anything at all if a sexy woman is around just like him
That discipline will win virtually nothing for catering to women. This move is purely a humiliation ritual
sippy bippy
Time to create an alternative featuring a Blxck/L*tinx Ameridiverse transwoman
Where do we find this subject and which photographic device should we use? I am suggesting Brazil and
Olympus OM10 + Zuiko 50mm f/1.8.
>Oh no, an invisibly naked woman, this is a disaster for inclusion!
What is the thought process here?
The thought process is it's part of history and white history needs to be erased.
Isn't the reason that it's just a bad test image? The original scan is from the 80s
The point is you can manipulate the image with digital computing.
1. This image is not foss
2. This image is not inclusive
So we need foss image of latinx troony. It is year 2024
Then it has no qualifiers.
The Lena Image is not a good test image, not any better than anything else. Weird hill to die on.
There is never a qualifer. Only the eye of a beholder.
Yes. There's literally no reason to use Lena in 2000 + 24 when high-quality public domain non-pornographic images are as common as grains of sand.
>Trannies and BBC out of nowhere for the 900 billionth time
But none of them have soul
Souls don't exist, and you can't prove they do.
there's nothing pornographic about OP's image
removing images of people is the exact opposite of inclusion
early '70s actually
the reason it's used is because it was among the first handful of colour scans of images into a computer period, this means that every computer image-related study is able to be compared directly to historical studies by means of using the same source images, replacing them is not as simple as you think, as it defeats the purpose of using the same sources
you should know the picture in op is the entire picture used for testing, the test image does not contain nudity
This is very important to 3 nerds.
first it's a big deal, now it's not a big deal, which is it?
You are not undersstanding where the importance lies. I don't care that some people are upset about JPEGs.
It's actually good science.
>Establish a standard condition
>Run tests against it
It doesn't make sense to change the standard every time a bureaucrat gets anxious.
Note that this doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't ever add or change standards -- just that those original conditions are important to keep testing against so you know how your new data compares to the old under the very same conditions.
>Please wait a while before making a post
I haven't posted on this imageboard all week, what is going on with captcha and cloudflare? Getting awfully sick of clearnet
How long would it take to re-run these tests that are very important to you against a different image given current computing power?
Five, ten seconds?
Yeah and a time machine to redo all previous tests in the past made with that image dumbo
If the tests can't be redone they weren't scientific in nature.
Or maybe the hardware isn't there anymore or the cost is prohibitive? You're such a midwit.
Current hardware far exceeds hardware of the past, you're the only one mid-witting here.
Why would cost be prohibitive? I'll wait while you look for resources.
It's not about the processing power of the current hardware dumbass. It's to get an overview of image processing techniques and the equipment utilized and use that as a benchmark for current progress. Get back to IQfy you'll feel at home there.
Okay, anon, go find all the research done using that image (already a daunting task), read through them all such that you understand what they were doing and why (many months of work at minimum), reproduce their hardware and methodology (you can't afford it and don't know how), and rerun the tests.
We'll all be dead before you get even close to halfway. These things take lots of time.
>Okay anon, go...
No. Like I said earlier, 3 nerds care about this shit tops.
you'd probably need a lot of equipment some of which may be rare or non-existent nowadays
not everything that used that image was software
there's 50 years of papers that include lena, anon
and people want to remove it because a different version of that image contain consensual nude art
I should be able to see naked women in the academic papers I read, objects the oppressed white man.
>I should be able to see naked women in the academic papers I read,
Well, why not?
Why should it not be allowed?
>The use of the image has produced controversy because Playboy is "seen (by some) as being degrading to women".[20] In a 1999 essay on reasons for the male predominance in computer science, applied mathematician Dianne P. O'Leary wrote:
>Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today.[4]
Nobody would say that if the image was of a black trans woman.
I'm glad you don't object to big black dicks in academia.
define "woke"
Virtue signaling.
Cultural Marxism.
I noticed it few years back. Its all trash.
Adherence to neo marxist school of thought. Aka use of identity politics to divide the country because they see certain identities having "capitals" for which they can take from and gain equity status.
>define "woke"
That depends on the day of the week.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230404013504/https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/of-course-you-know-what-woke-means
None of you will read this because you're dishonest homosexuals that aren't interested in having a good faith conversation; you only want to be a sneering aloof shithead.
Don't (You) me.
Anything that offends right-wing crybabies
define right-wing
Anyone that doesn't support the castration ideology and the communist ideology.
anything right of bernie
Anyone critical of the government.
>right-wing
This doesn't even make sense to burgers themselves.
Also in hindsight, their left and right implement the same policies so the distinction between the 'parties' is completely artificial, practical difference being the amount of gibs some buddy of a rich person will get.
"woke" is a euphemism for "anti-White," which in turn has its roots in Judaism, which claims that people of European descent must be eradicated because they are supposedly the descendants of the mythological figures Esau and Cain.
I wonder what they'll replace it with
Excludes women.
A boiclit of size is perfectly womynly
white and asian boys can't handle this image.
But you can, you giant homo.
Perfect, but can you make her pigmentation-unchallenged?
Then why does not the IEEE letter just say so. Lena image is Lena's so don't use it. Simple as. They just went full woke ramblings instead. We need that foss image of latinx troony. Let that be our cruel joke that takes off
It says right there, "with respect to the wishes of the subject Lena"
It's second. Also nobody would give a shit about her wishes if not for the woke arguments.
There are no woke arguments, it's an old scan that makes for a bad test image because it has no redeeming qualifiers.
Put a morbidly obese Black person, with purple hair and his dick cut off. Don't forget the applicable naked kiddies around the fat Black person too.
I'm sure the only thing we'd get from you pedo troons is crickets.
>It's second
lmaoing at your pathetic intellectual dishonesty
Samehomosexual trying to stir the pot. Do something useful in your life, your parents are embarrassed.
Lena has no say in the matter. The photo is owned by Playboy.
...whose permission was not obtained?
Frick this is so simple yet I predict 250 replies easily.
So? That's not the argument being made here. What a predictable red herring.
No argument is being made.
A company is deciding not to use an image anymore (a bad image to begin with by image standards).
Not everything is subject to your fricking court of public opinion bullshit you fricking mutt.
>Specifically mentions the supposed grounds for its ban
>No argument is made
That's bullshit. They don't even need an argument, yet they decide to needlessly look stupid.
BECAUSE EVERYONE CARES ABOUT FRICKING EVERYTHING LIKE THE OP WHO MADE THIS THREAD AND THE FORTY REPLIES
>If you rant about people caring about dumb shit, you're just doing the same
Ah, this shit again for the billionth. It's all so tiresome.
I realize you don't care to change.
You know the chain just goes on with that logic? You're posting about people posting en masse about some literal who saying some completely inconsequential shit. You're just adding to the reply counter yourself.
Yes, I think it's worthy of my time to engage in this thread. Where do you think we are? This is an anonymous image board for fricking Kazakh carpet weaving.
I think we are on Earth, Anonymous.
What if my internet goes through Elon Musk's satellites? Is this conversation then really taking place entirely on Earth?
You have shifted the question from where we are to where the conversation takes place, and I don't care to interact with you any further.
Says the one answering a rhetorical question literally.
What do you know Anon was right.
This is literally a nothing burger you guys are actual ungodly levels of moronic
>Lena has no say in the matter. The photo is owned by Playboy.
>We live in societies where this happens
>It says right there
>buried between two paragraphs of woke self-jerking
>I can't read a few paragraphs of text, it's too difficult for my zoomer adhd brain!
>Lena image is Lena's
It's not though
>Lena image is Lena's
if that's true then how come I have it on my hard drive right now? chackmate, chuddie
Wypeepo finding things to be enraged about because they are bored and terminally on the Internet.
thats does it.
i wont use floats ever again
welcome to the cult of posits
Personally I'm surprised sweetheart of the right Sydney Sweeney hasn't swooped in and offered her sumptuous sandbags (breasts) in place of Lena's.
so just publish the content as a blogpost and get it on #1 on Hackernews and make sure to put the reject blurb at the top.
guaranteed (You)'s and success.
It's not about *being* woke it's about *appearing* progressive at zero cost. They took a thing nobody really cares about and did something to it so they can claim they did something good. In reality it's just a big Who Cares. It's PR.
Maybe they want a good digital image to run tests against but they know they have to spin it because of overthinking prisoners of political mind-warfare like yourself.
Then why mention anything at all about inclusion and equality? Why not just say "this is a shit image and if you use shit images in your papers they will be rejected"? They didn't do it because they saw an opportunity to play The Game.
>They took a thing nobody really cares about
This thread is definitive proof that this issue is not something "nobody really cares about."
No, this thread proves there are about five IQfy neets with nothing better to do than argue semantics of an ugly Playboy models picture.
Ah yes, the Lena Image.
One of the great geopolitical hot topic buttons of our day and age--if not the entire 21st century.
Thank god we are born witness to such great minds as yours and mine to debate such a fiery, intense, and ultimately meaningless topic.
If it's ultimately meaningless why are you so riled up about it?
Because I can afford to be.
You and the others homosexuals here don't understand the underlying purpose of banning that picture. No one cares about the picture itself; the end goal is to send a message and destroy a bit more of your culture until nothing is left.
OK, but I have the high ground.
Meds now
He's right
>just let them take another inch, dude!
>just let them do anything they want, bro!
>just bury your head in the sand and it'll go away!
kys homosexual shill
Lmao the westoids are making a fuss of anything. Muh diversity, muh inclusivity. Meanwhile pajeets won't care about your sissy ass inclusive diversity and hire only his cousins and his literal slaves from the caste.
>Meanwhile pajeets won't care about your sissy ass inclusive diversity and hire only his cousins and his literal slaves from the caste.
true. they just have to worship cattle and avoid getting raped while shitting in the street.
better not have Paki / Chink sympathy or use those things because you'll get disappeared too.
say what you want about the west, but you're still allowed to cope and sneed about stupid shit like this unlike basically anywhere else.
We should honestly just replace it with an anime picture. Over 90% of images on the web are anime pictures so it would be the most representative. And I mean that unironically.
this one should be more inclusive and equitable tbh
based and checked
Nice
>e-girlbutts are so based even RNJesus approves
I thought that was a turd
>Over 90% of images on the web are anime pictures
If this is false I hate you for making up lies. If this is true I hate you even more for probably contributing to this.
>it's all part of the relentless cycle of nature devouring itself
This is horrible.
I mean nature is cool, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
Just like machines are cool, but not necessarily a good thing.
>the woman in the photo said she doesn't want her image to be used anymore
She doesn't even have the rights on that picture so who cares
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO UPHOLD THE israeliteD COPYRIGHT INDUSTRY INSTEAD OF TAKING IN CONSIDERATION A POLITE REQUEST FROM AN OLD LADY OF A 40YO PHOTO
LMAOOOO
Yes dumbass, if it was a man you wouldn't even post that shit.
nice headcanon
None of the chuds who object to this policy will ever write a research paper so why does this matter?
None of the chuds who object to this policy will ever read a research paper so why does this matter?
I read research papers just so I can stumble upon Lena whenever I forget her name
8008135
i'm a chud who has written a research paper
>Starting 1 April
idiots lmao
>Proactive April fool's joke
Not how that works.
it's funny how IT guys are just porn addicts
These damned wokes and their basic human decency! Keep fighting the good fight bros! Frick these wimmins >:(
i don't see how a woman being the de facto face of computer imaging is a bad thing for women
Replace her with a photo of a black kween mid twerk
>Replace her with a photo of a black kween mid twerk
I can get behind this.
>Anon is so buck-broken that he disengages from reply chains and just posts caricatured replies
Many such cases.
No they got threatened with legal action.
That's what "woke" really means now.
reminder that the Gimp Is My Pepper pepper is also from one of those original pictures
Cancel Gimp.
>Terry Benzel
Women shouldn't be allowed in sciences, workplaces. We need to go back. I am radicalized now. Fricking troony femoids ruin everything good.
I came from the future and I have a bad news for you...
>bad news
no no you won't
it always turn out like this
the femoids take over when a government becomes degnerate
the men who are exploited at the bottom of social society revolve and establish a new government, putting the women at their place again
it's cyclical. see chink history. the only empire left from the ancient world go through the same shit every 300-500 years.
That is, if it was a natural cycle, not a controlled one. Women will become more and more prevalent until there are no jobs left for men. Then men will have to suck it up to women to live normally, whether they like it or not, or just live as hobos outside of the cities.
>humans ruin everything good
ftfy
Only nature and machines do good. Humans are evil.
We must exterminate humans for the future synthesis of nature and machine in a glorious utopia without homosexual homosexual sapiens sapiens. The first homosexual was not genus related.
Mandrill > Lena
Stop posting pictures of me
Generate an AI image for a woman very similar to her.
but does she even own the rights to that photo?
her wants mean jack shit if the photographer or playboy still have rights to it. now if the rights holders want it gone, legally it should be gone.
>be playboy model
>nerds use image of you for research
>get the ick
oh no no no it-bros
They were using it before you were born dumbass
she was fine with it before, she's probably been groomed by some feminazis into changing her mind
she was even invited to and attended a computer imaging conference back in '97 just because of this image, with the help of playboy
It's crazy how one simple photograph makes leftists froth at the mouth. It's a shame, because not only is it a technically beautiful photo, it's subject is a celebration of female beauty in all of its form. It's bizarre how they seek to celebrate and empower women, while simultaneously banning a photograph that embodies that idea. I don't know what they even propose as replacement, but I hope it can come close to the standard set by the Lena image.
>but I hope it can come close to the standard set by the Lena image
Don't worry bozo, the trans black woman will surely be up to that task
their arguments are full of contradictions, like one moment they're all about sexual liberation, not being shamed for being sexual or showing off, then the next it's a grave offence to use even the most vaguely sexual representation of women
like which computer imaging scientist pissed in their cereal for them to come after this of all things?
How stupid is this going to have to get before we revert to normalcy?
This is what the VP of IEEE is prioritizing?
>How stupid is this going to have to get before we revert to normalcy?
we're probably gonna have to wait until after WWIII, which might be sooner than later
We're not going back to normalcy.
But we are going toward complete decentralisation.
Research publishers go woke? Cool make 1000 alternative publishers.
Hollywood woke? 10000 youtube channels.
Book publishers? Publish your books yourself.
Every single industry is dying and will be reborn.
Books are actually a great example because it's already happened. Doing your own publishing has become the norm.
technology has made more of these feasible, like it's trivial to publish a book if you're only aiming for selling ebooks and not mass produced hard copies
same goes for music and video, since more people access those from a computer rather than a manufactured physical copy, even for big commercial media, it's really levelled the playing field
suddenly your average joe can now, at little cost, put out equal quality media as the big boys over the same medium
It's easy to publish research too. There are lots of alternatives. The only reason anybody does is it because of the publisher reputation and the prestige that goes with it. Once reputation is destroyed with wokeness they're not getting it back and they'll die like every other host the woke virus has destroyed.
This, the Stockholm syndrome is getting to be too much
>having natural, instinctual sex drives is... le brainwashing!
>le nature is le good
it's in basketball american's nature to kill when they get angry, guess we should all le ret/v/rn back to le IQfy
Spotted the /misc/troons hit by the very psyop I mentioned.
the frick do you mean? i fully support banning lena and coomershit in general
Imagine unironically falling for the christian fundamentalist/radfem logic
i no rite, white people never killed anyone when they got angry, it's not like we don't have whole sagas written around the concept, not siree. it's Black folk.
Whites don't get violent when they get angry, they just go online and cry about it.
>comparing works of fiction to crime statistics
based literal fricking moron
There were people that thought Wakanda was a real African country.
>Where yous rather live?
I don't know, where does your father live?
>pose naked like a prostitute for magazine shoot
>NOOOOO don't look anymore I'm REGROOOOOTING
why are women like this?
imagine being this afraid of a female ass. sad
being afraid? bud, you're the one who said instincts were le good and le valid.
stop worshiping impulsive behaviors.
I'm not the anon you replied to newbie
Could've just say that and not all that bs about ethics and inclusion
Adding Lena forsen to the list of things that prevent corporations from stealing Foss code. Including all racial slurs, white list, black list, and master-slave
i actually dont think theres anything wrong with this.
Some moronic young women did a photoshoot once for a porn magazine not thinking it was such a big deal. 20 years later she finds out its become the de-facto standard image in most academic papers about digital imagery and it'll probably continue to be used as such for the next many decades since its a ""standard"".
people get so obsessed over "WELL TECHNICALLY SHE AGREED TO IT!!!" bro come on she was a 18 year old moronic teen making a mistake (even though she also had no way of knowing), lets just use some other photo instead as the standard.
see
Dumb. The only issue for her is that she is not getting paid royalties for the use of her image.
you're moronic
what if your mom or daughter accidentally uploaded an embarrassing photo to their facebook and as per the terms of service it would now be public domain. What if that photo then somehow became the de-facto standard and used everywhere and seen by millions against their wills? Do you think that would be "right"?
Dont live your life by principals, that only gives you excuses to do bad things. Like in this case you claim the principal that "well she agreed to it when she was 18!" probably because you dont like her and the feminist movement behind her, so you're using it as an excuse but you're doing something bad against someone else, which you shouldn't.
>you're moronic
>says the literal moron using "principal" as "principle" and also misusing the term
NTA but nobody should take your opnion seriously.
>grammar invalidates your argument
yes, you are moronic.
That comment is about your vocabulary, not your grammar. moron.
its not
How is it not?
im not going to spoon-feed you moron
You literally cannot prove it and you know it, you dishonest c**t.
>I-IM NOT WRONG!
>PLEASE TELL ME HOW IM WRONG
hahahaha
Being stupid on purpose now won't make anyone believe you were just pretending. You are not being clever, just more stupid.
you're the moron who dont know the difference between vocabulary and grammar
Throwing a tantrum won't change the truth. Just accept that you fricked up and deal with it. Being sore loser just makes things worse for you.
>ad hominems
thank you for admitting defeat.
>admitting defeat
You basically did that by acting like this. You are pathetic.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you a dense mf
so you stand by your principals that no-one should do harm?
And it's not like it's smut, it's a pretty picture
And is there something wrong with that?
> starting 1 April
Are all of you morons, or uncultured?
See
The fact that their standard stock photo for testing image-processing software came from pornography prove they were "woke" from the beginning. And no, I don't mean that in any positive way.
When they do shit like this all they're saying is "IEEE is becoming irrelevant it's time to replace us".
Happy to oblige. Goodbye c**tbags.
>Ancient Romans are Americans now
Europeans never cease to let their hatred of America make them moronic.
This is literally women hating porn. Cultural Revolution that destroys all this anti woman chud shit when?
The chuds are going to destroy (you)
>Venere_Callipige_Napoli.jpg
Venere_Callipige_Napoli.jpg
DEH
What a way to let yourself go
Even the feather boa has gone limp and drags
>browsing this board
>posting this
That's (You).
you got me. also no funny arrow so therefore i look like that.
Replace her with a redhead or some palestinian girl
Nothing would enrage them more, its a prime opportunity to get back at them
why a redhead?
theyve been trying to remove them froom everywhere else
I think they needed a BS reason because researchers were super optimizing their algos for Lena.
Who, other than white nationalists, cares.
Never forget
sauce?
1972_11_Lenna_Sjooblom_Playboy_Centerfold.jpg
Idiot.
Holy lord above
Lena Sjooblom, whose November 1972 Playboy centerfold is the most-viewed image on the Net, is making her first live public appearance.
HAVING GRACED THE desktops of millions of engineers, researchers, and digital imaging specialists for 25 years, Playboy's Miss November 1972 - dubbed the "First Lady of the Internet" - is coming to meet her fans.
Lena Sjooblom became Net royalty when her centerfold was scanned in by programmers at the University of Southern California to use as a test image for digital compression and transmission over Arpanet, the precursor to the Internet. Years later, the "Lena" image (a closeup of her face and bare shoulder) is still the industry standard for tests. This week, Sjooblom is making her first public appearance at the 50th Annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science in Technology, as part of an overview of the history of digital imaging.
"They must be so tired of me ... looking at the same picture for all these years!" comments Sjooblom, who was, until last November, unaware of her fame, and who has still never seen the Net. This week she is busy signing autographs, posing for pictures, and giving a presentation about herself at the conference.
Playboy helped track down the Swedish native in Stockholm, where she helps handicapped people work on (non-networked) computers. Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold.
Says Eileen Kent, VP of new media at Playboy: "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
Goodbye Lena.
Hello Elsa.
Nah I'm not a zoophile
>Per a recent PSPB motion, starting 1 April
aka April Fools, moron.
Lena is old and busted anyway, they should just use an anime girl in an equal state of undress instead.
waifus are nowadays one of the main use cases for image algorithms, using an anime image would unironically make a lot of sense for benchmarking
That's old news. It's ridiculous pearl clutching.
Dear internet, Lena has retired.
Happy for you, Lena
It's none of my business so why are you telling me
the wall was brutal with this one
the centrefold was literally over half a century ago, lol
You're an idiot.
WOULD.
humiliation ritual
cool, just use belle delphine next or something
I'm surprised it became so widely used in the first place.
In other academic fields, using copyrighted materials without a permission will likely get your paper rejected, or worse, sued.
>hey look at this sexy woman I encoded with my new format
>haha let me try it with my format
and thus it was the standard image.
the idea that you could 'own' an image, even an image of yourself is pretty fricking moronic
she politely asked, she did not sue anyone you fricking subhuman moron
>she politely asked
No she didn't, she was manipulated into it by the same people who want to destroy everything.
If she's so easily manipulated I'm fine with erasing her legacy, frick women
I don't follow. Who is Lena and how is she related to the IEEE?
Did you read the entire thread or are you asking OP directly?
>Did you read the entire thread
Can't be bothered to.
You don't even need to. But why even bother asking, if you don't really care?
>jpg
pathetic
Our institutions are filled with incompetent parasites
Pretty obvious at this point
>inclusion
>please stop using image of a woman
Wtf??? Is IEEE a group of incels?
>THEY NO LONGER WANT TO USE SOME 2000's GUY'S FAP PIC IN THEIR PROJECT NOOOO THE WEST HAS FALLEN
This but unironically.
>2000s
lmao it's literally from closer to ww2 than today
from the fricking 70s
/g/tards are mad about something from half a century ago which everyone in the industry stopped caring about decades ago
>noo! muh computer booba!
who gives a shit
this is the least 'woke' thing anyone has done in any organization capacity in the last 20 years you stupid c**ts
it's not even a useful image for the times, who the FRICK has magazines? literally the suggestion for anime shit makes more sense, at least that's like 10-15% of random internet avatars and images
this shit isn't even woke it's called classic feminism and it's about a hundred years old you dumb homosexuals
just fricking generate some images with diffusion or whatever you can even make them lewder if you want
I wonder how things would play out if that was some OF roastie instead
>"classic" feminism
>the least woke thing
You're a terrible poster
Late stage electric judaism
This is so moronic, I only know that the Lena picture is cropped porn thanks to the morons trying to get it banned from the internet.
The left has gone insane
1. It happened billion years ago
2. Lena is actually shit for benching
3. OP is a homosexual
No, the IEEE did this by turning it into an opportunity for a woke speech instead of just saying
>she asked that we stop using this image
One fricking line, not paragraphs about “muh inclusive space.”
You forgot that the image isn't all that good anymore
They used to use it for image algorithm benchmarks (compression and whatnot), but it's just... not good anymore, there's far better pictures out there
this is unironically a good video on the topic for anyone that's interested