February 28, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:This is not useful. Something that would actually produce a slightly more beautiful me, that would be useful.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 28, 2007 6:21 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksMegan,
I think you are already very beautiful :) and a slightly more beautiful you does not have much meaning because:
1. The diminishing marginal utility of an individual's investment in "beauty"
2. The parodox that a more beautiful version of you wouldn't really be you anymore.
Megan,
I think you are already very beautiful :) and a slightly more beautiful you does not have much meaning because:
1. The diminishing marginal utility of an individual's investment in "beauty"
2. The parodox that a more beautiful version of you wouldn't really be you anymore.
Well, I think you would look cute(er) with bangs.
;-)
They have created it, it's called plastic surgery.
What, the beauty of your prose isn't enough?
C'mon, Megan, stop fishing! You're hot, and you know it. How else do you account for all those hits on your bloggingheads appearance???
(Smile) (blush)
I wasn't fishing for compliments on my absolute level of attractiveness; surely even Cindy Crawford could be slightly *more* beautiful . . .
Back when pictures were painted, this sort of "improvement" was routine. And sometimes it backfired. Look up Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves...
Megan, the best way for women to increase their given level of attractiveness (high as it already may innately be), is of course to accessorize.
Now there are accessories and there are accessories, but various studies that somebody might have done some time have proven there is surely no greater accessory than me.
My advice is to pick up a 'me' as soon as possible and never be without it. One will find nothing quite brings out the lustrous tint in one's eyes.
The problem (or, one of many problems) with that software is that the most beautiful people do not conform to the standards. I worked with some digital-face recognition guys once. They discovered that "pretty" actually meant "average". By averaging together the facial characteristics of many women or men, they came up with a face that was considered attractive. However, faces that are considered very beautiful were significantly different. They contained features that were not considered beautiful by themselves.
easy way to do this
open a picture of yourself (full face) in photoshop.
split down middle and copy one half
mirror that half and paste back
symmetry is the key, though I like a face that's a little off.
Gee, and my favorite thing about Jane's appearance is her slightly crooked smile.
Then again, I'm a side-talker.
Yeah, Jane, it really seems like you need some reassurance. I suggest drinking with Mumblix.
Hah!
What is frightening is that you are slightly taller, but otherwise a dead ringer, for the woman who broke my heart before I met my wife.
So, no actual need for a more beautiful you.
Now, if there was a machine that could make me somewhat actually richer, THAT would be interesting.
Now, if there was a machine that could make me somewhat actually richer
That's called an "alarm clock", I believe.
anony-mouse: you're confusing present utility with future utility. I think JDM meant without the tradeoff...
also, as for your beauty Ms. M., anything that makes even oblique references to your looks is bound to inspire praises that would make Helen of Troy smile and blush. I would lavish the same praise, but I still believe that discretion is the better part of blogging.
I'm not a totally new commenter here, but in the interest of establishing some continuity, I'll adopt a handle from another locale.
Comments are Closed.