Tuesday May 13th

Model

A supermodel is a highly paid fashion model in an elite group with a worldwide reputation. The term was coined in 1979 by Janice Dickinson, and gained currency by analogy with Andy Warhol's "superstars" of the 1960s, and, like "superstardom", it has been conflated to include almost anyone who finds steady access to work, uncommon in the highly volatile fashion industry.

While the term gained steam in the 1980s, a number of models had become famous in their own right as far back as Dorian Leigh in the late 1940s. Amongst the first models whose name and face were familiar to those outside the fashion industry include Suzy Parker, a model in the 1950s, and Cheryl Tiegs in the 1960s. Others claim that Janice Dickinson has the right to the title of first supermodel since she is credited with the creation of the term. While still others claim Lisa Fonssagrives to be the world's first supermodel and none have surpassed her over 200 covers of Vogue alone. She was in every fashion magazine during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s from Town and Country, Life, Vogue, the original Vanity Fair to the cover of Time.

The high point of the supermodel era was in the 1980s and 1990s, with some of the most famous being "The Trinity" of Linda Evangelista, Naomi Campbell, and Christy Turlington. Also in this era, models like Paulina Porizkova paved the way for an influx Eastern European models. It was at this time that Cindy Crawford successfully leveraged her modelling fame into hosting her own television show, MTV's House of Style , creating and promoting many exercise video tapes, and posing in Playboy (she was the first supermodel/model to do all of these).

Supermodels are, almost by definition, sex symbols. Supermodels of today are globally famous, and parlay their celebrity into product endorsement deals and often into acting careers. Supermodels who have made the switch include Milla Jovovich, Elle Macpherson and Rebecca Romijn.

According to Forbes magazine, as of 2004, the five highest-paid supermodels in the world were, in descending order, Milla Jovovich, Gisele Bündchen, Heidi Klum, Caroline Murphy, and Tyra Banks [1].

In the past many supermodels were female. However today more and more male models are also becoming famous. The position of the world's most famous and highest paid male supermodel is currently contested between Jamaican-American actor and model Tyson Beckford, and Swedish model and bodybuilder Marcus Schenkenberg.

In 2005, tired of hearing this label attached to so many people, the musician LeCain, played devil's advocate and commented that a 'measure of success' was necessary to stop TV from tirelessly using the term for every girl wanting model stardom. And threw into the equation that a supermodel was someone that had attained US Dollars 20 million (USD) in the duration of their career.

A model is a person who acts as a human prop for purposes of art, fashion, advertising, pornography, etc.

Modeling Model is distinguished from other types of public performance, such as an acting, dancing or mime artistry, although the boundary is probably not well defined. Appearing in a movie or a play is generally not considered to be modeling, irrespective of the nature of the role. But many models can also describe themselves as actors. Some models have acquired the status of sex symbol, and a highly paid model is sometimes known as a "supermodel." Supermodels are celebrities who may appear in advertisements endorsing products, and often parlay their fame into acting careers.

"Runway modeling," also known as "catwalk modeling," is displaying fashion, and is generally performed by "fashion models." "Glamour modeling" usually includes elements of nudity or eroticism, while "nude modeling" describes any kind of modeling that is performed without clothes. Art school modeling (usually figure drawing or sculpture) involves posing for students of art. Some models specialize in having a particular portion of their body photographed, usually for advertisement purposes; thus "leg models" advertise hosiery, "hand models" advertise nail polish or gloves, et cetera.

For notable models, see supermodel and glamour photography.

Some people who are better known for other accomplishments have also worked as professional models:

1908 Ford Model T advertisement

Ford Model T used for giving tourist rides at Greenfield Village

1925 Ford “New Model� T Tudor Sedan

The suspension components of a Ford Model T

For the blues musician, see T-Model Ford .

The Model T (colloquially known as the Tin Lizzie and the Flivver ) was an automobile produced by Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company from 1908 through 1928. The first production Model T was built on September 27, 1908 at the Piquette Plant in Detroit, Michigan. Cars built before 1919 are classed as veteran cars and later models vintage cars.

There were several cars produced or prototyped by Henry Ford from the founding of the company in 1903 until the Model T came along. Although he started at the Model A, there were not 19 production models; some were only prototypes. The production model immediately before the Model T was the Ford Model S [1], an upgraded version of the company's largest success to that point, the Model N . For some reason, the follow-on was the Model A and not the Model U.

Characteristics

The Ford Model T car was designed by Henry Ford, Childe Harolde Wills and two Hungarian emigrants named József Galamb and Jenő Farkas. The revolutionary Model T factory assembly line system was devised mostly by Charles E. Sorensen and Charles Lewis.1 The Model T had 177 in³ (2.9 L) 4 cylinder motor in a block producing 20 horsepower (15 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). The engine had side valves and 3 main bearings. Recent accounts credit the default-configuration Model T with fuel economy on the order of 25 to 30 miles per gallon.

Production

Ford's Piquette plant could not keep up with demand for the Model T and only 11 cars were built there during the first full month of production. In 1910, after assembling nearly 12,000 Model T's, Henry Ford moved the company to the new Highland Park complex. The Model T was the first automobile mass produced on assembly lines with completely interchangeable parts, marketed to the middle class. To speed assembly, between 1915 and 1925 it was only available in one color, black. Black paint was also cheaper and more durable. Henry Ford is reputed to have made the statement " Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black. America Next Top Model " Model Ts in different colors were produced from 1908 to 1914, and then again from 1926 to 1927.

By 1914, the assembly process for the Model T had been so streamlined it took only 93 minutes to assemble a car. That year Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and for years in the late 1910s and early 1920s it was estimated that more than half of all motorcars in existence in the world were Model T Fords. In fact, it was so successful that Ford did not purchase any advertising between 1917 and 1923; in total, more than 15 million Model Ts were manufactured, more than any other model of automobile for almost a century. This record has now been surpassed by the Volkswagen Beetle, and the Toyota Corolla and Ford F-Series nameplates have both sold more. The record is currently held by the Volkswagen Golf which sold over 21,000,000 units and is still in production today.

It was sold in the beginning at a price of $850 when competing cars often cost $2000-$3000. By the 1920s the price had fallen to $300 (about $3,300 in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars) because of increasing efficiencies of assembly line technique and volume.

On May 27, 1927, Ford Motor Company stopped manufacturing Model T cars. However Model T motors continued to be produced until August 4, 1941. Almost 170,000 motors were built after car production ceased. Many Model T parts are still manufactured today, particularly fibreglass replicas of their distinctive bodies, which are popular for T-bucket style hot rods (as immortalized in the Jan and Dean surf music song, "Bucket T", which was later recorded by The Who).

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory which describes the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental forces, as well as the fundamental particles that make up all matter. Developed between 1970 and 1973, it is a quantum field theory, and consistent with both quantum mechanics and special relativity. To date, almost all experimental tests of the three forces described by the Standard Model have agreed with its predictions. However, the Standard Model is not a complete theory of fundamental interactions, primarily because it does not describe gravity.

The Standard Model

The Standard Model contains both fermionic and bosonic fundamental particles. Fermions are particles which possess half-integer spin and obey the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that no fermions can share the same quantum state. Bosons possess integer spin and do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Informally speaking, fermions are particles of matter and bosons are particles that transmit forces. For a detailed description of the differences between fermions and bosons, see the article on identical particles.

In the Standard Model, the theory of the electroweak interaction (which describes the weak and electromagnetic interactions) is combined with the theory of quantum chromodynamics. All of these theories are gauge theories, meaning that they model the forces between fermions by coupling them to bosons which mediate (or "carry") the forces. The Lagrangian of each set of mediating bosons is invariant under a transformation called a gauge transformation, so these mediating bosons are referred to as gauge bosons . The bosons in the Standard Model are:

Unsolved problems in physics: Parameters in the Standard Model : What gives rise to the Standard Model of particle physics? Why do its particle masses and coupling constants possess the values we have measured? Does the Higgs boson predicted by the model really exist? Why are there three generations of particles in the Standard Model? Is the Standard Model reality, a good approximation to reality, or fatally flawed?

• Photons, which mediate the electromagnetic interaction.
• W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak nuclear force
• Eight species of gluons, which mediate the strong nuclear force. Six of these gluons are labelled as pairs of "colors" and "anti-colors" (for example, a gluon can carry "red" and "anti-green".) The other two species are a more complex mix of colors and anti-colors.
• The Higgs bosons, which induce spontaneous symmetry breaking of the gauge groups and are responsible for the existence of inertial mass.
Male Model

It turns out that the gauge transformations of the gauge bosons can be exactly described using a unitary group called a "gauge group". The gauge group of the strong interaction is SU(3), and the gauge group of the electroweak interaction is SU(2)×U(1). Therefore, the Standard Model is often referred to as SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). The Higgs boson is the only boson in the theory which is not a gauge boson; it has a special status in the theory, and has been the subject of some controversy. Gravitons, the bosons believed to mediate the gravitational interaction, are not accounted for in the Standard Model.

There are twelve different types, or "flavours", of fermions in the Standard Model. Amongst the proton, neutron, and electron, those fermions which constitute the vast majority of matter, the Standard Model considers only the electron a fundamental particle. The proton and neutron are aggregates of smaller particles known as quarks, which are held together by the strong interaction. The fundamental fermions in the Standard Model are given in the table.

Table Left handed fermions in the Standard Model Fermion (Left-handed) Symbol Electric charge Weak charge* Weak isospin Hypercharge Color charge* Mass** Generation 1 Generation 2 Model Based Reasoning Generation 3 Top Model

Electron	e	-1	2	-1/2	-1/2	1	0.511 MeV
Electron neutrino	ν e	0	2	1/2	-1/2	1	< 50 eV
Positron	e c	1	1	0	1	1	0.511 MeV
Electron antineutrino		0	1	0	0	1	< 50 eV
Up quark	u	2/3	2	1/2	1/6	3	~5 MeV ***
Down quark	d	-1/3	2	-1/2	1/6	3	~10 MeV ***
Anti-up antiquark	u c	-2/3	1	0	-2/3		~5 MeV ***
Anti-down antiquark	d c	1/3	1	0	1/3		~10 MeV ***
Muon	μ	-1	2	-1/2	-1/2	1	105.6 MeV
Muon neutrino	νμ	0	2	1/2	-1/2	1	< 0.5 MeV
Anti-Muon	μ c	1	1	0	1	1	105.6 MeV
Muon antineutrino		0	1	0	0	1	< 0.5 MeV
Charm quark	c	2/3	2	1/2	1/6	3	~1.5 GeV
Strange quark	s	-1/3	2	-1/2	1/6	3	~100 MeV
Anti-charm antiquark	c c	-2/3	1	0	-2/3		~1.5 GeV
Anti-strange antiquark	s c	1/3	1	0	1/3		~100 MeV
Tau	Ï„	-1	2	-1/2	-1/2	1	1.784 GeV
Tau neutrino	ντ	0	2	1/2	-1/2	1	< 70 MeV
Anti-Tau	Ï„ c	1	1	0	1	1	1.784 GeV
Tau antineutrino		0	1	0	0	1	< 70 MeV
Top quark	t	2/3	2	1/2	1/6	3	173 GeV
Bottom quark	b	-1/3	2	-1/2	1/6	3	~4.7 GeV
Anti-top antiquark	t c	-2/3	1	0	-2/3		173 GeV
Anti-bottom antiquark	b c	1/3	1	0	1/3		~4.7 GeV
* - These are not ordinary Abelian charges which can be added together but labels of Group representations of Lie groups. ** - Mass is really a coupling between a left handed fermion and a right handed fermion. For example, the mass of an electron is really a coupling between a left handed electron and a right handed electron, which is the antiparticle of a left handed positron. Also neutrinos show large mixings in their mass coupling, so it's not accurate to talk about neutrino masses in the flavor basis or to suggest a left handed electron neutrino and a right handed electron neutrino have the same mass as this table seems to suggest. *** - What is actually measured experimentally are the masses of baryons and hadrons and various cross section rates. Since quarks can't be isolated because of QCD confinement, the quantity here is supposed to be the mass of the quark at the renormalization scale of the QCD phase transition. In order to compute this quantity, physicists have to set up a lattice model and try out various masses for the quarks until the model comes up with a close fit with experimental data. Since the masses of the first generation quarks are significantly below the QCD scale, the uncertainties here are pretty large. In fact, current QCD lattice models seem to suggest a significantly lower mass of these quarks from that of this table.

The fermions can be arranged in three generations, the first one consisting of the electron, the up and down quarks, and the electron neutrino. All ordinary matter is made from first generation particles; the higher generation particles decay quickly into the first generation ones and can only be generated for a short time in high-energy experiments. The reason for arranging them in generations is that the four fermions in each generation behave almost exactly like their counterparts in the other generations; the only difference is in their masses. For example, the electron and the muon both have half-integer spin and unit electric charge, but the muon is about 200 times more massive.

The electron and the electron-neutrino, and their counterparts in the other generations, are called "leptons", "weakly interacting particles". Unlike the quarks, they do not possess a quality called "color", and their interactions are only weak and electromagnetic, and fall off with distance. On the other hand, the strong or "color" force between quarks gets stronger with distance, so that quarks are always found in colorless combinations called hadrons, a phenomenon known as quark confinement. These are either fermionic baryons composed of three quarks (the proton and neutron being the most familiar example) or bosonic mesons composed of a quark-antiquark pair (such as pions). The mass of such aggregates exceeds that of the components due to their binding energy.

Tests and predictions

The Standard Model predicted the existence of W and Z bosons, the gluon, the top quark and the charm quark before these particles had been observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision.

The Large Electron-Positron collider at CERN tested various predictions about the decay of Z bosons, and found them confirmed.

To get an idea of the success of the Standard Model a comparison between the measured and the predicted values of some quantities are shown in the following table:

Quality Measured (GeV) SM prediction (GeV)

Mass of W boson	80,4120±0,0420	80,3900±0,0180
Mass of Z boson	91,1874±0,0021	91,1874±0,0021

Challenges to the Standard Model

Although the Standard Model has had great success in explaining experimental results, it has never been accepted as a complete theory of fundamental physics. This is because it has two important defects:

The model contains 19 free parameters, such as particle masses, which must be determined experimentally (plus another 10 for neutrino masses). These parameters cannot be independently calculated.

The model does not describe the gravitational interaction. Hot Model

Since the completion of the Standard Model, many efforts have been made to address these problems.

One attempt to address the first defect is known as grand unification. The so-called grand unified theories (GUTs) hypothesized that the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) groups are actually subgroups of a single large symmetry group. At high energies (far beyond the reach of current experiments), the symmetry of the unifying group is preserved; at low energies, it reduces to SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) by a process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. The first theory of this kind was proposed in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow, using SU(5) as the unifying group. A distinguishing characteristic of these GUTs is that, unlike the Standard model, they predict the existence of proton decay. In 1999, the Super-Kamiokande neutrino observatory reported that it had not detected proton decay, establishing a lower limit on the proton half-life of 6.7× 1032 years. This and other experiments have falsified numerous GUTs, including SU(5). Another effort to address the first defect has been to develop Preon models which attempt to set forth a substructure of more fundamental particles than those set forth in the Standard Model.

In addition, there are cosmological reasons why the standard model is believed to be incomplete. Within it, matter and antimatter are symmetric. While the preponderance of matter in the universe can be explained by saying that the universe just started out this way, this explanation strikes most physicists as inelegant. Furthermore, the Standard Model provides no mechanism to generate the cosmic inflation that is believed to have occurred at the beginning of the universe, a consequence of its omission of gravity.

The Higgs boson, which is predicted by the Standard Model, has not been observed as of 2005 (though some phenomena were observed in the last days of the LEP collider that could be related to the Higgs; one of the reasons to build the LHC is that the increase in energy is expected to make the Higgs observable).

The first experimental deviation from the Standard Model came in 1998, when Super-Kamiokande published results indicating neutrino oscillation. This implied the existence of non-zero neutrino masses since massless particles travel at the speed of light and so do not experience the passage of time. The Standard Model did not accommodate massive neutrinos, because it assumed the existence of only "left-handed" neutrinos, which have spin aligned counter-clockwise to their axis of motion. If neutrinos have non-zero mass, they necessarily travel slower than the speed of light. Therefore, it would be possible to "overtake" a neutrino, choosing a reference frame in which its direction of motion is reversed without affecting its spin (making it right-handed). Since then, physicists have revised the Standard Model to allow neutrinos to have mass, which make up additional free parameters beyond the initial 19.

A further extension of the Standard Model can be found in the theory of supersymmetry, which proposes a massive supersymmetric "partner" for every particle in the conventional Standard Model. Supersymmetric particles have been suggested as a candidate for explaining dark matter. Although supersymmetric particles have not been observed experimentally to date, the theory is one of the most popular avenues of research in theoretical particle physics.

References

Textbooks

• Griffiths, David J. (1987) Introduction to Elementary Particles , Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0471603864

Journal Articles

• Y. Hayato et al. , Search for Proton Decay through p → νK in a Large Water Cherenkov Detector . Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 1529 (1999).
• S.F. Novaes, Standard Model: An Introduction , hep-ph:0001283

I. Models are usually man-constituted. That justifies talking about their purpose prior to talking about their consistency. Models are used as substitutes for originals Fashion Model because properties of the latter are of interest and the originals are not going to be investigated themselves. There may be a number of reasons for that such as taboos preventing from studying the original itself, or inability, the involved cost in terms of resources or moral damage being intolerable, or similar. For an investigator I it makes only sense to consider an entity M as a substitute of an entity O, if I can (1) establish an analogy, similarity, or similar relation between M and O that permits the substitution of O by M with respect to purpose and means, time-horizon etc., and (2) I can actually investigate M in the required way.

That implies firstly that M does not have the properties of O that prevent I from investigating O. Also other properties of O may not be properties of M. In that sense a model is more abstract than its original. Secondly, a model M will in general have properties that O does not have and that actually aid I in investigating M.

What the investigator I does in modeling is formulating a problem P in terms of the original O, translate that problem into a problem P' in terms of M, obtain a solution S' of P' and translate S' into a solution candidate S of P in terms of O. If S is actually a solution of P then the modeling process was successful and can be terminated. If, however, that is not the case then the investigator I can start over with a different problem, model, means of investigation, or relation between model and original. It is worth noting that the concept of solution to a problem depends on the investigator, its purpose, intended means of investigation, time-horizon of that investigation and so forth.

What has been presented here so far essentially is due to Stachowiak, [1]. To understand how then models are used in more detail one needs to distinguish from each other the various reference modes in which the investigator puts the model with respect to the original. The reference modes that perhaps are most important in computing are: (1) descriptive , i.e., the model describes the original. If the deviation from model to original cannot be tolerated then the model has to be changed. Analysis models are in a descriptive reference mode to their originals. (2) prescriptive , i.e., the model prescribes the original. If the deviation from model to original cannot be tolerated then the original has to be changed. Design models are in a prescriptive reference mode to their originals, i.e., the implementation. (3) idealizing , i.e., the model is supposed to deviate from the original and as long as there is a good reason for that one doesn't worry. Software process models are in an idealizing reference mode to the actually realized software process. As the software process model describes how software shall be developed under ideal conditions there is no reason to be worried if one deviates from the model because the real conditions are not ideal. (4) constituting , i.e., the original is constituted by the model and that makes devations from model to original imposible. On ontology is in constituting reference mode to the domain it constitutes.

The distinction between descriptive and prescriptive reference mode goes at least back to Wieringa, [2]. More detail and references regarding models and modeling can be found, e.g., in [3].

II. The consistency of models may be conceptual or physical. In many areas of research conceptual models have become the dominating species, as conceptual models, more easily than physical ones, can be investigated by means of computing. For conceptual models to be the shared property of a research community the concepts they involve must be capable of being shared. That is the case when a consensual understanding of these concepts has been achieved or can be achieved by means of definition, examples, etc. With respect to what is shown by a conceptual model there are differences at least with respect to computer science, mathematics and logic. Mathematical models in one way or another establish a functional cohesion between entities such as input values and output values. Logical models establish an interpretation relationship between formulae and structures. Models in Computer Science Ship Model are largely organizational in that they show how data, a cooperation between agents, the process of creating a response to an external stimulus, an algorithm, or similar is structured. The emphasis of organization that is apparent in many models of computer science appears to be a consequence of either of the following: (1) complexity issues need to be dealt with such that a functional cohesion actually can be evaluated. (2) a domain of individuals or universe of discourse has to be established and the individuals within that domain are supposed to be capable of being distinguished from each other by means of their condition in that organization or particular handles available to a user of that model.

III. The original of a model may itself be physical or conceptual. It may be so, independently of the consistency of the model. The model in the arts for example can be understood as an individual that functions as a proxy for certain aspects of a concept such as man, men, woman, child, etc. or as one of these under particular conditions. The original temporally or causally may be a predecessor of the original or a successor of it depending on the case at hand. Often it will be such that historically there can be found an iteration of sequences of model constitution and original constitution. One should not miss out the point that the original as well must be constituted in some way so it becomes accessible to the modeling individual I.

IV. The term model is used in many communities with quite different traditions, commonly perceived problems, and purposes. To use the term properly therefore requires it being put into the right context. While this entry attempts to provide a general framework for talking about models it is not very likely that all communities would accept and use that framework.

V. References

[1] Stachowiak, H.; "Modell" (In German); In: Seiffert, H.Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie; Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag; 1989; pp. 219 - 222.

[2] Wieringa, R. J.; "Algebraic foundations for dynamic conceptual models"; PhD dissertation Free University of Amsterdam; 17 May 1990.

[3] Kaschek, R.; "Modeling ontology use for information systems"; In: Althoff, K.-D. & Dengel, A. & Bergmann, R. & Nick, M. & Roth-Berghofer, Th. (Eds.) Professional knowledge management; LNCS 3782 Springer Verlag; 2005.

Models as people

• artist model — in art school modeling, a person who poses for purposes of art.
• model — person whose occupation is to display clothing (eg. a "fashion model") or other personal items of artistic or aesthetic value, and who is often physically attractive; a model who attains celebrity status or is otherwise widely known is said to be a "supermodel".
• promotion model— promotes a product or service
• role model — person who acts as a behavioural or moral example to others.

Models as physical objects

• physical model — physical representation of an object; in engineering, similitude is used in the scientific testing of physical models.
• scale model — a replica or prototype of an object built as a hobby or for research.
• a particular version of a series of vehicles produced by an automobile manufacturer is known as a model .

Model-View-Controller (MVC) is a software architecture that separates an application's data model, user interface, and control logic into three distinct components so that modifications to one component can be made with minimal impact to the others.

MVC is often thought of as a software design pattern. However, MVC encompasses more of the architecture of an application than is typical for a design pattern. Hence the term architectural pattern may be useful (Buschmann, et al 1996), or perhaps an aggregate design pattern.

Operation

In broad terms, constructing an application using an MVC architecture involves defining three classes of modules.

• Model Asian Model : This is the domain-specific representation of the information on which the application operates. The model is another name for the domain layer. Domain logic adds meaning to raw data e.g. calculating if today is the user's birthday or the totals, taxes and shipping charges for shopping cart items.
• View : This renders the model into a form suitable for interaction, typically a user interface element. MVC is often seen in web apps: the view is the html page and the code which gathers dynamic data for the page.
• Controller : This responds to events, typically user actions, and invokes changes on the model (but *not* the view).
• Many applications use a persistent storage mechanism (such as a database) to store data. MVC does not specifically mention this data access layer.

It's common to think of an application as having three main layers: presentation (UI), domain,and data access. In MVC, the presentation layer is split into controller and view. The most important separation is between presentation and domain. The V/C split less so.

Though MVC comes in different flavors, control flow generally works as follows:

The user interacts with the user interface in some way (e.g., user presses a button)

A controller contains the input part of the user interface.

The controller accesses the model, possibly updating it in a way appropriate to the user's action (e.g., controller updates user's shopping cart)

A view uses the model to generate an appropriate user interface (e.g., view produces a screen listing the shopping cart contents). The view gets its own data from the model (or direct from the data access layer - sometimes there is no domain logic to do). The model should have no direct knowledge of the view. However, the observer pattern can be used to provide some indirection between model and view, allowing the model to notify interested parties of a change. A view object can register itself with the model and listen for changes but the model itself remains view-agnostic. The controller does not pass domain objects (the model) to the view although it might issue a command telling the view to update itself.

The user interface waits for further user interactions, which begins the cycle anew.

Benefits and liabilities Female Model

Although widely used, MVC has both advantages and disadvantages compared to other design options, and individual circumstances should be used to choose the most appropriate design. We discuss some of those here.

View instability vs. model stability

If constructed correctly, models can enjoy a fair degree of stability (owing to the stability of the domain model), whereas user interface code usually undergoes frequent and sometimes dramatic change (typically because of usability problems, the need to support growing classes of users, or simply the need to keep the application looking "fresh"). Separating the view from the model makes the model more robust, because the developer is less likely to "break" the model while reworking the view.

Attempting to stitch these two worlds together in a hand coded method without architecture is very common, and results in the model object being polluted with knowledge of the interface, and vice-versa. This makes the code very inflexible and difficult to maintain. For this reason (among others), many programming shops develop the user interface design early in the process of design, and freeze the interface early. The unfortunate side effect of this is that the domain of the problem often isn't clearly understood by the programmers until late in the implementation process. Thus, just at the time that the developers are finally competent to create a good interface, they are kept from changing it. MVC models allow the code to be more flexible later in the development process, allowing for changes that make sense at the time it makes sense to make them.

Event driven

In contrast, objects in object oriented programming are composed of methods and data members that attempt to model something from the domain of interest. The best models are fully encapsulated, meaning that they implement every aspect of that real world object of interest to the domain of interest, and that they don't have any extra code that doesn't model the real world. Encapsulation also means that the class is implemented in such a way that the internal representation of data is not exposed to the user of the object.

The impedance mismatch between these two worlds, that of events, and that of objects, is something that's been recognized for a long time. Getting these two worlds to cooperate requires a lot of 'glue code' to make them work together.

The ' model-view-controller' paradigm introduces the controller object in between the view (the GUI class) and the model (the object) to communicate between the other two objects. The actual implementation of the controller object can vary quite a bit, but the idea of an object to 'transform' events to changes in data and execution of methods is the essence of this pattern.

What does "event driven" mean? Was there ever an application which did not respond to user events..?

Just because an application responds to events does not mean it is "event driven". Event driven means it spends much of its time waiting for an event and then takes action if and when an event occurs. Contrast this with some programs that do not respond to events at all, but simply do their job and terminate. For example, an operating system command to display the current time. It displays the time and is done; it does not wait for events. For more information, see: Event-driven_programming

Implementations

The pattern was first described in 1979 by Trygve Reenskaug, then working on Smalltalk at Xerox research labs. This original implementation inspired many other GUI frameworks such as:

• The NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP development environments encourage the use of MVC. Cocoa, based on these technologies, also uses MVC.
• Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC).
• The Java Swing GUI library.

More recently there have been attempts to apply MVC architectures for web-based interfaces. In the design of web applications, MVC is also known as a "Model 2" architecture in Sun parlance. Complex web applications continue to be more difficult to design than traditional applications, and MVC is being pushed as a potential solution to these difficulties.

Beware: many applications which claim to comply with this much misunderstood pattern in fact do not achieve the required separation of model and view.

• JavaServer Faces , Jakarta Struts and Webwork2 are currently the most popular web oriented MVC implementations. Struts works at a page level; JSF works at a component level .
• The WebObjects development/deployment environment is strongly based on MVC.
• Fusebox
• Mach-II
• Maypole
• Catalyst
• Tapestry
• ZNF
• Apache Cocoon
• Ruby on Rails

General information

• Description in the Portland Pattern Repository
• Core J2EE Patterns - Front Controller
• Dicussion of JavaServer Pages Model 2 architecture
• MVC-Frameworks written in PHP ()
• Holub, Allen: “Building user interfaces for object-oriented systemsâ€�, Java World , 1999.
Glamour Model
• Gresh, John E.: “The Collection Switch Design Patternâ€�, Rensselaer Computer Science Seminar, 2004 , 2004.

Specific implementations

• Applications Programming in Smalltalk-80(TM):How to use Model-View-Controller
• Fusebox
• Mach-II
• Maypole
• Catalyst
• Model Glue For Coldfusion

References

• Frank Buschmann, Regine Meunier, Hans Rohnert, Peter Sommerlad, Machael Stal (1996) Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture , John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0-471-95869-7

---

• .mvc is also the file extension for MivaScript files.
• MVC is Move Character in the IBM System/360 instruction set

The propaganda model is a theory of political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that seeks to explain the supposed systemic political biases of the mass media in terms of structural economic causes.

Overview

First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media , the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers). The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that finally gets published in news media. These five are:

Ownership of the medium

Medium's funding sources

Sourcing

Flak

Anti-communist ideology

The first three (ownership, funding, and sourcing) are generally regarded as being the most important.

Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases.

The filters

Ownership

Herman and Chomsky argue that since all mainstream media outlets are embodied in large corporations, which are themselves often part of much larger conglomerates ( e.g. Westinghouse or General Electric). Such conglomerates frequently extend beyond traditional media fields, and thus have extensive financial interests that may be endangered when certain information is widely publicized. Thus, according to this reasoning, news items that most endanger the corporate financial interests that own the media will face the most bias and censorship.

The authors claim that the importance of ownership filter is the fact that corporations are subject to shareholder control in the context of a profit-oriented market economy. The theory then argues that maximizing profit means sacrificing news objectivity, and news sources that ultimately survive must be fundamentally biased, with regard to news in which they have a conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors also argue that the mainstream media depends heavily on advertising revenues to survive. A newspaper like the New York Times Model Airplane , for example, derives 75% of its revenues from advertisements.

The authors suggest that this filter is best seen by adopting a traditional business framework. They argue that a newspaper, like any other company, has a product which it offers to its audience (or customer base). In this case, however, the product is composed of the affluent readers who buy the newspaper — who also comprise the educated decision-making sector of the population — while the audience includes the businesses that pay to advertise their goods. According to this "filter", the news itself is nothing more than "filler" to get privileged readers to see the advertisements which makes up the real content, and will thus take whatever form is most conducive to attracting educated decision-makers. Stories that conflict with their "buying mood", it is argued, will tend to be marginalized or excluded, as will information that presents a picture of the world that collides with advertisers' interests.

The theory argues that the people buying the newspaper are themselves the product which is sold to the businesses that buy advertising space; the newspaper itself has only a marginal role as the product.

The president of the main French television station TF1 stated this clearly in an interview in 2004, published in the book Les dirigeants face au changement (Éditions du Huitième jour) (see ):

"... the job of TF1 is to help Coca-Cola, for example, to sell its product. [...] In order for an advertising message to be perceived, the brain of the television viewer must be available. Our broadcasts are aimed at making that brain available: i.e. by distracting it, by relaxing it and preparing it between two messages. What we sell to Coca-Cola is time with this available human brain."

Sourcing

The third filter concerns the mass medias' need for a continuous flow of information to fill their demand for daily news. In an industrialized economy where consumers demand information on numerous global events unfolding simultaneously, they argue that this task can only be filled by major business and government sectors that have the necessary material resources. This includes mainly The Pentagon and other governmental bodies. Chomsky and Herman then argue that a "symbiotic relationship" arises between the media and parts of government which is sustained by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest. On the one hand, government and news-promoters strive to make it easier for news organizations to buy their services; according to the authors (p. 22), they

• provide them with facilities in which to gather
• give journalists advance copies of speeches and forthcoming reports
• schedule press conferences at hours well-geared to news deadlines
• write press releases in usable language
• carefully organize their press conferences and "photo opportunity" sessions

On the other hand, the media becomes reluctant to run articles that will harm corporate interests that provide them with the resources that the media depends upon.

The complexity of this supposed relationship also gives rise to a "moral division of labor", in which "officials have and give the facts," and "reporters merely get them". Journalists are then supposed to adopt an uncritical attitude that makes it possible for them to accept corporate values without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

During the year 2005 in the USA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticised the George W. Bush administration for the preparation and distribution of videos which falsely give the impression of being interviews made independently of the administration. The New York Times claimed that more than 20 federal agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, now create fake news clips. The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first four years on contracts with public relations firms, more than double the amount spent by the Clinton administration. [1] [2]

Flak

The term "flak" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as targeted efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power ( e.g. Black Model , "The Establishment"). Unlike the first three "filtering" mechanisms — which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms — flak is characterized by concerted and intentional efforts to manage public information.

Flak from the powerful can be either direct or indirect . The direct could include the following hypothetical scenarios:

• Letters or phone calls from the White House to Dan Rather or William Paley
• Inqueries from the FCC to major television networks requesting documents used to plan and assemble a program
• Messages from irate executives representing advertising agencies or corporate sponsors to media officials threatening retaliation if not granted on-air reply time.

The powerful can also work on the media indirectly by:

• Complaints delivered en masse to their own constituencies ( e.g. , stockholders, employees) about media bias,
• Generation of mass advertising that does the same,
• By funding watchdog groups or think tanks engineered to expose and attack deviations in media coverage that endanger vital elite interests.
• By funding political campaigns that elect politicians who will be more willing to curb any such media deviations.

Anti-Ideologies; substitutes for anti-communism

A final filter is anti-ideology. Anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real or imagined. Communism once posed the primary threat according to the model. Communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, press, etc. Such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests.

With the Soviet Union's collapse, proponents of the propaganda model have argued that the functionality and credibility of anti-communism has been fundamentally compromised. Proponents state that new, more functional anathemas have arisen to take its place. Chomsky and Herman argue that one possible replacement for anti-communism seems to have emerged in the form of "anti-terrorism".

Summary

Chomsky and Herman summarize their theory thus: "A propaganda model has a certain initial plausibility on guided free-market assumptions that are not particularly controversial. In essence, the private media are major corporations selling a product (readers and audiences) to other businesses (advertisers). The national media typically target and serve elite opinion, groups that, on the one hand provide an optimal "profile" for advertising purposes, and, on the other, play a role in decision-making in the private and public spheres. The national media would be failing to meet their elite audience's needs if they did not present a tolerably realistic portrayal of the world. But their "societal purpose" also requires that the media's interpretation of the world reflect the interests and concerns of the sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and private institutions dominated by these groups (p. 303)."

Empirical support

Following the theoretical exposition of the propaganda model, Manufacturing Consent contains a large section where the authors seek to test their hypotheses. If the propaganda model is right and the filters do influence media content, a particular form of bias would be expected — one that systematically favors corporate interests.

Noam Chomsky said, "the first way we tested the model in Manufacturing Consent was to submit it to what is really its harshest possible test: we let the opponents select their own ground. [...] [Y]ou take the examples they select to prove their position [...] and you look at those examples to see whether they follow the Propaganda Model." ( Oz Model Underst Mauser Model Argentina 1891, Argentina Model Nude, Argentina Male Model, Argentina Bikini Model, Argentina Dorismar Model,