If you think that no people achieve the level of physical beauty shown in those photos, you both wrong, and must live in a very ugly place. Around these parts, the women in those photos would be considered on the attractive side of average.
A cell phone is a computer with a modem that connects to a phone network. A desktop PC with a modem is a computer with a modem that connects to a phone network. The "You can't connect a computer with a modem to a phone network." is a BS argument, or it outlaws connecting a modem to the phone network.
Perhaps you are confused as to what a modem in a computer is.
This is all too true. In fact, when Google released the source code for ICS, and had not even shipped a compiled version yet, there were people here on Slashdot complaining about Android phones not being updated yet.
Actually, it is exactly like a computer, because it IS a computer. No, it isn't a WINDOWS computer, but it is still a computer. There are some pretty standard interfaces for connecting hardware at the chip level. If phone manufacturers are not using standard interfaces to connect Motion sensors, and GPS into their phones, they are doing things all wrong. I suspect that they are in fact using standard interfaces. I might buy that the transmitter/receiver pairs are proprietary, but in the numbers that they are buying them, even those should be widely available with a standard interface. There is nothing in phones that requires fundamental interface changes to the OS beyond adding new classes of hardware. There is no reason that an OS upgrade should break the binary drivers running the phones hardware any more than it would break binary drivers running a desktop OS's drivers. In fact, it should be less so, since the underlying Linux kernel is what would be driving the hardware, and that isn't generally what is being changed with an Android upgrade.
Having an open bootloader and having a hard reset to return the device to a factory default are not mutually exclusive. Have stripped copy of the boot-loader + OS on a chip that has just enough to connect to the network, download, and reinstall the current official bootloader/OS. Build the phone to do a factory restore with a small switch hidden under the battery. This would make bricking the phone, all but impossible. Of course, fear that users will load problematic software on their phones has nothing to do with locking the bootloaders.
Looking at the pictures, it is pretty obvious that the models were specifically rendered to NOT be 'perfect'. It is societies prejudices that make them think the advertiser was going for 'perfect'.
That argument would be good, except that there are plenty of women that look like the models shown. If you limit the age group from 16 to 25, you can drop 3 or 4 zeros off your ratio, and that is in comparison to the computer generated models.
Funny enough, ThinkGeek actually does this. Not a 10% discount, but they post as many pictures of real life people wearing the clothes as they can. http://www.thinkgeek.com/action-shots/
Just type in any female first name. 90% of the photos will not be photoshopped. The OP's comment did not over state the simplicity of finding women as good looking as the models shown. He understated it.
That is the right question. I would only modify it in one way. It isn't just an issue of people lacking abilities that will (are?) put people out of work. It will be that there are more people with the ability than their are requests for the work to be done. There is only so much music listened to in a day. Once you have enough musicians to make that much music, there are simply no more jobs in that field. No matter how creative people get, there is simply a finite amount of music that will be consumed.
I suspect it would be a little like 'organic' fruits and vegetables. The majority of people would go for whatever looks the best at the lowest cost. A smaller, hipper, group of people would go for the real thing and tell themselves that it was healthier and tastes better.
Yes I have. Well, ok. I haven't made it out of the house today, but yesterday I did. Victoria Secret's models are good looking, no doubt. But, they are not so hot that you can't see just as good or better looking women on a regular basis.
The big lie isn't about whether real women can look like models or not. The big lie is about whether women that do look like models are real or not.
It doesn't matter what pictures you put in fashion magazines, there will be a huge number of women ( or men ) that cannot achieve the look presented. Contrary to popular belief, genetics do play a major role in how people look.
When has anyone looked "realistic" as compared to the majority of the population? The population has wide ranges of looks that range from noticeably better looking than those models to dramatically worse. The odd thing about this hoopla is that the model isn't even close to 'perfect'. Attractive, yes. perfect, no. I could walk through our local mall on a Saturday and easily see 20 women that looked better than the model. Maybe a hundred.
It is obvious it was for cost. While the body was good looking, it wasn't even close to either perfect, or unusual. Maybe I live in a more attractive part of America, but I see women with bodies like that all the time. You can't walk through a mall around here without seeing women that look as good as those pictures.
If there is a problem, it wouldn't be that those models are too perfect, it would be that the better looking end of the human spectrum is all that is shown for models. Of course, that isn't even the case. It's just that when women who are not hot are used as models, they are not seen as hot, and are dismissed as models.
Years ago, I worked in a Software Etc. It was right next door to a popular women's clothing store. At lunch, I would walk over to eat at a restaurant across form the stores. Sitting there watching the stores was truly enlightening. The difference in how men shop and how women shop became entirely clear:
In the clothing store...
The women would slowly walk between the displays. Frequently putting their hand out and very lightly run it along the selection of products. Periodically, they would pull out an item. They would look it up and down, inspecting it from all angles. Then they would put it back on the display. All the while the man that came with them would follow them with a board blank stare.
Whereas, in the Software store...
The men would slowly walk between the displays. Frequently putting their hand out and very lightly run it along the selection of products. Periodically, they would pull out an item. They would look it up and down, inspecting it from all angles. Then they would put it back on the display. All the while the woman that came with them would follow them with a board blank stare.
So, what's the difference between a small hand held computer with a modem connecting to a phone network, and a larger portable computer with a modem that connects to a phone network? Your not suggesting that the size is what makes it legal are you?
It is true that consumers might choose a competitor if your software runs too slow. They might also not see any difference in speed because their equipment is fast enough that your software runs faster than they use it. Then when you add the extra cost of optimization, and the delay to market, you can just as easily find the consumer choosing the product of another company BECAUSE you decided to optimize your code.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that no people achieve the level of physical beauty shown in those photos, you both wrong, and must live in a very ugly place. Around these parts, the women in those photos would be considered on the attractive side of average.
A cell phone is a computer with a modem that connects to a phone network. A desktop PC with a modem is a computer with a modem that connects to a phone network. The "You can't connect a computer with a modem to a phone network." is a BS argument, or it outlaws connecting a modem to the phone network.
Perhaps you are confused as to what a modem in a computer is.
Your source is always going to be behind. A much better source is to just check the live feed fromt he LHC. http://www.lhc-live.com/
This is all too true. In fact, when Google released the source code for ICS, and had not even shipped a compiled version yet, there were people here on Slashdot complaining about Android phones not being updated yet.
Actually, it is exactly like a computer, because it IS a computer. No, it isn't a WINDOWS computer, but it is still a computer. There are some pretty standard interfaces for connecting hardware at the chip level. If phone manufacturers are not using standard interfaces to connect Motion sensors, and GPS into their phones, they are doing things all wrong. I suspect that they are in fact using standard interfaces. I might buy that the transmitter/receiver pairs are proprietary, but in the numbers that they are buying them, even those should be widely available with a standard interface. There is nothing in phones that requires fundamental interface changes to the OS beyond adding new classes of hardware. There is no reason that an OS upgrade should break the binary drivers running the phones hardware any more than it would break binary drivers running a desktop OS's drivers. In fact, it should be less so, since the underlying Linux kernel is what would be driving the hardware, and that isn't generally what is being changed with an Android upgrade.
Having an open bootloader and having a hard reset to return the device to a factory default are not mutually exclusive. Have stripped copy of the boot-loader + OS on a chip that has just enough to connect to the network, download, and reinstall the current official bootloader/OS. Build the phone to do a factory restore with a small switch hidden under the battery. This would make bricking the phone, all but impossible. Of course, fear that users will load problematic software on their phones has nothing to do with locking the bootloaders.
I have purchased 5 unsubsidized phones for use on my families T-Mobile phone plane over the last 2 years.
Looking at the pictures, it is pretty obvious that the models were specifically rendered to NOT be 'perfect'. It is societies prejudices that make them think the advertiser was going for 'perfect'.
And yet millions of people have paid to see him naked with the goal of sexual arousal. The world can be a funny place some times.
That argument would be good, except that there are plenty of women that look like the models shown. If you limit the age group from 16 to 25, you can drop 3 or 4 zeros off your ratio, and that is in comparison to the computer generated models.
Funny enough, ThinkGeek actually does this. Not a 10% discount, but they post as many pictures of real life people wearing the clothes as they can. http://www.thinkgeek.com/action-shots/
If you think that there are not plenty of porn stars that look better than those models, then you sir have not been watching enough porn.
Just type in any female first name. 90% of the photos will not be photoshopped. The OP's comment did not over state the simplicity of finding women as good looking as the models shown. He understated it.
That is the right question. I would only modify it in one way. It isn't just an issue of people lacking abilities that will (are?) put people out of work. It will be that there are more people with the ability than their are requests for the work to be done. There is only so much music listened to in a day. Once you have enough musicians to make that much music, there are simply no more jobs in that field. No matter how creative people get, there is simply a finite amount of music that will be consumed.
I suspect it would be a little like 'organic' fruits and vegetables. The majority of people would go for whatever looks the best at the lowest cost. A smaller, hipper, group of people would go for the real thing and tell themselves that it was healthier and tastes better.
Yes I have. Well, ok. I haven't made it out of the house today, but yesterday I did. Victoria Secret's models are good looking, no doubt. But, they are not so hot that you can't see just as good or better looking women on a regular basis.
The big lie isn't about whether real women can look like models or not. The big lie is about whether women that do look like models are real or not.
It doesn't matter what pictures you put in fashion magazines, there will be a huge number of women ( or men ) that cannot achieve the look presented. Contrary to popular belief, genetics do play a major role in how people look.
When has anyone looked "realistic" as compared to the majority of the population? The population has wide ranges of looks that range from noticeably better looking than those models to dramatically worse. The odd thing about this hoopla is that the model isn't even close to 'perfect'. Attractive, yes. perfect, no. I could walk through our local mall on a Saturday and easily see 20 women that looked better than the model. Maybe a hundred.
It is obvious it was for cost. While the body was good looking, it wasn't even close to either perfect, or unusual. Maybe I live in a more attractive part of America, but I see women with bodies like that all the time. You can't walk through a mall around here without seeing women that look as good as those pictures.
If there is a problem, it wouldn't be that those models are too perfect, it would be that the better looking end of the human spectrum is all that is shown for models. Of course, that isn't even the case. It's just that when women who are not hot are used as models, they are not seen as hot, and are dismissed as models.
Years ago, I worked in a Software Etc. It was right next door to a popular women's clothing store. At lunch, I would walk over to eat at a restaurant across form the stores. Sitting there watching the stores was truly enlightening. The difference in how men shop and how women shop became entirely clear:
In the clothing store...
The women would slowly walk between the displays. Frequently putting their hand out and very lightly run it along the selection of products. Periodically, they would pull out an item. They would look it up and down, inspecting it from all angles. Then they would put it back on the display. All the while the man that came with them would follow them with a board blank stare.
Whereas, in the Software store...
The men would slowly walk between the displays. Frequently putting their hand out and very lightly run it along the selection of products. Periodically, they would pull out an item. They would look it up and down, inspecting it from all angles. Then they would put it back on the display. All the while the woman that came with them would follow them with a board blank stare.
Well, because everybody knows that if your a man and you don't have a perfect body, it is because you are lazy. Didn't you get the memo?
So, what's the difference between a small hand held computer with a modem connecting to a phone network, and a larger portable computer with a modem that connects to a phone network? Your not suggesting that the size is what makes it legal are you?
Citation please on the promise of releasing the keys.
Suggestion a crack is a legitimate solution is ridiculous.
It is true that consumers might choose a competitor if your software runs too slow. They might also not see any difference in speed because their equipment is fast enough that your software runs faster than they use it. Then when you add the extra cost of optimization, and the delay to market, you can just as easily find the consumer choosing the product of another company BECAUSE you decided to optimize your code.
Wow. Modems are illegal in your country?