So . . . .
. . . . that's what an "old school technology reviewer looks like?
In flagrant negation of the forces of nature, I seem to be growing less clumsy as I get older. That is, I break fewer things and do it less often. This is partly the result of a series of conscious decisions to be more careful. One such was choosing to don my spectacles before making breakfast rather than after, thus cutting …
. . . . that's what an "old school technology reviewer looks like?
We finally got a real picture of Verity Stob! Hurrah!
I approve of the female
>I approve of the female
I don't- the JPEG compression artefacts are far too obvious.
... until I noticed the bright red shoes forming an unfortunate contrast with the black jacket. Not enough thought goes into these kind of pictures.
...too much jacket, not enough shoes, eh Frank? ;-)
she'll have RTFM.
Probably got the qualification as well. A paid consultant perhaps :)
Oh good, someone else who understands the aesthetics of it all.
First time I've realised RTFM can be read with the 'F' as an adverb rather than an interjection
That's because you are an un-reconstructed old-fashioned sexist el'reg reader
The modern metro-sexual caring-sharing new-man looks beyond the jpeg artifacts to imagine the real women within.
And I was until I saw what she was doing to the parquet with those heels!
Is there any real need in this article for a photo of a semi-naked woman?
Can you find a reason NOT to have a picture of said semi-naked women?
Is there ever any real *need* for a photo of a semi-naked woman in a tech article? And is there anything wrong with that after all?
There is always a need for a picture of a semi-naked woman. Irrespective of content. Especially that good looking.
Since when were a pair of exposed legs 'semi naked'?
But to answer your question anyway, Yes.
Several reasons, actually, @Small Wee Jobbie:
It makes the article NSFW (in many Ws, probably).
It's insulting (it suggests that readers click links to see titillating pics, not to, you know, read the article).
It's irrelevant (unless you're seriously suggesting that she's either carrying out a stress test, or is correctly attired to carry out such tests).
It's irrelevant, 'cos this is the internet, and if you want pictures of scantily-clad women (or men, or goats), then they're over there. But please don't let el Reg get cluttered up with irrelevant irrelevancies.
And FFS, it's another brick in the wall of mindless Page 3/Daily Mail/Heat/Closer/etc objectification of women
for no apparently better reason than "because I like looking".
I find this behaviour shocking and disgraceful. I long for the days when hardware reviews were dignified and restrained, like in the days of the Asus EeePC 701.
Wonder if you would care so much if it was a guy in the pic.
But of course, we both know that's a straw man.
A bloke in a similarly-irrelevant-to-the-claimed-context outfit, posed and dressed in such a way as to suggest that the undercarriage may be flapping in the breeze (but just about hidden from plain view) and with no real relevance to the article?
No, no, of course that would be completely different.
If you're going to defend randomly sticking photos of semi-naked women in articles allegedly about technology, at least be honest while doing so rather than using crap straw-man arguments. It makes you look less of a prat.
*shrug* She's not semi-naked, unless we're now living in some kind of conservative world where showing leg is considered semi-naked.
If anything the best reason to have it is to make irrational people angry, so I get to laugh at all the "it's objectifying blah", "but what if it was a man blah", "it's irrelevant blah", what it is, is a girl showing off her legs and probably earning a reasonable amount of cash for a perfectly legitimate career.
As far as I'm concerned you could have a stark bollock naked man with a sledge hammer and his wang flapping proud and I'd probably think much the same as I do with this lass and her legs doing whatever it is she's doing. "Heh" actually if it was naked man I'd go direct to the comments to see the unbridled rage!
It's not "showing leg", she's at best got a greyhound skirt on and at worst is wearing nowt from the waist down. Which, you know, is fine if its what you want to look at - but it's bog-all to do with the article and the kind of thing that's considered NSFW in many workplaces.
Nothing against the woman in question doing whatever she feels like doing in front of a camera - my objection is the use of her picture in an article where "tangential" is too generous a description of the connection between the two.
Here is a reason: getting fully naked ones instead!!
"It's insulting (it suggests that readers click links to see titillating pics, not to, you know, read the article)."
How would the reader know there was a picture of a lady in a short skirt prior to opening the article?
"It's irrelevant (unless you're seriously suggesting that she's either carrying out a stress test, or is correctly attired to carry out such tests)."
It's a stock photo of someone expressing anger at a piece of tech.
"it's another brick in the wall of mindless Page 3/Daily Mail/Heat/Closer/etc objectification of women"
I hate to tell you but people have been using 'sex' to sell things for a very long time, oh and thanks for pointing out that we are all incapable of treating half the species as nothing other than eye candy.
No need for the semi-naked woman. Even less need for the entire El Reg crew to be in attendance to 'assist' the photographer.
NSFW, Insulting, Irrelevant, objectifies women.... Oooh, you forgot gender stereotyping!! El Reg readers, being techie types, will be mostly male and therefore will mostly prefer to see an attractive girl than an attractive guy.
Will anyone think about El Reg's femael and gay readership?
>A bloke in a similarly-irrelevant-to-the-claimed-context outfit, posed and dressed in such a way as to suggest that the undercarriage may be flapping in the breeze (but just about hidden from plain view) and with no real relevance to the article?
Here you go:
(IT angle?- image taken from Black Books, a Graham Linehan series that pre-dated The IT Crowd)
You know you a middle aged home-owner when you look at that picture and think.
"She's going to make a hell of a mess of that cheap Ikea wooden flooring with those heals."
Can someone please point me to the semi-naked woman? I seemed to have missed that part. -_-
Or are you referring to the to the woman wearing far more then the holiday photos of their SOs most people put on the desk in professional environments?
Good lord, you're prudish.
My thought was, gratuitous use of sex in advertising/marketing is exploiting the men just as much as the women.
Why are people getting so worked up over a humorous stock photo acompanying a lighthearted piece?
And where would you have to be employed for the pic to be considered nsfw?, puritan industries inc.?
Sexist?, pffft, its usually fat munters and lesbo`s that cry sexist out of petty jealousy because noone wants to drool over em.
Some people just have to read too much into everything.
1) Blatant sexism. Grow up.
2) The "test" seemed to favour the Apple (or maybe that's just the result of the totally unscientific nature). In the frist drop test, the SIII is allowed to land face first, the Apple is dropped edge-on. In the final drop test, the flat surface of the bottle strikes the Apple, by the bottom corner of the bottle strikes the SIII (much harsher impact). The only test where the Apple could be safely said to have "won" is the wet test, and that was quite impressive.
Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.
""Misogyny .... is a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male-dominated societies. Misogyny is manifested in many different ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel toward their own bodies.""
(Johnson, Allan G. The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: A user's guide to sociological language. )
She's there because we'll find her attractive. Why should she have contempt for her body?
Immediately not impressed that they dropped the S3 at a 45 degree angle so it landed on the edge of the screen and then hit the screen on the ground and dropped the iphone on it's end so the screen didnt impact.
That can not be considered a test. So it's a video of some plonkers breaking phones.
Rest of the video becomes irrelevant, rather see them blended..
Also, the beer bottle hits the iPhone5 flat, hits the S3 with the edge of the base of the bottle.
With the drop test, you can see the dropper using a different angle when releasing the phones, ensuring the iPhone5 lands on the edge, and the S3 flat.
I wonder who paid for the tests....
and remember what the term "fair test" means.
No comment but I note they weren't giving a Galaxy Tab away at the end.
Mythbusters once built a machine to drop buttered toast, to see whether they'd land butter-down more often than butter-up. I'm sure that with minor modifications it could be used to drop smartphones in a brand-agnostic and orientaion-neutral way. Then we'll have a true statistically-valid drop test.
..who actually looks after expensive things?
If I spend £500 on a phone, I put it in a protective case, screen protector and don't make a habit of throwing it around. Same with laptops, games consoles etc.
Whether they belong to me or not, I feel like technology items need my protection, not abuse.
I look after my tech, but I don't go to the point of caring for it like a baby.
I view most technology as a tool, I use it, treat it with some respect but am not overly protective of it.
a good example is my laptop which is covered in scrapes (9 inch scrape across the back of the screen) however after 4 years it is still working perfectly and has no damage to the keyboard or screen, if I was overly protective of it then it would be in pristine condition but wouldn't have done 75% of the jobs it has.
as I said.. it's a tool I will use it till it falls apart and then repair or replace it but I won't avoid using it because it might pick up some damage.
.who actually looks after expensive things?
No, you're not. Having said that, my experience with the iPhone is that it works best for me "naked" (blame the pic, grin). I did have it in a case for a while but it got annoying, so it only got back into a case because I wanted more battery power (and it gives it a normal micro-usb connector, also a win).
Personally, if you want to test how robust tech is, all you need to do is give it to some 5..10 year olds. The 5 year olds will stress the hardware, the 10 year olds will do things with the software you'd never dream of. If it survives that, you're probably up to military spec..
"you're probably up to military spec.."
..which is a wholly different spec - the phrase "squaddie-proof" exists in the army for a reason
Agree with the child testing requirement though
Don't need 5 or 10 year olds... Just give said piece of tech to some of my users... It's amazing how quickly they can make a brand new mobile phone look like it's been underwater for three years and then left in the middle of a road to be run over repeatedly. Note these are company-supplied mobiles. I'm willing to bet their own personal stuff lasts a lot longer.