April 17, 2007
There is a trade-off between "hot" and "talented". And science proves it! I've produced the following graph using using SPSS**. The values are both on a 10 point scale. With a "10" both the hottest and most talented a performer can acheive.
According to the charts --- and charts don't lie --- the hotter one is, the less talented the performer needs to be. In fact, ugly singers ( 1 - 3) must be extremely talented to be considered 'good'. Singers of 'average' looks ( 5 -7) need to fairly talented ( 7 - 9 ). But extremely hot chicks need very little talent. For instance, Angelina Jolie in her prime (10 -- if you disagree, you're banned for life!) needs precisely zero talent to merit her an automatic platinum album.
Science!
In the future, all smokin hot chicks will be "pop stars". Veronika Zemanova, is there anything she can't do?
Video below or click "Read More"--> You'll need the Divx codec and player to view. Well worth it. By far the fastest video platform on the internet.
* Actually, I just wanted to test out the Stage 6 Divx embed and this seemed like a "good" enough video to try it out. When I try to view anything using this codec and the Stage 6 server, they seem to load faster than anything out there.
You can even watch it full screen, with near DVD quality (not on this particular video, but others) or in a pop-up window. Very cool.
** N = 1, me.
Posted by: Rusty at
07:18 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
0 level would be freak-show level ugly, in which case talent actually starts to become less important again.
Posted by: wooga at April 17, 2007 08:47 PM (t9sT5)
Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 17, 2007 08:52 PM (zW/QU)
Posted by: Kraut36 at April 17, 2007 09:05 PM (wbLhh)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 18, 2007 04:11 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Stix at April 18, 2007 08:33 PM (Dv+8i)
34 queries taking 0.0874 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.