Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#111

Post by netdoll »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #110
esafak wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, nobody in the US cares about the network any more; it's been good enough for twenty years. I don't even know how fast mine is. It was very different then. People had modems that pushed 9.6kbps, 14.4kbps, 28.8kbps, 33.6kbps, then 56kbps. Each upgrade was substantial because it was the limiting factor -- I remember each one, as you can see -- and obviously way slower than that mythical T1.

> nobody in the US cares about the network any more Definitely not true if you live in a rural area.

I can personally attest to this, until I moved out to the city, I was significantly kneecapped in terms of what speeds I could have and it had an impact given how many services just implicitly assume you have high bandwidth and more or less lock you out if you don't. And I was one of the "lucky" ones in the sense that I was on a well known national cable provider, heaven forbid you were on telecom DSL or (for the really poor sods out there) V.92 or ISDN.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#112

Post by angry_octet »

rurban wrote: post #88

I would say SGI, with the invention of GPU's and OpenGL. It took off from there, not Evans & Sutherland before.

Jim Clark did his PhD at Utah. The academic program, and the nearby E&S, provided a great incubator for computer graphics talent. Stanford was where it went to the next level, with the subsequent commercialisation via MIPS and SGI.

OpenGL was originally the proprietary IrisGL, and of course SGI never made a GPU, but invented the architecture of fixed function pipelines (Geometry Engines, Texture Memory, Raster Managers). It was people who left SGI to found nVidia.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#113

Post by dahart »

rurban wrote: post #88

I would say SGI, with the invention of GPU's and OpenGL. It took off from there, not Evans & Sutherland before.

No, you’re in the wrong decade. And Jim Clark, who founded SGI, got his PhD and learned computer graphics at Utah and was part of the cohort pictured in the article, his advisor was Ivan Sutherland.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#114

Post by elliotec »

elliotec wrote: post #18

The University of Utah was also the fourth node of ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet - https://www.lib.utah.edu/digital-scholarship/arpanet/ On a personal note, this is also part of why I exist at all. My father came from England very young, worked his way through agriculture jobs in California, and somehow found himself with a job offer at the u of u as an electron microscopist. Met my mom there. Details are…

Most of the discussion on this thread is about my timeline of saying we were one of the first families with internet in 1994. First of all, I did try to qualify it with “as I was told” - i was a kid and all I knew was what my dad and the internet told me - but I was writing that comment with haste and on second thought, the timing was certainly more like 1992. Also, I didn’t say that’s when we got it, just when he told me that. As i said before, he had it in the 80s. Just to throw a wrench in the discussion. Also yes, it was hyperbole to say it took 15 min to download an image, but just barely and just for the fun of the story. Love you all and your pedantic asses.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#115

Post by [deleted] »

dgacmu wrote: post #56
riceart wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1994 was way way after dialup Internet access was mainstream (both Yahoo and Amazon were founded that year). Any first access in the state would be sometime in the 80s. By 1993 there were already national level dialup ISPs. > that was about as long [15 minutes] as it took to load one webpage with one image. Very hyperbolic. A simple webpage with text would load in seconds on a 28.8k modem. A single image would usuall…

This is not correct for access open to the general public. The first commercial ISP in Utah, Xmission, was founded in 1993. Yes, many of us had internet access through the University of Utah before that (Pete Ashdown, the founder, had worked at Evans & Sutherland, which had quite good internet connectivity). But most people did not if they weren't associated with a university. (I helped create the third public ISP in…

[deleted]

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#116

Post by pfannkuchen »

dahart wrote: post #100
pfannkuchen wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty sure the reason why people are against the image being used is that (image processing in this case) used to be a male dominated field, and the use of an arguably contextually misogynistic image could make female researchers in the field uncomfortable and/or less included, etc. I really don’t think setting an example for children has anything to do with it.

Your summary is accurate, I agree with it, though the question of whether Playboy is “arguably” contextually misogynistic isn’t really even up for debate, it’s a well known fact that lots of women (and men) have repeatedly pointed out for decades. The issue with Lena is more than the potential that it could make female researchers uncomfortable, it actually did, and some of them were kind enough to let people know, a…

> I don’t know what you mean by “children” or what you’re reacting to exactly, since I didn’t make any specific claims about children

I’m reacting to this: “Imagine if female teachers put up Chippendale’s posters in the classroom, or nurses put them in the hospital, and argued that anyone who complained was just being PC police and unreasonably sensitive”

I don’t have a strong position on Lena elimination, I just think that comparing the situation to teachers or nurses hanging up an explicit or sex-related poster is ridiculous. I brought up children because I think the reason why teachers or nurses hanging up posters like that is obviously offensive is that those are professions which have a large and direct day to day exposure in-person to children. Image processing researchers do not share this trait, so the comparison is invalid IMO. If you said the same about, say, mechanics or factory workers, professions without direct exposure to children, I don’t think it would be as obviously offensive.

> we demand the right to keep using a pinup in research

It isn’t itself a pinup, it looks like a still from a regular film and the image itself isn’t explicit at all. I think calling it a “pinup in research” is an exaggeration. The fact that it is actually from Playboy is sort of an in-joke in the field, since I don’t think anyone naively looking at the image would think that (I certainly didn’t when I first saw it).

> we have a history of accidentally excluding women from tech

Do you honestly believe that things like Lena have a significant effect here? I think women’s perception of tech being a place for men is primarily influenced by it being, in fact, full of men. Spending time on matters like this is counterproductive because it makes people working to improve equality in the field seem petty.

> Do you consider female… college students to be children?

Absolutely not, and I find the idea insulting to female college students. Women having children at that age is accepted in our society, so I have no idea how they could themselves be considered children without seriously altering the functional definition of the word child.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#117

Post by johnnyanmac »

dahart wrote: post #68
johnnyanmac wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't really get what happened there. They found out 20 years later than it was a cropped image from Playboy, and eventually both Playboy and the model were fine with it being used for research purposes. Then another 20 years later people re-discovered this and now it was sexist? Regardless, I read some other literature and I do agree that it was probably well past time to update a reference image that wasnt…

FWIW, this isn’t an accurate summary of what happened with the Lena image at all, and the story and reasons behind it’s decline are easily available online. If you want to understand it, maybe it’s worth looking up? Lena is publicly on board with the movement to stop using her image for research, and it is irrelevant that Playboy has waived their copyrights. The reasons the image is discouraged are to promote profess…

>If you want to understand it, maybe it’s worth looking up?

I read several different articles from several different points of time, some obviously sympathetic of removing the image and some cynical. So I understand both sides of the fence. My goal wasn't to provide a summary so much as my overall impression.

> So please consider more carefully the message that pushing back on the Lenna image sends and how it might reflect on you from other people’s point of view.

The whole problem I have with this is that I never bothered looking up Lena until this comment chain, but I've seen her picture used several times in my computer graphics classes (went to college in the late 2000's, so just before the "2nd wave" of controversy).

I never knew, I don't think any one else in my class knew, and nobody questioned it nor thought it derogatory. And to be honest, the later context of this doesn't change my mind either. It is not an obviously pornographic image, the purpose of the image in its current use was not titilation.

I board on the cynical side precisely because of that; intent. And I don't think the intent here was ever to discourage nor shame women to work in STEM. Even in the 70's I simply think that some college students needed a good test image, and an on hand magazine clipping of a very high resolution photo (for its time) was the "good enough" solution as opposed to scouring stores for the perfect reference image that would stand the tests of time. Similar to other computer graphics story in that a husband/wife sitting down for tea resulted in the Utah Teapot.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#118

Post by rosewater »

dahart wrote: post #77
cubefox wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject your accusations. Claiming without evidence that the Lena image is harmful is about as absurd as claiming the face of the statue of David is harmful. That's another often used picture, and of course completely ignored by the breathless "sexism!" yellers.

David wasn’t made with the intent to be pornographic. Lena’s picture was. Being unaware of the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There’s plenty of evidence of the mild bias inherent in the use of Lena, if you actually want to find the evidence. Lots of women have mentioned their mild discomfort with seeing it in a professional setting. There’s a documentary about this story called “Losing Lena”.

I appreciate all of your comments in this thread. As a female researcher in graphics - there is an awkwardness to that image personally. But, I don’t speak for all women by any means.

It’s a small discomfort, nothing earth-shattering. I wouldn’t have made it very far in CS if I couldn’t handle it. But, it adds to the pile of other small discomforts of being a woman in CS/tech. And that pile is large and cumulatively results in a tense experience.

I’m more bothered by these responses than anything, bending-over-backwards to justify the necessity of the image. Come on, guys. Switching the image is a gesture, and a nice one. It’s not that hard to be considerate to your female colleagues. But, in many cases - most even, you don’t have to be if you don’t want to.

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#119

Post by dahart »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #116
dahart wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your summary is accurate, I agree with it, though the question of whether Playboy is “arguably” contextually misogynistic isn’t really even up for debate, it’s a well known fact that lots of women (and men) have repeatedly pointed out for decades. The issue with Lena is more than the potential that it could make female researchers uncomfortable, it actually did, and some of them were kind enough to let people know, a…

> I don’t know what you mean by “children” or what you’re reacting to exactly, since I didn’t make any specific claims about children I’m reacting to this: “Imagine if female teachers put up Chippendale’s posters in the classroom, or nurses put them in the hospital, and argued that anyone who complained was just being PC police and unreasonably sensitive” I don’t have a strong position on Lena elimination, I just thi…

> Do you honestly believe that things like Lena have a significant effect here? […] I think calling it a “pinup in research” is an exaggeration.

Yes, and not because I suspect it, it’s because I happen to have seen women testifying to this fact. Your language for multiple comments continues to insist and insist on downplaying the issue and disregarding the stated wishes of people who are sincerely pointing out a legitimate problem, and the stated reasons that professional journals like Nature have put on record. There are no longer any technical reasons to use Lena in publications, none. And by and large, it is done and over with, nobody uses it anymore. You can nit-pick and argue over the degree of the problem all you want, and rather than proving that people are exaggerating or being unreasonable, whinging about it now mostly makes it seem like you want to preserve and defend this mildly misogyinist symbol & behavior. Insisting that it’s not a problem, when you’re part of the in-group, is exactly how cultural bias persists.

In 1984 in the U.S., almost 40% of CS degrees went to women, after growing year over year for decades. Since then the number dropped to below 20%. Meanwhile in other countries, like India, for example, there have been years where it was over 50%. We have hard evidence that we are somehow limiting equal opportunity and making CS unappealing to women. It’s a fact of history that Lena was and is considered by many people to demonstrate the attitudes that are pushing women out of CS. So what do you want to do about that? If you don’t believe it, then offer a plausible and compelling alternative to what the problem is and how to fix it.

> I find the idea insulting to female college students. […] I have no idea how they could be themselves considered children without seriously altering the functional definition of the word child.

“The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.” (Age of majority is 18 years in the U.S. - typically a freshman in college.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

How about instead of arguing about trivia, we just agree to listen to and respect people’s wishes, especially when outsiders point out that the in-joke isn’t particularly clever or tasteful and makes us look like Beavis and Butthead?

Re: The computer graphics industry got started at the university of Utah

#120

Post by dahart »

rosewater wrote: post #118
dahart wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David wasn’t made with the intent to be pornographic. Lena’s picture was. Being unaware of the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There’s plenty of evidence of the mild bias inherent in the use of Lena, if you actually want to find the evidence. Lots of women have mentioned their mild discomfort with seeing it in a professional setting. There’s a documentary about this story called “Losing Lena”.

I appreciate all of your comments in this thread. As a female researcher in graphics - there is an awkwardness to that image personally. But, I don’t speak for all women by any means. It’s a small discomfort, nothing earth-shattering. I wouldn’t have made it very far in CS if I couldn’t handle it. But, it adds to the pile of other small discomforts of being a woman in CS/tech. And that pile is large and cumulatively…

Thank you! I’m trying but smh yeah this level of argument never ceases to surprise me. We need more women in tech, and we need to figure out how to collectively want to be considerate. Good luck in your graphics research & career! I really mean that because mine is full of luck, and I might not have made it if I’d had a non-stop stream of small discomforts. Graphics is super fun though.
Post reply on HN