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.
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."
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.
((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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-20 04:09 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-20 04:25 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-20 04:34 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-20 04:57 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 02:13 am (UTC)"It is utterly illegal to protest in this area without a permit
Refraining from pressing the button may be used as evidence against you."
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 03:25 am (UTC)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.