Hidden cameras and covert recording devices. Forum

[Burger in a can]

.

[Nietzsche_NYU]

Use a keylogger in the background(doubt they'll check what services are running in the background)
or press ctrl+a > ctrl+c > submit your work > ctrl+v in your favorite word processor(notepad?) and there you have a copy of YOUR work for yourself.

PS: The video/audio recording stuff is a bit shady(especially if your prof. outright disallows it in class) and not worth getting into.

[clintonius]

1st one: Ok, that rule is there for a reason. You WERE hurting it. Oils from hands breaks down paper and makes drawings/paintings last a lot shorter, or can tarnish statutes. If it is in a museum, we are trying to keep it around for hundreds of years if possible. Don't do that.

Just a side note to Bosque: If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, it's probably better to just not say anything.

Please expound.

At first I thought this was an overeager troll. Now I think the OP is a bratty child who is going to have great difficulty adjusting to professional life.

I'm not bratty. I'm actually the "Quiet Type".

Yeah, I hear you. While I agree with everyone else that this would be a terrible idea where the best possible outcome is that you never get caught and the worst is career suicide, I can understand the the impetus behind this desire quite well. I'm also a quiet, generally nice person who just hates authority and loves sticking it to 'The Man' even for no good reason.

I have among other things: been kicked out of museums for touching the art (fuck you volunteer security guard I wasn't hurting anything), publicly berated for taking pictures of endangered birds (fuck you volunteer bird protector I wasn't hurting them), and disciplined - in college - for writing on the desk (fuck you TA I was gonna erase it). I wouldn't categorize myself as bratty and I don't think other people would either. Perky, sweet, upbeat, those are things people have said about me. I just have secret stupid rebellious side that likes to break small meaningless rules. OP, in my experience it really is almost never worth it.

It seems like your dismissing these rules as "meaningless" without justifying why they have no meaning might betray a quality that won't serve you well in law school.

[Burger in a can]

m

[clintonius]

Was curious. Thanks for responding!

[presh]

.

[Burger in a can]

,

[legalease9]

]Please expound.

Don't mind if I do.

The oils in our fingers don't damage paper, canvas, linen, or any other common artist's substrate because these substances are used precisely for their oleophilic nature. Even paper loves oil. Don't believe me? Ask Rembrandt why the paper he used 350 years ago is still around, despite being covered in oil-based etching ink. Canvas and linen also, obviously, are often covered in oil paint. The PH level of our sweat can contaminate these substrates, but not any oils. The "tarnish"ing of "statutes" might be referring to the same magic hand oil somehow destroying sculpture, which is even more unlikely. You get the point, and I know it's a stupid point, but if someone is going to lecture someone else in a tone like: "Ok, that rule is there for a reason..." they should probably actually have some grasp of what they're saying.

Isn't that rule still reasonable though? It is my understanding (and I totally admit that this comes from a very limited knowledge of painting restoration) that the dirt on hands, even ones that might look clean, damages the painting's surface and that touching a painting can wear the paint off over time.

I wasn't arguing that the no-touching rule isn't reasonable. I was saying that Basque's tirade about "oils from hands" had no factual authority. Like if someone lectured you for staring at the sun because aliens will crawl out of your eyes. Not staring at the sun is a good idea, but not because of aliens. And yes, if you're trying to archive anything it's a good idea to keep hundreds of people from touching it on a daily basis.

... Interesting analogy... Makes the point well enough at least.

[presh]

.

[Bosque]

]Please expound.

Don't mind if I do.

The oils in our fingers don't damage paper, canvas, linen, or any other common artist's substrate because these substances are used precisely for their oleophilic nature. Even paper loves oil. Don't believe me? Ask Rembrandt why the paper he used 350 years ago is still around, despite being covered in oil-based etching ink. Canvas and linen also, obviously, are often covered in oil paint. The PH level of our sweat can contaminate these substrates, but not any oils. The "tarnish"ing of "statutes" might be referring to the same magic hand oil somehow destroying sculpture, which is even more unlikely. You get the point, and I know it's a stupid point, but if someone is going to lecture someone else in a tone like: "Ok, that rule is there for a reason..." they should probably actually have some grasp of what they're saying.

Isn't that rule still reasonable though? It is my understanding (and I totally admit that this comes from a very limited knowledge of painting restoration) that the dirt on hands, even ones that might look clean, damages the painting's surface and that touching a painting can wear the paint off over time.

I wasn't arguing that the no-touching rule isn't reasonable. I was saying that Basque's tirade about "oils from hands" had no factual authority. Like if someone lectured you for staring at the sun because aliens will crawl out of your eyes. Not staring at the sun is a good idea, but not because of aliens. And yes, if you're trying to archive anything it's a good idea to keep hundreds of people from touching it on a daily basis.

Oh, cool it. Yes I misspoke when I said oils, but the point about touching was correct. I knew "what the hell" I was talking about, I just said oils as a place holder for the myriad of different gunks that accumulate on your hands. No need to be so rude about it.