DEFCON projected on Imperial College Wall

[martinmir]

Take a look at this photograph we found in our IV archive.



This is technically vandalism so the photographer would like to remain anonymous.

[xander]

Projecting a very non-permanent image on the wall of a building is vandalism‽ I can see how someone might argue that it is disturbing the peace or something, but vandalism? That just doesn't make sense to me. :\

Anywho, nifty image. When I was at Pomona, a bunch of engineering students from Mudd would occasionally pull out a projector, and hook up a NES to play some of the old school games on the wall. Mario was almost life sized. ;)

xander

[NeatNit]

Heh, quality projector there. A regular one would be practically invisible.

[Feud]

Projecting a very non-permanent image on the wall of a building is vandalism‽ I can see how someone might argue that it is disturbing the peace or something, but vandalism? That just doesn't make sense to me. :\

You've got to remember that England tends to be a bit... over zealous in their legislation of certain activities, at least compared to what most Americans are used to.

[tllotpfkamvpe]

There is not enough news to go around recently. What ever happened to that IV gameathon thing?

[NeatNit]

I'm assuming it still happens and they forgot to remind us?

[shinygerbil]

Projecting a very non-permanent image on the wall of a building is vandalism‽ I can see how someone might argue that it is disturbing the peace or something, but vandalism? That just doesn't make sense to me. :\

You've got to remember that England tends to be a bit... over zealous in their legislation of certain activities, at least compared to what most Americans are used to.

Is that...sarcasm??

[Feud]

You've got to remember that England tends to be a bit... over zealous in their legislation of certain activities, at least compared to what most Americans are used to.

Is that...sarcasm?? [/quote]

Not a drop.

[xander]

Just a point of fact, Feud: I made no comment about whether or not the projecting of an image on a wall was or was not criminal. I can see many circumstances where the police would be entirely justified in asking that it be taken down (i.e. the people in the building are being disturbed by the light). Whether or not the British are more uptight about it is irrelevant.

Rather, my concern was the word. Vandalism implies that property has been damaged. I see no way that property could have been damaged by this stunt, so I don't see why it would be vandalism. As I said, creating a disturbance or something like that seems reasonable, but vandalism does not make sense.

I would also point out that the British do not have a monopoly on stupid, overzealous legislation. The USA PATRIOT Act comes to mind, for instance...

xander

[NeatNit]

You've got to remember that England tends to be a bit... over zealous in their legislation of certain activities, at least compared to what most Americans are used to.

Is that...sarcasm?? [/quote]

Not a drop.

You fail at quote.

Fix:

You've got to remember that England tends to be a bit... over zealous in their legislation of certain activities, at least compared to what most Americans are used to.

Is that...sarcasm??

Not a drop.

[Feud]

My point, which in hind sight I did a terrible job of articulating, was that it seemed an odd thing to criminalize and that such criminalization was more inherent to the local. I could certainly see people complaining about it, and being told to stop it based upon said complaints, but to actually criminalize the act through legislation, as was implied by calling it vandalism, seems very strange.

I agree, they don't have a monopoly on stupid laws. But in general it's my opinion that they do tend to be more strict about what people may and may not do.

[Ace Rimmer]

He's right, that wasn't sarcasm. This is sarcasm...

I agree, they don't have a monopoly on stupid laws. But in general it's my opinion that they do tend to be more strict about what people may and may not do.

Which nation was it that declared Independence and is about to celebrate said Independence from living under a king?

[martinmir]

OK it’s not technically vandalism but at the end of the day the projection was not checked with Imperial. So if we were to reveal the people who were involved in this stunt, they would be in serious trouble. Not that we know who did it but rather the photographer.

[xander]

OK it’s not technically vandalism but at the end of the day the projection was not checked with Imperial. So if we were to reveal the people who were involved in this stunt, they would be in serious trouble. Not that we know who did it but rather the photographer.

Okay. That makes more sense. :P

xander

[Wasgood]

I'd be curious to what the projector looks like. Hell I wanted to play Defcon on a smartboard but my teacher never let me