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.

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.