The problem with the Lenna imagery isn't political correctness, it's the fact that it's a crappy scan from a magazine that always had crappy photography to begin with.
The problem is that women in science cannot read a paper on image processing without being reminded that it's a boy's club.
I find this attitude far more patronizing than any conceivable choice of test imagery in a graphics research project.
Suggest reading this before posting anything else about the delicate sensibilities of "women in science": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/magazine/my-great-great-au...
Do you think any of those women would have spared a half-second's thought about this issue? Somehow, I don't think so. I think they were too busy doing science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#Controversy
I'm not saying all women are crippled by it, because they have to deal with such nonsense while walking down the street every day. But can't we as scientists strive to improve the status quo?
The scientists in the article I linked, on the other hand, aren't speaking up about anything, because they're all dead.
The New York Times Magazine article is pretty long, it'll take you a few minutes to read it. I'll wait.
Short version: they suffered real discrimination, which you've diminished by comparing it to the use of Lenna.jpg in a graphics project.
Not doing something you are permitted to do is somehow denying their right to permit? It's nice of her permitting the use, however her permission doesn't force us to use it. By the same logic, it would be perfectly okay use goatse image if the guy permitted it, right?
If the ability to represent the goatse image were a critical part of the evaluation process for a compression algorithm, then yes. However, we evolved to recognize and respond to subtle features in human faces, not human colons. So, no, goatse would not be an appropriate reference image.
I have a hard time understanding the knee jerk reaction to the change and the willingness to maintain the status quo. We have nothing to lose if the image is swapped with one that is less ostracizing --which is something Mozilla did in the past. Why defend it?
So it wouldn't be worth defending at all, if it weren't being attacked on grounds I strongly disagree with, by people who I believe shouldn't gain any more influence over our culture than they already have.
I'm having trouble understanding what this means, concretely. Do you think it would be a bad thing if computer science became less of a boys club? Or do you not believe that is why people dislike the picture? Who is it exactly that has too much power over "our" culture -- women? Politically correct killjoys?
On the Internet it's hard to be sure, but I haven't seen any negative comments about lenna.jpg that I can attribute to women qua women.
So I guess that leaves door #2, huh?
...no wait, I wouldn't.
Is it putting words in someone's mouth if said words are their own, I wonder?
Are you even aware you made my exact point?
You, on the other hand, were suggesting that CamperBob2 was arguing with you purely because he didn't like you, which would be pretty silly if it were true.