Re: WTC Photos

,[ On Thu, Oct 04, at 12:51PM, John Doe Number Two wrote: ]-- | John was busy playing war tourist, and as any journalist who has covered a | conflict will tell you, war tourists are some of the lower forms of life one | can encounter. John was playing someone who was in the area a

Re: WTC Photos

"Dr. Evil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > This brings to mind something which would be a very cool project: Have > a digital camera that public key encrypts the photos before storing > them. Obviously the private key would be stored in some other safe > place, so if the camera is stolen, no one

RE: WTC Photos

"John Doe Number Two" wrote: > John shouldn't have been walking inside > the crime scene. Why not? > The cops treated him better than they > should have. How should they have treated him? S a n d y

Re: WTC Photos

John was busy playing war tourist, and as any journalist who has covered a conflict will tell you, war tourists are some of the lower forms of life one can encounter. Think pornographer with a flack jacket. John shouldn't have been walking inside the crime scene. The cops treated him better tha

Re: WTC Photos

Yes, Incognito is correct. But what you need for experiencing the real thing is this little bag of rainbows which Guiliani and Pataki and Bush hand out to special visitors. I grabbed a bunch of these grandiloquenizers from Red Cross which freely dispenses them to the cadaver bits mongerers. The

Re: WTC Photos

Virtually everyone who visits the WTC site reports the same effect: they are astonished by the scale of the devastation, utterly beyond from what they have seen in photos and on TV. Then they take pictures, and guess what: they are no different from anyone else's pictures. Pictures show a tiny wi

Re: WTC Photos

Greg Broiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I built a thumbnail page leading to reduced-JPG-quality images from John's > files; that's online at , with a > temporary mirror at . That was > finished last night, but my mail

Re: WTC Photos

At 08:53 AM 10/4/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Not sure how *nix-savvy you are, John, but you may want to try out >"convert." Wrapped in a simple perl or shell script, it'll take care >of resizing to some reasonable level. 768x512 is sufficient for >most casual viewing purposes, at least u

Re: WTC Photos

Agreed that reduced-size images are desirable. One or more of the mirrors are offering those, Parrhesia for example. We elected to initially offer the full size to not limit what can be offered by others and to feed those with terabyte maws. When image downloads jam shut Cryptome, which seems li

Re: WTC Photos

Not sure how *nix-savvy you are, John, but you may want to try out "convert." Wrapped in a simple perl or shell script, it'll take care of resizing to some reasonable level. 768x512 is sufficient for most casual viewing purposes, at least until monitor size/quality increases. -Declan On Wed, Oc