You have got to be kidding me. Who could possibly consider that "NSFW"? I have literally seen more skin being flashed by clothes people are wearing at work.
I get the necessity for NSFW warnings where appropriate, but anyone who has a problem with that tiny, flickering, black and white half-body shot of a woman in lingerie, clearly within the context of a larger collection, has got something wrong with them.
How does the page suffer if instead there's a flickering Howdy Doody, Walter Cronkite, or Emergency Broadcast System screen? How does the page benefit from the inclusion of an image that, while not particularly erotic, is definitely suggestive? (An image can be suggestive even if it shows little or no skin.) Hence my point that it is unnecessary.
Every so often an HN discussion about "brogrammers" and latent sexism comes up. This is a great example. That particular image serves to communicate to the women in the audience "you are objects" (yes, really!) The inclusion of that particular image does make some people uncomfortable and could certainly qualify as NSFW in some work settings (I was an educator, working with mostly 9-10 year olds. "EWWW! Teacher had a dirty picture on his computer!") The only reason to choose such an image is to signal to other bros "hey, I'm cool too", which unfortunately signals to all the rest of us (whether intentionally or not) "I don't respect women".
Well, that's your opinion and it's your right to have it. When you make a web page, don't put women in lingerie on it. Done.
But that's not what you said. You said it was NSFW, which I thought was a ludicrous claim and still do.
Trying to whip up a storm of righteous outrage about sexism and misogyny out of this is just ridiculous. Don't you have anything better to do?
And the hilarious thing is how you just assume the author of the page is a guy. Because, y'know, only guys can make web pages, and only guys would read hacker news! Who's sexist now?
> "that's not what you said. You said it was NSFW"
Yes, and that's what I said a second time as well: "could certainly qualify as NSFW in some work settings". I even described such a setting, which is where I actually worked -- in a public school classroom. You say it's ludicrous to call it NSFW; I say it's ludicrous to think a teacher wouldn't face immediate firing if an elementary student saw that image on his screen.
But I didn't just say it was NSFW; I said it was unnecessary, which is what I clarified in the comment you now take umbrage at.
> "Trying to whip up a storm"
what I initially said was "seems a bit unnecessary to make the TV image NSFW"; that's hardly an attempt to whip up a storm. More like a gentle reminder that people making webpages, as well as those linking to webpages, should carefully consider the content, as some part of the audience may work in environments where "women in lingerie" on your screen is a firing offense.
The only reason it got "stormy" is because you deemed it necessary to suggest there must be something wrong with me (that is, you made a personal attack) because I've worked in settings where that image would be NSFW, and therefore incentivized me to clarify.
> "you just assume the author of the page is a guy."
There's a picture of the person who made the page at the bottom of the page, named Brendan Charles Chilcutt. It's possible I've misidentified the gender of that individual, but it's unlikely.
> " Because, y'know, only guys can make web pages, and only guys would read hacker news!"
This is one of those pointless cheapshots you can only get away with on HN if you come into a thread five days after everyone else left (I wouldn't have even seen this comment if I hadn't happened to be looking through some history for an unrelated comment.) So, as long as we're dropping pointless cheapshots days after everyone else has left: my wife not only reads HN, she's got 5 times as much karma as you do. Also, since you seem to think [0] time on the site is important, we've both been here considerably longer than you. So maybe you would do well to calm down, take a chill pill, and pay attention instead of getting all upset over a suggestion from someone who used to work in an elementary school that certain types of images are both unnecessary and unsafe in certain work environments.
I agree the TV image is a bit NSFW. It disqualifies the site from me ever showing my daughters.
I'm not sure why (as I'm a heterosexual guy) but these kind of photos seem to dumb the content down and I feel like I should have a Coors Light in my hand.
Now I want to play number munchers. I got so good at that game.
PC's should really go back to having the arrow keys all in a line (instead of an upside down T), so you can press any of them without moving your fingers - it's so much faster.
nice low quality, noisy, sometimes clipping recordings. Just what a museum needs! I mean there's even someone talking in the background of the rotary telephone sound clip.
Down voted for speaking factually. If, for instance, I were to start a museum of sounds with a rotary telephone sound in there, I'd source an old rotary telephone and do some nice, clear and most importantly dry recordings of it. But what would I know?
I don't understand why you'd get nostalgic about the sounds of a rotary phone, a cassette tape, or a modem connecting, let alone most of those other sounds. The concepts of those technologies still exist, they've just been replaced by superior versions.
I can understand the nostalgia around the game sounds, of course, because they more strongly evoke the memories of actually playing the game.
http://www.freesound.org/
where the licensing is clear and samples of all kinds of quality (glitch to high end) available.