Thus, I hereby present to you, the Mona Lisa in pure css (!!), using even fewer bytes!
Behold: Mona Lisa in pure html (!!), because more bytes is better.
(may crash browsers)
Having said that, I like all the Mr Doob stuff and most openGL demo stuff coming out.
If your underlying method is pixels, you can render any image you want. I'm afraid I'm missing the "hack" here.
But this is nothing more than using CSS for pixels. With that logic you could theoretically create anything.
The resulting CSS is 247KB. Taking the same image and saving as a JPG (which I think is fair, since it's fairly blurry) results in a 40KB file. That's more than 6 times smaller.
If you scale it down to the detail level found the CSS (each CSS-"pixel" being a 4x5 unit) even a PNG will easily beat it at 24KB. Here the JPG also clocks in at 6KB.
So I don't get it. Using CSS, using a text-format to encode bitmaps has always been and will always provide subpar results. Ok. So it can be done. We know that. It has been proven times and times again.
Apart from that: What's the point?
This reminds me of when I brought a friend of mine to Maker Fair in NYC last year... We were surrounded by a strange amalgamation of weird gadgets and "art", and sometimes the line between the two is not always so clear :) The entire time we were there she kept asking "but what is it FOR?!" or "but who would WANT a thing like that?". I've always found myself asking questions like "ooh what does it do?" and "what can I learn from it?"
At some point the novelty wears off and IMO this one is way past due.
Apart from that, I was asking if there was anything else I was missing. From the responses I got, it seems the answer is "no".
By Jay Salvat
PS: Forgot to mention. The reason I wrote the converter at the time was as an experiment to avoid people from right-click and saving images.
Good question. I'd like to know also.
On another note, let's be honest. A lot of people today don't know print screen. I'd say the majority. But 10 years ago? That image to table conversion must have been a bank vault.
That is, from the technical perspective it may be 'impossible' to achieve perfect DRM. But from another perspective, if the added cost of circumventing that DRM is large enough that most people won't bother, it /may/ be a success. See: Steam.
In short, the language/terminology barrier between people in different fields results in a lot of client/developer miscommunication, frustration, and, frankly, poor results.
A rather complete discussion on this (w/r/t a client wanting 100% uptime): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3056414
 The technical party in the relationship
 The party paying someone you to handle the technical side
 Again, we run into a problem with precise definitions using 'most' - do we mean 99.9%? Do we mean enough that the cost of implementing the DRM is larger than the $ saved. Though the lost sales due to /having/ DRM is an entirely different discussion.
With something like firebug installed, it takes about 20s to find "div#main-photo-container>noscript" holding the image on flickr in all it's glory.
If anybody wants to take a gander at my very slow PHP code, it's here: https://gist.github.com/3831235
Anybody have any optimization tips?
Webkit only though
It started kinda supidly over a beer yesterday with the joconde guy, then one friend posted a 50 mo animated nyan cat, I posted a 22mo version, and we kept iterating until he won.
His last version is kinda smart: it uses css keyframes like divx use video keyframes, with diff in between. Almost the first css video codec :-p
But then I thought it would be neat if someone were to make the Mona Lisa as ASCII art using only valid CSS, thus rendering a truly pure CSS version. I guess you could further argue that it isn't pure CSS because it also involves something to display the text.
It's a pretty simple technique, but it's intensely resource heavy. If the op (or anybody) wrote a script that does this algorithmically to produce as few drop shadows as necessary while maintaining quality... Well, then I'd be thoroughly impressed.
Regardless, this clearly struck a chord with some people so I say cheers to the op! Easy or not, he did it, did it well, and captured peoples' wonder.
(Nice hack, though; didn't know box-shadow could be abused that way)
Pure CSS my arse.
Pixel by pixel... seriously.