...avoid UK, got it

[farla]

On the one hand, it's definitely refreshing to feel that the American government isn't the most batshit one for once. On the other hand, the idea that other places are even worse doesn't fill me with optimism for the future.

Comments

[wintersheir]

...

Wow. I'm going to tell myself that's a joke/some kind of arty thing in order to preserve my sanity.

[farla.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought at first, but if you look at the last image you can see it's at a pedestrian crossing, which looks like it'd be hard to photoshop, and the smaller print identifies it as being part of the Department of Urban Research. So unless the department was doing a study on how fast they could get their development team fired...

[negrek.livejournal.com]

It's a hoax. Note the very jpg-y distortions around the text in pictures one and two, although you can also see it in three and four. The words have been pasted onto the white background, and their background does not exactly match it. You can see distortion most clearly on the "Department of Urban Research" bit in picture three, this time where the black-grey doesn't check out. There's more distortion around the other words in the other pictures as well, although more subtle--I might put it down to a crappy camera, as those images aren't the greatest, but it's quite obviously localized around the words. Not all of the text is aligned properly. The "yes" and "no" buttons in the first picture are distorted, indicating manipulation. In the fourth picture, the white field for the third has been shrunk and skewed to fit on the new sign.

Also, in picture number four, where would the pedestrians be pressing to get their walk signal? That thing at the top is a bolt, not a button, and the thing on the bottom is apparently a part of the advertising campaign.

Still, good for a laugh.

[farla.livejournal.com]

You think so? That would make more sense, but it seems like it'd be pretty hard to do. It's not really my forte, though. The first one looks easy enough, but the second and fourth ones seem like they'd be hard. And you'd think if it was faked that the small text in the second one would be readable. Of course I suppose in that vein it would lend verisimilitude to make it unreadable.

Also, in picture number four, where would the pedestrians be pressing to get their walk signal? That thing at the top is a bolt, not a button, and the thing on the bottom is apparently a part of the advertising campaign.
The idea is that they modified the walk signals so that the text is around the regular buttons pressed to get across the street. Which would make it pretty obnoxious if it was true.

[negrek.livejournal.com]

Yup. It's gotta be a pretty crappy photo editing job for someone like me to pick up on it, but that text is definitely not native. The discolorations are either the result of them pasting something over existing text or importing the text straight from somewhere else, probably the former. The illegibility is just a bit of blurring--you could even do that on something as crappy as my photo editing software.

The idea is that they modified the walk signals so that the text is around the regular buttons pressed to get across the street. Which would make it pretty obnoxious if it was true.

Well, that's what I thought initially, but then I was like, "There is no way they could get away with that without somebody making a fuss about it."

I'm pretty sure those photos are photoshopped.

[farla.livejournal.com]

The illegibility is just a bit of blurring--you could even do that on something as crappy as my photo editing software.
Yeah, I can too. It just seems odd that someone would have that much restraint - especially since the text is almost legible and seems interesting.

[negrek.livejournal.com]

((LJ won't let me reply to your post all of a sudden. Hmm. ))

Hmmm, upon further scrutiny it might actually belong there. The blur is in fact in great contrast to the oddly sharp main text, and the actual text, from what I can read of it--

"It is ___ illegal to ___ of
this signal without a permit
____ ____ pressing this button
___ be ___ as ___ against you."

and the fact that it's apparently from "The Organized Crime and ____ Act" seems to suggest that it's an unrelated bit of text that just looks sufficiently menacing undoctored to leave this way. I mean, if you actually read it, it sounds rather non sequitor with the rest of the sign doesn't it? It looks to me like it's some sort of warning against defacing the signal or jamming the button in or something so that it's constantly going off. Assuming I've got my blurry-text-reading skillz running high tonight. The main text also doesn't align properly with it or with the top of the white bit itself; that might actually belong there, I don't know. It doesn't appear to be much to do with support of the government in any case, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a different anonymous from the one underneath and I'm almost certain that the text says:

"It is utterly illegal to protest in this area without a permit
Refraining from pressing the button may be used as evidence against you."

[farla.livejournal.com]

I can't quite make out the second line, but yes, that's about what I got. (I believe the words are, It is currently illegal, but then, yours seems no less plausible. Incidentally, the final bit looks like it's The Organized Crime and Policing Act)

Which merely raises a new conundrum. It's easily the most dramatic, unbelievable statement of all of them, yet if credibility was the maker's goal, it wouldn't be included in the first place, and if sensationalism was, it wouldn't be blurred.

And now one of the commenters is saying that they are real, but they're meant as a mockery of the government. Which makes most sense in context of what they say (certainly I was waiting for a punch line at the end of the post originally) and the illegible text, although I'm somewhat dubious of the investment it would take to pull this off.

[negrek.livejournal.com]

Whoops, meant to say that for the third sign, it was the text that was shrunk and skewed, not the whole field--it was just pasted in around the button.

[(Anonymous)]

Hello, sorry Im anonym, but I'm not a part of livejournal ^^;
But I just wanted to say that it comes from the page scaryideas.com. and that place is far from an truthful place. but quite funny. like this: http://www.scaryideas.com/Videos/iBox/

[farla.livejournal.com]

Yes, I noticed, but the other stuff on the site reporting it is legitimate and they treated it legitimately, so it's really a tossup in terms of credibility.

And yes, that is an interesting site.

[(Anonymous)]

These are the real fingerprint detectors: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1954181,00.html

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, forgot to sign... Kiii

[farla.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, I understand they're fake. The idea is it's advertising.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, advertising the viewpoint that the government's getting too 'Big Brother'. Putting no 'no' button is about as blatant a statement of annoyance toward the government as you could make...

What's the idea with all this 'I can't believe the government would do that' stuff? o0 I've no idea why the people on that site are treating it as if the government put them up, but isn't it obvious that the government would never criticize itself so harshly and openly?

[farla.livejournal.com]

See, the thing is...

In America, it's gotten really jingoistic at times. The whole "you're either with us or you're a terrorist" bit. So the government putting up antagonistic things that where you can only agree with them is not as ridiculous as it should be, although I did think it was odd it was happening in the UK rather than America, since I'd thought they were the saner ones.

(In fact...putting up signs like that as bait, and then prosecuting protesters as the smaller text seems to suggest, would seem unbelievable except our own government agents infiltrated environmentalist organizations and encouraged members to commit illegal acts and destroy property and murder people so they'd be able to arrest those members. And we put anti-war activists on terrorist lists. And we want to bug Muslims' houses, and when they complain we say that's reason to believe they're terrorists.

(I'd like to believe that there'd be protests if there were signs like that here, but then, I believed we'd never go to war with Iraq.)

[(Anonymous)]

That's so hilarious.