Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Patents Social Networks Idle

Microsoft Patents Looks-Are-Everything Dating 192

Posted by samzenpus
from the electronic-eye-of-the-beholder dept.
theodp writes "Screw that eHarmony Compatibility Matching System nonsense. 'Physical appearance is generally considered one of the most important search criteria among users of online dating services,' according to a patent granted Tuesday to five Microsoft Research Asia inventors. Its Image-Based Face Search technology not only allows people to specify the 'gender, age, ethnicity, location, height, weight, and the like' of their prey, explains Microsoft, it also allows them to 'provide a query image of a face for which they would like to search for similar faces.' So, even though you can't have the real Angelina Jolie or Natalie Portman, Microsoft will fix you up with a look-alike."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Patents Looks-Are-Everything Dating

Comments Filter:
  • Good grief. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:11PM (#34739204)
    Come on! Patenting searching for someone who looks like someone else?

    What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.
    • Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonbryce (703250) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:56PM (#34739454) Homepage

      If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.

      • Re:Good grief. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by andydread (758754) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @08:01PM (#34740238)
        Right and as patents are for the betterment of the arts and were created to encourage inventors to show how their invention works for the betterment of the arts, the patent filing should include the source code.
      • by DrVomact (726065)

        If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.

        Right. An image search algorithm that does this well would indeed be technologically interesting...maybe even unique, as it's my understanding that current "face recognition" technologies don't work that well. Certainly, the Department of Homeland Security would be very interested. But patent the "general idea" is exactly what they did. It's clear nobody that nobody's been home in the U.S. Patent Office for some time...but I bet they keep collecting their paychecks.

      • I would've assumed that the justice departments of the world had this kinda technology already...

    • by mangu (126918)

      What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

      They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

      • Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by causality (777677) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @05:40PM (#34739654)

        What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

        They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

        That reminds me of a really good quote:

        No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
        -- P. J. O'Rourke

        I'd say those four things provide a coherent explanation of the current patent system.

        • by swillden (191260)

          What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

          They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

          That reminds me of a really good quote: No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. -- P. J. O'Rourke

          I can implement that test in software:

          bool o_rourke_test(const Person& person)
          {
          return true;
          }

          Accurate, but hardly useful.

          • by causality (777677)

            What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

            They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

            That reminds me of a really good quote: No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. -- P. J. O'Rourke

            I can implement that test in software:

            bool o_rourke_test(const Person& person) { return true; }

            Accurate, but hardly useful.

            "Hardly useful" because it discounts those individuals who really do strive to become something more than stupid, ignorant, greedy, and power-hungry. They really do exist. They just don't achieve dominance (power) or prominance (influence) because they'd rather live and let live, so there are few you've actually heard of unless you are privileged to know them personally.

            Your algorithm there is a nice treatise on cynacism. Damn I used to be quite the cynic myself. Then I realized that if I don't like

            • by swillden (191260)

              Actually, my attitude isn't cynical, it's accepting. Everyone is stupid, ignorant, greedy and power-hungry at least some of the time. Some people try harder to avoid it than others, but we all fail.

              I find your attitude to be pretentious and holier-than-thou. Any time you find yourself thinking "I'm better than THOSE people because X, Y and Z", you need a dose of humility and you need to pay more attention to your own failings -- in particular, your own stupidity, ignorance, greed and hunger for power.

    • by dltaylor (7510)

      They get paid to assign patent numbers.

      How many bureaucrats would be out of work if the office was reduced to a reasonable level, for example, a single clerk with a "DENIED" stamp?

      • They get paid to assign patent numbers.

        Actually, they get paid to reject applications. They just have to come up with a good reason to do so.

        • by green1 (322787)

          I bet they're on salary to be honest, so they don't care either way, but by it being known that you can patent basically anything, they make sure that people try to patent EVERYTHING, meaning more work for them, meaning less chance of the office downsizing and letting any of them go... plus it's easier to stamp "approved" than to actually do research needed to reject something. and government bureaucrats are not known to put in more effort than the minimum they can get away with...

          • I bet they're on salary to be honest, so they don't care either way, but by it being known that you can patent basically anything, they make sure that people try to patent EVERYTHING, meaning more work for them, meaning less chance of the office downsizing and letting any of them go... plus it's easier to stamp "approved" than to actually do research needed to reject something. and government bureaucrats are not known to put in more effort than the minimum they can get away with...

            How much would you bet? The Patent Office Examiners get paid by a point system with points earned for disposals of applications - including rejections.

    • So, can Mister Armchair Quarterback do any better at rejecting those claims?

    • What a great idea! You should patent that.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:12PM (#34739208) Homepage

    n/t

  • And they'll probably call it iShallow.com.

    • Re:Website name (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:23PM (#34739260) Journal
      Shallow, yes; but also refreshingly honest about it. Arguably giving such people an efficient clearinghouse in which to practice their assortative mating is a net win for everybody: If they have a clearly superior option, they will flock to it, and the people who aren't don't have to worry about the possibility of dealing with one of them who is emulating an interest in nonvisual qualities. Everybody wins.
      • by Sir_Sri (199544)

        Well that's the advantage of online dating in general. Have a monacle fetish? Tired of your friends setting you up on dates with people who don't have monacles because you haven't told them about this. No problem, online dating will help. You can be brutally honest about what you want, and don't want. The downside I can see with online dating is that there's a difference between wanting a fantasy (wanting a woman who looks like angelina jolie), and wanting something you learned from experience (someone

      • Basing mating choices on physical appearance is the product of a hundred million years of selective pressure. It is not shallow, but rather it is one of our deepest animal traits.
        • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @08:12PM (#34740276) Journal
          You can't ignore physical appearance(though evolution hasn't quite caught up to the appearance of the 'myspace angle', so false signalling is a risk; but the trick is the phrase "basing mating choices on"...

          If this site is, largely, just for apply comp-sci efficiency to arranging hookups, it should work just fine. If people expect to form stable relationships long enough to accrue a white picket fence, golden retriever, and 2.5 children, they are going to have to examine the matter more closely...
          • by cayenne8 (626475)
            "If this site is, largely, just for apply comp-sci efficiency to arranging hookups, it should work just fine. If people expect to form stable relationships long enough to accrue a white picket fence, golden retriever, and 2.5 children, they are going to have to examine the matter more closely..."

            Not necessarily.

            I mean...I would want to hook up for a long term relationship with someone that looks as close to my ideal as possible. The quickest way to do that, is to bypass those who do NOT look like what I

        • Character is hard to judge based on looks, appearances are easily doctored, and longevity is being adequately privatized. Looks-based dating doesn't tell you a damned thing, irrespective of how long it's been around. If you accept it only because it's enjoyable, and not because it's wise, you're making a shallow decision.

      • Microsoft could also turn it into a face-ranking system, where they keep track of how often your face shows up in search results... Then online-dating folks will have scientific proof that they're ugly :-/

    • Re:Website name (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:27PM (#34739288) Homepage

      Truth is often the most ugly thing about life. We spend our daily lives dressing up and hiding the truth at every turn. When someone dies, we say "pass away." And when someone is defrauded or tricked in some way, we say "fucked." And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

      I have been with great-looking women and many not-so-great-looking women. Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside though and the only teacher of that is experience unfortunately and I had to become "over 35" to learn that lesson and accept the truth of it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NF5XU-k2Vk -- there is a lot of truth in this song but I can't easily tell my wife that... it hurts her feelings. So instead I tell her another truth -- I am with her because she treats me very well and I appreciate it deeply) So yeah, there is something to be said about how "shallow" it all is, but the fact is, most people are shallow even when they think they are not. I know I am shallow in many ways and I accept it, because this shallowness is a part of human nature.

      • by Announcer (816755)

        You've said "Beauty is only skin deep" in much more eloquent words.

        Who are they trying to kid? This new(?) site/service is only going to set people up for 1-night-stands, with a very poor ratio of GOOD relationships.

        Eharmony is for people who want to be serious and have a good LIFE.

        This mess is for people who want to remain as shallow as rain puddles.

        Choice is good: To each their own.

        • by dgatwood (11270)

          Eharmony is for people who want to be serious and have a good LIFE. This mess is for people who want to remain as shallow as rain puddles.

          Not at all. Let's face it, looks might not be everything, but they are important. It's only shallow if that's your only criterion.

          If a dating site has a prefilter that somehow magically figures out what you find physically attractive and only shows you those matches, that's tens of thousands of profiles you wouldn't have considered anyway that you no longer have to lo

          • Re:Website name (Score:5, Insightful)

            by causality (777677) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @05:57PM (#34739728)

            Not at all. Let's face it, looks might not be everything, but they are important. It's only shallow if that's your only criterion.

            What looks mean to you can also be non-shallow. I'm likely to catch some flak for this but I'll give an example: obesity. That's a matter of looks, but it's also a matter of how the person got to be that way. It says something about their ability or willingness to take good care of themselves. If they do not wish to be obese but have failed to effectively do something about it, it says something about their level of discipline and commitment to goals that are important to them. If they do not accept personal responsibility for their own health, and instead have a million excuses for why their obesity is somehow not their fault, it tells you that they have a victim mentality and are unlikely to be honest about their own shortcomings within the framework of a relationship. That honesty about each other's shortcomings is the first necessary step towards accepting them and growing past them.

            Anyone angry or upset by the above paragraph is failing to understand one thing: you can be objectively honest about such matters, ugly though they may be, while also having compassion for the person who struggles with them. Just because someone doesn't meet your criteria for what you want in a mate, just because there are good reasons for that, doesn't make them any less human or any less worthy of kindness and respect. The level of childishness that has infiltrated this site is the only reason I feel a need to explain that, as many of you are trigger-happy when it comes to "ZOMG, he said something that might be negative, hurry, demonize him and deny any point he made!" It's the very opposite of benevolent benefit of doubt when multiple interpretations are possible, in other words.

            If a dating site has a prefilter that somehow magically figures out what you find physically attractive and only shows you those matches, that's tens of thousands of profiles you wouldn't have considered anyway that you no longer have to look through.

            That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

            Also, it could be set up in such a way that you only see each other if you both are likely to find the other attractive. That would be a huge win because it would save an awful lot of awkwardness when one person likes the other but not vice-versa. For people who are intimidated by such social interaction, that would be a godsend.

            I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

            Combine that with something like eHarmony's matching scheme, and you could rapidly narrow down the choices to the dozen or so people that might actually work out, instead of having to manually weed out the million that wouldn't.

            The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

            • by kesuki (321456)

              obesity is just an option. you say it is diet but if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss, the fat is there and it won't go away no diet drug is going to fix it, i never even lost my baby fat. does that mean i'm a cyborg with no ability to process fat? possibly. i got serious over water purity and my appetite went down and i found gold crystals in the water they are pumping weight gain shit in my drinking water, then there are the 'preservatives' in food, yummy more toxins plz. no

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward

                you say it is diet but if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss

                Dieting: you're doing it wrong.

              • "if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss"

                Are you aware that you need to lug your lard-filled body off the couch and actually move around a bit in order to use up the fat??
              • Re:Website name (Score:4, Informative)

                by rubycodez (864176) on Monday January 03, 2011 @11:44AM (#34743968)

                blaming the water? aw cmon, how do you explain the thin people in your area. Eat a good diet of mostly vegetables and fruit, with rice or potatoes without the butter or sour cream, with six ounces or less of lean meat a day, and get off the workstation chair and start walking, adding a little distance each day, get to two miles or more a day. Then add some of those exercises we all learned in school PE, jumping jacks and pushups and such.

                You'll be amazed what happens in six weeks....

            • by dgatwood (11270)

              That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

              Well, there's certainly room for sites to make new friends---maybe even for the same site to provide for that functionality and date searching---but at that point, you're

              • by causality (777677)

                That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

                Well, there's certainly room for sites to make new friends---maybe even for the same site to provide for that functionality and date searching---but at that point, you're clearly looking for a rather different function than a dating site was intended to provide.

                I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

                You're confronting those fears asking someone out no matter what. The point was that some people have a tendency to recede into themselves, and if they get turned down too many times, they don't ever really recover. This could allow those sorts of people to get back on the horse again, knowing that although there's a risk, at least the decked isn't stacked 10:1 against them.

                The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

                Patents retard progress inherently. There is no such thing as a good software patent, and this one is no exception. It likely means that the sorts of dating sites I want to see won't happen until I'm too old to care about them. The very definition of hell is corporate ownership of ideas.

                That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

                Well, there's certainly room for sites to make new friends---maybe even for the same site to provide for that functionality and date searching---but at that point, you're clearly looking for a rather different function than a dating site was intended to provide.

                I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

                You're confronting those fears asking someone out no matter what. The point was that some people have a tendency to recede into themselves, and if they get turned down too many times, they don't ever really recover. This could allow those sorts of people to get back on the horse again, knowing that although there's a risk, at least the decked isn't stacked 10:1 against them.

                The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

                Patents retard progress inherently. There is no such thing as a good software patent, and this one is no exception. It likely means that the sorts of dating sites I want to see won't happen until I'm too old to care about them. The very definition of hell is corporate ownership of ideas.

                I'll note upfront that I, for one, am completely against software patents for any reason. I believe the downsides greatly outweigh any benefits we could derive from having them. This is like many other arenas however, in that there is clearly a "right and wrong" yet it is so frequently portrayed as legitimate debate that strong counter-examples are needed.

                Otherwise, I think your feedback was thoughtful and made me reconsider my own writing. You managed to do that without being condescending or inflamm

        • by sjames (1099)

          Let's face it, that's SOP for MS anyway. They have always valued appearances over actual suitability.

      • by Nidi62 (1525137)
        Exactly. My current girlfriend, we met online and I spoke with her for over a month on the phone before I ever even met her. It allowed me to become attracted to her personality before anything else, and that is why I care about her so much. And you know, they say love is blind. That doesnt mean you dont see people's faults. It means you dont let them bother you.
      • by mangu (126918)

        Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside though and the only teacher of that is experience

        The act of classifying people by their appearance has a special name, it's called "racism".

        According to my experience, looks have no correlation to character, however the plural of anecdote is not data, so YMMV.

        It could well be that it's not that great-looking women are no good, it's you that don't treat them right.Perhaps you went after a number of great-looking women with just the intention of having sex with them and they treated you accordingly.

        • by jhoegl (638955)
          Actually its called Prejudice....
          But I love how you follow up with a stereotype.

          Good game sir.
        • by russotto (537200)

          The act of classifying people by their appearance has a special name, it's called "racism".

          No, it isn't. Only lazy racists classify people according to their appearance; the meticulous ones demand a pedigree.

      • by dgatwood (11270)

        And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

        That's actually not true. Multiple scientific [physorg.com] studies [news-medical.net] show that most people tend to have a preference for other people of comparable levels of attractiveness and weight. People who are a little overweight tend to shoot for people a little overweight on average. People who are morbidly obese tend to shoot for people who are morbidly obese.

      • by sjames (1099)

        Shallow may be human nature, but depth is a natural human capacity. The real differentiator is between those who celebrate shallowness and those who seek depth.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by kesuki (321456)

        the truth isn't ugly at all. what i have seen since 2006 opened my eyes for perhaps the first time. i no longer believe what i have been told. television, books, internet, my own family, so called doctors, supposed religious icons... i quit video gaming i quit reading i almost quit internet and tv, i really could live without all the lies. i couldn't type the truth here but i know it now so good luck pretending.

      • So always marry an ugly girl, Cause that's the only kind. She'll never ever leave you And if she does, you won't mind.
      • "now I am shallow in many ways and I accept it, because this shallowness is a part of human nature."

        For those who are interested... see demonstrations tests for unconscious bias.

        https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html [harvard.edu]

        https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html [harvard.edu]

    • And they'll probably call it iSwallow.com.

    • by Smauler (915644)

      Meh - if finding your partner attractive is shallow, then I'm shallow. To be honest, being with someone you don't find attractive is way more shallow in my opinion.

    • Nope it'll be something like this [beautifulpeople.com].

  • Probably more patentable than most software patents if you actualy patent the means of doing it and not the idea.

    You need another patent on how to get sane people to sign up for this. I can see a first date meeting at a restarant.

    "No you can't be my date, you don't look like my mom"

  • I foresee a whole new kind of image memes soon. Imagine someone uploading a goatse pic? Or the pic of a very disgruntled baby? Or let's play "people who look like things"?

    Gawd, how long 'til it gets launched?

  • So how does his compare to wha t iPhoto does? Are the techs basically the same? Does Apple have a patent on what iPhoto does.

    It seems to me that this tech has reached a commodity level, and unless MS is doing something very different, this is just seems like a gimmick to sue others out of business.

    What I think would be useful is to allow users to choose their favorite celebrity and match user photos that are close. I know many people who will go out with anyone that looks like Antonio Banderas.

  • Can Microsoft deliver my Ms Portman look-alike petrified with hot grits down her pants?

    Thx in advance.

  • If this actually gets implemented, I wonder what percent of photos uploaded will be edited in some way or another.
  • Steve Ballmer greeenlighted the patent application after seeing this remarkable demo [flickr.com] of the technology. :-)

  • The search needs to include the total person, i.e. all of the body characteristics.

  • by Teun (17872)
    As long as I remember all Microsoft stories have this Borg avatar, why not this time, is it to prevent Bill to find his perfect match?
  • I'm pretty sure that the FBI and CIA already do this and have been doing so for a number of years.

  • Will the algorithm factor in push-up bras, make-up, stupid camera angles and other things women do to mask what they really like or will it still be a case of you have to wake up beside her to see what she really looks like?

    Not that there is anything wrong with a natural looking woman. To be honest I'd prefer it but there is often a lot of deception put into someone's looks (especially with women) so unless they're honest it's not really going to match what you're looking for.
  • You sound particularly bitter in this submission - are you taking it personally?

  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @06:56PM (#34739996)

    From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

    1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

    2. High incomes of most American workers, and relative egalitarianism. Unlike say, 1950, many women don't need men for money. They are no longer remotely impressed by men making incomes in the bottom 99%.

    3. Aging of the populance. All men, from age 13 to age 90, want women in the same age range. Women are fertile and make good mothers between ages 15 and 35. That's 17 years of (legal) breeding ability. Yet, out of the millions of men in the United States, every last one of them prefers women in this age range.

    And other factors. Sexual harassment laws mean that men who ask anyone at work for a date risk their careers. The laws in general have gone from being biased towards men (prehistory-1980) towards heavily biased in favor of women.

    This is why a lot of men in the U.S. would be best served dating oversees. If you're in the top 10-20% of income in the U.S., but not the top 1%, and you have average looks...you're a dud by the standards of the handful of attractive available non-obese women in the United States. You're royalty with that kind of money and prospects by equally attractive women in say, Ukraine.

    • by molo (94384)

      Right, just ask Nina Reiser.

      -molo

      • To be honest, Hans and Nina got a pretty good deal until some spousal argument ended in murder. (which happens all the time with couples in the U.S. in any case. Probably was not statistically more likely to happen because it was an overseas marriage)

        They were married for 10 years. Nina was a doctor, and eventually got a U.S. license. She gave him 2 kids and probably lots and lots and lots of sex. She was beautiful until the day she died (rather than blowing up like a balloon like many spouses do) He

    • by swillden (191260)

      From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

      1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

      How does that work against the average US man? He's fat, too.

    • by mcvos (645701)

      From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

      1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

      Are only women in the US obese? I'd say this is acting against Americans in general, and not merely any single gender. And it has little to do with dating either. You can always date someone who's just as fat as you. Or you could get off your ass and get some exercise and healthier food, of course.

      2. High incomes of most American workers, and relative egalitarianism. Unlike say, 1950, many women don't need men for money. They are no longer remotely impressed by men making incomes in the bottom 99%.

      That just means women aren't desperate to get married for economic reasons. But plenty of women still want a man. Just not some jerk. (Or maybe they do want a jerk; some women seem to prefer them.)

      3. Aging of the populance. All men, from age 13 to age 90, want women in the same age range. Women are fertile and make good mothers between ages 15 and 35.

      I was under the

  • Ugly people have no hope in this world. Just live alone and pay to watch pretty people fuck.

    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      Thanks to the miracle of BEER, ugly people have actually been getting laid for hundreds of years now. Obviously they are in fact breeding... that's why there are so many of them!
  • A better patent would be for software that takes ugly people and makes them look beautiful. As long as they never saw the real thing, it might make for the ideal relationship, not to mention increasing demand for paper bags.
  • The next patent will be on a method of doing plastic surgery to make you look like the movie star of your choice. Search Engine Optimisation for your face!

  • Sooner or later someone will upload a certain hello.jpg file.

  • everyone that isn't within 10% of the beauty level of Natalie Portman, you cut out a lot of potential customers. Perhaps the owners of the dating web site will give a free "beauty rating" so one can at least know that their web site is a waste of hope and money before shelling out for a subscription.
  • What they should be developing is a way to ensure that people who use online dating aren't lying about their age, weight, fitness, appearance, etc. and aren't using a fake photo. Online dating is a joke because of all these problems, and I'm not even getting into all the whores who use online dating sites as a way to either get desperate men to go to their porn site, or as a front for outright prostitution.
    Let them patent this all they want. They can have it all.
  • Cue millions of really disappointed [tumblr.com] teenage girls.

  • It worries me that:

    1] Normal people love this kind of thing and will flock to any kind of social dating setup

    2] It is a good way to catalog and profile all these people, with personal, contact, and now biometric details.

    I'm sure its fine, yes it will all be fine . . .

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...