Paul Debevec, through his papers on acquiring low dynamic range imagery and turning that into high dynamic range imagery - and a utility to go with it coded with help from others; HDRshop, has made HDR accessible and popular.
However, 'HDR' as the storage format being used most frequently already existed in the rendering application Radiance for a long, long time before that.
In fact, -most- rendering applications render in HDR - but are forced to clip values so that you can actually output it to a regular display (e.g. your TFT) or storage format (e.g. JPG).
In fact, Valve's HDR isn't an HDR display technology. It's a partial HDR pipeline for rendering (making sure that glints of the sun are bright on water surfaces, and not dull), processing (bloom effects) and simple tone mapping a la a LUT (look into a room from a skylit outside, and the room may appear dark. Walk inside, and the room appears normal whilst the outside world will appear very bright indeed. Note that a more proper tone mapping algorithm would, besides being computationally very expensive, show the room normally and the outside world bright - but not so bright as to be blown out.)
Once we've all got HDR displays (search on Slashdot for these - I've seen them, they're awesome), we can do away with all these basic gimmicks as the human visual perceptance system will simply do all the interpreting of what should be 'correct' HDR values coming from the display.
Wouldn't it be just as reasonable for Slashdot management to tell you to get a better phone ?
Keeping up maintenance on the old slashcode takes time (and money). As does serving the pages which are larger than the new CSS-enabled pages. Would you be willing to pay them to do this and pay for the bandwidth costs involved ?
Why don't you load the RSS and/or Slashdot Light ?
oblig. pointing out of mistakes in parent post...
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree with you for the most part, but everybody makes mistakes.
On the spelling front, for example, you misspelled the word "pity".
On the grammar front you forgot an "a"; "I work with a couple of American". (Yes, that's with a capital "a", too.)
Lastly, your first sentence would be more proper if it would read "Spelling and Americans ? You must be kidding me!!!" or "Spelling and Americans - you must be kidding me". The form in which you've written it now seems to indicate that you are saying "you must be kidding me" to both Americans and a person who goes by the name of "Spelling".
--
That said - who cares ? I've seen similar errors in letters written directly by CEOs (not passing through their secretaries/etc.) and even in press releases. It *would* be nice to hold everybody to a high standard to help keep it up, but I think it's far too late.
stealing, copyright infringement... it's both illicit:)
And while you may think one is morally less objectionable than the other, you'd be kidding yourself if you were to think it's perfectly a-ok. ( not saying that you do - but there's plenty reading and posting here that do )
"Hardly. I'd NEVER pay to see these movies, but I might download them for free out of curiosity. Either way, no money goes from my pockets to theirs."
No, but IP - or entertainment, or lack thereof if you will, goes from THEIR pockets to your brain in a way.
Just as you would never pay to see those movies, they would never let you see those movies for free. I believe that's fair enough.
If you don't want to pay to see those movies, wait for them to be aired on T.V. even though you'd still be paying for them then, you at least wouldn't be participating in copyright infringement. IF you have some argument against that (taking too long before it airs, etc.) then obviously you do have a vested interest in seeing it when you want - and some form of compensation, typicall in the form of money, is not absurd.
A1. scan as normal A2. separate the channels into CMYK in Photoshop/whathaveyou A3. inspect the Yellow channel.
B1. scan as normal B2. separate the channels into RGB in GIMP/whathaveyou B3. do a difference matte between the channels B4. inspect the result
C1. replace the yellow toner cartridge with a black one C2a. stock the other holders with empty cartridges C2b. or if that causes a printer error/warning, block the cartridges' output C3. print
D1. get a sheet of blue filter plastic D2. scan through that
But I guess the array of blue LEDs with soldering involved is a lot more geeky:)
...and she did it well. Well enough to win a case that at least on grounds of common sense (which typically doesn't apply to legal rulings) she should've lost.
I'll leave your opinions up to you - look for a torrent of McDonal's Millions, I guess:)
However... "The organs need to be matched and harvested within a few minutes of death otherwise the organs are damaged and become useless." Harvesting within minutes of time of death is no problem if the deceased was a hospital patient at any point. Matching (and testing for disease, etc.) can be done long (compared to those minutes) afterwards. The only 'crucial' bit is how long you can keep the organs on a preservative - e.g. saline that's kept coldcoldcold. But if you run a hospital and you, personally, harvest organs from 4 bodies a day, then there's plenty of replenishing your stock.
It may have come from a bit of a sensationalist reporter, Donal MacIntyre, but I have no reason to doubt his footage.
In India it is not unheard of that doctors will take organs from persons or bodies, such as valves in the case of bodies, for transplantation to 'customers' who need them. The deceased may never have signed a donor form, and the family is not informed. Neither is the recipient - they simply aren't told what type of valve they're getting (artificial being the common assumption).
To paraphrase a statement from one hospital CEO/doctor : "We open them up, take out the valves, sow them back up, and no harm is done. The body gets cremated and nobody will ever know."
So, yes... blow bureaucracy out of the way, and a lot of good can be done. But at what cost?
But if MS started to give the option to install Firefox, then wouldn't Opera complain ? What about the Lynx people (eheheh.) ? Or any of the other browser authors ?
Ditto for any other app.
They truly -are- damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
The only 'solution' to many people is that MS strip windows of everything, and leave it just as an OS. Then take whatever they made beside that, and sell that in the store just like any other developer's application. They should then be forbidden to underprice similar competition. So if Joe Schmoe's wordpad 'clone' sells for $15 off of some crappy shareware site, then that's how much Wordpad should cost. And then finally they should be forbidden to offer special prices on 'bundles', such as a "Windows + Productivity Suite", which would essentially be Windows in its current state - as then many people would just get that, and not look at the other options. Yeah. Right.
and hundreds of thousands of end-users are bound and determined to believe that everything should be 'free as in beer' - and act upon this by taking things, and often sharing things, as if they were indeed 'free as in beer'. Whether it be ringtones, MP3s, movies or software.
And I say they can have them be free as in beer.. as soon as my apartment is free as in beer, my utilities are free as in beer, my food is free as in beer and my water is free as in beer.
Until such a time, most of my products are 'free as in choice'. You have the free choice of either ponying up the money if you think they're worth it, or go with a competitors'. Or, heck, write your own. The illicit copies path is not a valid 'option' in my opinion.
Considering there are those hundreds of thousands (millions.. whatever) who feel otherwise, though, I can certainly understand certain industries' desire to implement copy protection formats. I may not agree with most of them, but I can understand.
I checked out those systems at Siggraph as well, and asked the reps there what the dynamic range of these systems were. One wasn't sure, so phoned in, and got a figure of 10bit (ladybug). The other was 8bit.
That's a fair bit in lack of range / fidelity (depending on what exposure you're looking at).
On the up side, both are entirely computer controllable, so it would be feasible to quickly switch exposure levels. This does mean a reduction of temporal frequency depending on the number of exposures you'd be looking at, but that may not be much of an issue - as you mentioned, the resolution is too low to be using this as live backdrop source as it is. But for CG integration (reflections, refractions, relighting), it should be quite nice.
I was dicussing why they dont do radio yet, and I guess they'd rather force you to podcast it than just allow it real time.
Part of the nicety of radio is that it's happening 'right now'. If something goes whack on-air, live, then it happens. If there's a major event going on - you'll hear about it.
What good is a podcast going to do you, if it's going to be yesterday's podcast that you have to copy to your portable before going out running in the morning ?
Given - some people enjoy that just fine. However, it's not quite like radio.
Let's say there's an OSS effort project that my company thinks is great, but could be much greater (mostly benefiting my company in its improved greatness).
I could then pay those developers to make it greater... IF they want to be paid for it, or rather - if they want to do it at all.
If they don't - I'm somewhat stuck.
Certainly, I could pay a third party to take the OSS project's source code, and make that even greater product. Unfortunately, that third party is often not intimitaly familiar with the code - and would thus have to learn it first.
Moreover, by the time they did learn, and make the greater product, and we're happy... we may not be able to give it back to the original developers and say "we just made your product even greater!" as they may very well say "good for you. now fuck off."
So, of course, we could (assuming the license allows this) release the new code under a new project - i.e. fork it.
The end-user community may feel that it is indeed a greater product, and wholly embrace it. However, let's say my company has no interest in further funding development on it, and the person we paid at first as no interest in further development on it either.
Then now the end-users will either have to find somebody to take up that fork, or stay with the original (less great) product as at least the original developers would (we'll work under that assumption anyway) continue development of their original - though in no way would they necessarily merge the code from the fork.
All in all, a bad situation.
The above is probably all hypothetical - but there you go;)
So the point being is this.. OSS should become more mature in this respect, because it IS better for all involved - except for some developers' egos, maybe.
How would you recharge this ? Methanol isn't too common a substance, partially because it is some nasty stuff. (Flamable, toxic, etc.)
So instead of some form of battery acid leaking if you somehow manage to kill your battery, you get methanol leaking which easily absorbs through skin. Aye.
That's ignoring how you would get whatever to refill it with anyway. Imagine having to buy a special methanol pack - which, of course, wouldn't be standard any more than current cellulars' batteries are standard. (Imagine the prices they could charge here - and they would have to, as transport to stores, putting it on shelves, etc. is much more costly than...) . But you don't have to buy a new battery each time, you recharge it (...than transport of electricity - factoring everything in.)
So perhaps you could refill using a bottle/can, much like cigarette lighters. Well yes, perhaps so... but consider traveling with this (think FAA regulations and whatnot)? And taking it with you everywhere ? Because unlike electricity, you can't just get this out of a wall 'hose' like you would electricity out of a wall outlet - and that's a good thing.
Of course if you're going out to the middle of nowhere, it would be easier to take a bottle of methanol with you than it would be to find a wall outlet. On the other hand, if you're going out to the middle of nowhere, perhaps your cellular isn't going to do you much good anyway. And if you're going to be in the middle of nowhere with your laptop, I'd imagine you'd have a car to charge off of, or at least a second battery, and probably a base camp where you -do- have some form of electricity available to you.
Some may claim that methanol is better for the environment - it burns clean after all... but from the source of the methanol down to the end-user, is it really that much cleaner ? Think extraction, purification, packaging, distribution, etc.
Don't get me wrong, it can be wonderful technology - but for cellulars ? I have my doubts. For laptops ? Maybe if my laptop would run for 16 hours straight on it instead of 2.5 hours (my laptop is not often idle). But that appears doubtful, and I'd still have all the above issues.
"today my cat mewed three times in a row! and by the way... that java multithreading is hot! like my girlfriend.. today, she..."
yeahhhh... blogs.
Sure, there's *useful* blogs out there. But you're far more likely to find the info you need on a proper resources page.
And if for some reason you really can't find what you need in a regular search - do the blog search and find all of the above.. and maybe, just maybe, whatever info you were looking for.
Really, your argument would hold just as well for online marketers, etc. Why would you want to exclude the hundreds of websites that merely offer referral links ? after all, those websites may very well be relevant to what you're looking for %)
There's no way they can fit two women into the tiny package of an embryo - where does the excess material go?
Joking aside...
1. They're not making an embryo - they're making a zygote. Which, with any luck, turns into an embryo, foetus, baby, person.
2. This still involves a man. They're taking one bit of genetic information from one woman - skipping the section where genes are considered out of whack. Then they take -that- section from another woman - where they're considered to be in order. Then they splice those two together and re-insert it into the egg cell. Next up, they get funky with the guy's sperm and do a regular ol' petri-dish fertilization.
I.e. a phone with IR, BlueTooth or even a USB cable interface that allows you to put exactly those kinds of files (and others) on your phone.
I have a Sagem my-V55 (Vodafone special*) that cost around $100 and allows me to do all that and then some.
Compared to my girlfriend's old phone (some Samsung clam model with T-Mobile), which doesn't even have a third of the features - most importantly of which is that you -have- to use T-Mobile to get anything on or off it. It was more around $300.
She now as a SONY/Ericsson w800i - much, much, much better.. though also $500-something stand-alone. Eek.
--
* yes, it is locked. But not locked in features - only in whose prepaid cards / "fill up" cards I can use.. namely only Vodafone's.
Slashdot Mirror
Paul Debevec, through his papers on acquiring low dynamic range imagery and turning that into high dynamic range imagery - and a utility to go with it coded with help from others; HDRshop, has made HDR accessible and popular.
However, 'HDR' as the storage format being used most frequently already existed in the rendering application Radiance for a long, long time before that.
In fact, -most- rendering applications render in HDR - but are forced to clip values so that you can actually output it to a regular display (e.g. your TFT) or storage format (e.g. JPG).
In fact, Valve's HDR isn't an HDR display technology. It's a partial HDR pipeline for rendering (making sure that glints of the sun are bright on water surfaces, and not dull), processing (bloom effects) and simple tone mapping a la a LUT (look into a room from a skylit outside, and the room may appear dark. Walk inside, and the room appears normal whilst the outside world will appear very bright indeed. Note that a more proper tone mapping algorithm would, besides being computationally very expensive, show the room normally and the outside world bright - but not so bright as to be blown out.)
Once we've all got HDR displays (search on Slashdot for these - I've seen them, they're awesome), we can do away with all these basic gimmicks as the human visual perceptance system will simply do all the interpreting of what should be 'correct' HDR values coming from the display.
Wouldn't it be just as reasonable for Slashdot management to tell you to get a better phone ?
Keeping up maintenance on the old slashcode takes time (and money). As does serving the pages which are larger than the new CSS-enabled pages. Would you be willing to pay them to do this and pay for the bandwidth costs involved ?
Why don't you load the RSS and/or Slashdot Light ?
I agree with you for the most part, but everybody makes mistakes.
On the spelling front, for example, you misspelled the word "pity".
On the grammar front you forgot an "a"; "I work with a couple of American". (Yes, that's with a capital "a", too.)
Lastly, your first sentence would be more proper if it would read "Spelling and Americans ? You must be kidding me!!!" or "Spelling and Americans - you must be kidding me". The form in which you've written it now seems to indicate that you are saying "you must be kidding me" to both Americans and a person who goes by the name of "Spelling".
--
That said - who cares ? I've seen similar errors in letters written directly by CEOs (not passing through their secretaries/etc.) and even in press releases. It *would* be nice to hold everybody to a high standard to help keep it up, but I think it's far too late.
stealing, copyright infringement... it's both illicit :)
And while you may think one is morally less objectionable than the other, you'd be kidding yourself if you were to think it's perfectly a-ok.
( not saying that you do - but there's plenty reading and posting here that do )
"Hardly. I'd NEVER pay to see these movies, but I might download them for free out of curiosity. Either way, no money goes from my pockets to theirs."
No, but IP - or entertainment, or lack thereof if you will, goes from THEIR pockets to your brain in a way.
Just as you would never pay to see those movies, they would never let you see those movies for free. I believe that's fair enough.
If you don't want to pay to see those movies, wait for them to be aired on T.V. even though you'd still be paying for them then, you at least wouldn't be participating in copyright infringement.
IF you have some argument against that (taking too long before it airs, etc.) then obviously you do have a vested interest in seeing it when you want - and some form of compensation, typicall in the form of money, is not absurd.
"while file sharing between friends is hammered."
s/file sharing/copyright infringement/
s/friends/thousands of people across the globe, most of them perfect strangers and a handful of people you'd probably evade if you did know them/
Your browser should ignore the file extension and instead look at the content-type header.
/reviews/hardware/video-ipod.ars HTTP/1.0
A la :
cmd> GET
cmd> Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, */*
cmd> User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; DigExt)
cmd> Host: arstechnica.com
hdr> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
hdr> Connection: close
hdr> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:00:44 GMT
hdr> Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
hdr> MicrosoftOfficeWebServer: 5.0_Pub
hdr> X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
hdr> X-AspNet-Version: 1.1.4322
hdr> Cache-Control: private
hdr> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
hdr> Content-Length: 16964
You'd think it would be easier to...
:)
A1. scan as normal
A2. separate the channels into CMYK in Photoshop/whathaveyou
A3. inspect the Yellow channel.
B1. scan as normal
B2. separate the channels into RGB in GIMP/whathaveyou
B3. do a difference matte between the channels
B4. inspect the result
C1. replace the yellow toner cartridge with a black one
C2a. stock the other holders with empty cartridges
C2b. or if that causes a printer error/warning, block the cartridges' output
C3. print
D1. get a sheet of blue filter plastic
D2. scan through that
But I guess the array of blue LEDs with soldering involved is a lot more geeky
What they need to do is dismantal the owners!
:)
Did you mean dismantle ?
Or dismental ?
Both seem rather apt
Through advertising ? Local sponsorships ?
Isn't part of the point of HBO that you don't get interruptions in the movies ? Or grossly overplayed product placements ?
I think that's the entire point of great-grandparent's post... It should've been modded Funny, not 'Interesting'
...and she did it well. Well enough to win a case that at least on grounds of common sense (which typically doesn't apply to legal rulings) she should've lost.
Are 'we' going to fault her for that ?
I'll leave your opinions up to you - look for a torrent of McDonal's Millions, I guess :)
However...
"The organs need to be matched and harvested within a few minutes of death otherwise the organs are damaged and become useless."
Harvesting within minutes of time of death is no problem if the deceased was a hospital patient at any point.
Matching (and testing for disease, etc.) can be done long (compared to those minutes) afterwards.
The only 'crucial' bit is how long you can keep the organs on a preservative - e.g. saline that's kept coldcoldcold.
But if you run a hospital and you, personally, harvest organs from 4 bodies a day, then there's plenty of replenishing your stock.
It may have come from a bit of a sensationalist reporter, Donal MacIntyre, but I have no reason to doubt his footage.
In India it is not unheard of that doctors will take organs from persons or bodies, such as valves in the case of bodies, for transplantation to 'customers' who need them.
The deceased may never have signed a donor form, and the family is not informed.
Neither is the recipient - they simply aren't told what type of valve they're getting (artificial being the common assumption).
To paraphrase a statement from one hospital CEO/doctor : "We open them up, take out the valves, sow them back up, and no harm is done. The body gets cremated and nobody will ever know."
So, yes... blow bureaucracy out of the way, and a lot of good can be done. But at what cost?
But if MS started to give the option to install Firefox, then wouldn't Opera complain ? What about the Lynx people (eheheh.) ? Or any of the other browser authors ?
Ditto for any other app.
They truly -are- damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
The only 'solution' to many people is that MS strip windows of everything, and leave it just as an OS.
Then take whatever they made beside that, and sell that in the store just like any other developer's application.
They should then be forbidden to underprice similar competition. So if Joe Schmoe's wordpad 'clone' sells for $15 off of some crappy shareware site, then that's how much Wordpad should cost.
And then finally they should be forbidden to offer special prices on 'bundles', such as a "Windows + Productivity Suite", which would essentially be Windows in its current state - as then many people would just get that, and not look at the other options.
Yeah. Right.
and hundreds of thousands of end-users are bound and determined to believe that everything should be 'free as in beer' - and act upon this by taking things, and often sharing things, as if they were indeed 'free as in beer'. Whether it be ringtones, MP3s, movies or software.
And I say they can have them be free as in beer.. as soon as my apartment is free as in beer, my utilities are free as in beer, my food is free as in beer and my water is free as in beer.
Until such a time, most of my products are 'free as in choice'. You have the free choice of either ponying up the money if you think they're worth it, or go with a competitors'. Or, heck, write your own. The illicit copies path is not a valid 'option' in my opinion.
Considering there are those hundreds of thousands (millions.. whatever) who feel otherwise, though, I can certainly understand certain industries' desire to implement copy protection formats. I may not agree with most of them, but I can understand.
I checked out those systems at Siggraph as well, and asked the reps there what the dynamic range of these systems were. One wasn't sure, so phoned in, and got a figure of 10bit (ladybug). The other was 8bit.
That's a fair bit in lack of range / fidelity (depending on what exposure you're looking at).
On the up side, both are entirely computer controllable, so it would be feasible to quickly switch exposure levels. This does mean a reduction of temporal frequency depending on the number of exposures you'd be looking at, but that may not be much of an issue - as you mentioned, the resolution is too low to be using this as live backdrop source as it is. But for CG integration (reflections, refractions, relighting), it should be quite nice.
U.S. Deploys Orbital Communications Jammer
;)
so even if Galileo were up, etc. who cares ? the U.S. can just jam them all
or, heck, if need be - shoot them with a rocket. Be a bit debris-rich in result, though, which isn't very desirable
Part of the nicety of radio is that it's happening 'right now'. If something goes whack on-air, live, then it happens. If there's a major event going on - you'll hear about it.
What good is a podcast going to do you, if it's going to be yesterday's podcast that you have to copy to your portable before going out running in the morning ?
Given - some people enjoy that just fine. However, it's not quite like radio.
And that, my dear friend, is the problem.
;)
Let's say there's an OSS effort project that my company thinks is great, but could be much greater (mostly benefiting my company in its improved greatness).
I could then pay those developers to make it greater... IF they want to be paid for it, or rather - if they want to do it at all.
If they don't - I'm somewhat stuck.
Certainly, I could pay a third party to take the OSS project's source code, and make that even greater product. Unfortunately, that third party is often not intimitaly familiar with the code - and would thus have to learn it first.
Moreover, by the time they did learn, and make the greater product, and we're happy... we may not be able to give it back to the original developers and say "we just made your product even greater!" as they may very well say "good for you. now fuck off."
So, of course, we could (assuming the license allows this) release the new code under a new project - i.e. fork it.
The end-user community may feel that it is indeed a greater product, and wholly embrace it. However, let's say my company has no interest in further funding development on it, and the person we paid at first as no interest in further development on it either.
Then now the end-users will either have to find somebody to take up that fork, or stay with the original (less great) product as at least the original developers would (we'll work under that assumption anyway) continue development of their original - though in no way would they necessarily merge the code from the fork.
All in all, a bad situation.
The above is probably all hypothetical - but there you go
So the point being is this.. OSS should become more mature in this respect, because it IS better for all involved - except for some developers' egos, maybe.
How would you recharge this ? Methanol isn't too common a substance, partially because it is some nasty stuff. (Flamable, toxic, etc.)
So instead of some form of battery acid leaking if you somehow manage to kill your battery, you get methanol leaking which easily absorbs through skin. Aye.
That's ignoring how you would get whatever to refill it with anyway. Imagine having to buy a special methanol pack - which, of course, wouldn't be standard any more than current cellulars' batteries are standard. (Imagine the prices they could charge here - and they would have to, as transport to stores, putting it on shelves, etc. is much more costly than...) . But you don't have to buy a new battery each time, you recharge it (...than transport of electricity - factoring everything in.)
So perhaps you could refill using a bottle/can, much like cigarette lighters. Well yes, perhaps so... but consider traveling with this (think FAA regulations and whatnot)? And taking it with you everywhere ? Because unlike electricity, you can't just get this out of a wall 'hose' like you would electricity out of a wall outlet - and that's a good thing.
Of course if you're going out to the middle of nowhere, it would be easier to take a bottle of methanol with you than it would be to find a wall outlet. On the other hand, if you're going out to the middle of nowhere, perhaps your cellular isn't going to do you much good anyway. And if you're going to be in the middle of nowhere with your laptop, I'd imagine you'd have a car to charge off of, or at least a second battery, and probably a base camp where you -do- have some form of electricity available to you.
Some may claim that methanol is better for the environment - it burns clean after all... but from the source of the methanol down to the end-user, is it really that much cleaner ? Think extraction, purification, packaging, distribution, etc.
Don't get me wrong, it can be wonderful technology - but for cellulars ? I have my doubts. For laptops ? Maybe if my laptop would run for 16 hours straight on it instead of 2.5 hours (my laptop is not often idle). But that appears doubtful, and I'd still have all the above issues.
"ffs I hate java multithreading..."
"java multithreading is such a piece of shit..."
"today my cat mewed three times in a row! and by the way... that java multithreading is hot! like my girlfriend.. today, she..."
yeahhhh... blogs.
Sure, there's *useful* blogs out there. But you're far more likely to find the info you need on a proper resources page.
And if for some reason you really can't find what you need in a regular search - do the blog search and find all of the above.. and maybe, just maybe, whatever info you were looking for.
Really, your argument would hold just as well for online marketers, etc. Why would you want to exclude the hundreds of websites that merely offer referral links ? after all, those websites may very well be relevant to what you're looking for %)
"UK Scientists to Create Embryo From Two Women"
There's no way they can fit two women into the tiny package of an embryo - where does the excess material go?
Joking aside...
1. They're not making an embryo - they're making a zygote. Which, with any luck, turns into an embryo, foetus, baby, person.
2. This still involves a man. They're taking one bit of genetic information from one woman - skipping the section where genes are considered out of whack. Then they take -that- section from another woman - where they're considered to be in order. Then they splice those two together and re-insert it into the egg cell. Next up, they get funky with the guy's sperm and do a regular ol' petri-dish fertilization.
I.e. a phone with IR, BlueTooth or even a USB cable interface that allows you to put exactly those kinds of files (and others) on your phone.
I have a Sagem my-V55 (Vodafone special*) that cost around $100 and allows me to do all that and then some.
Compared to my girlfriend's old phone (some Samsung clam model with T-Mobile), which doesn't even have a third of the features - most importantly of which is that you -have- to use T-Mobile to get anything on or off it.
It was more around $300.
She now as a SONY/Ericsson w800i - much, much, much better.. though also $500-something stand-alone. Eek.
--
* yes, it is locked. But not locked in features - only in whose prepaid cards / "fill up" cards I can use.. namely only Vodafone's.