Microsoft Patents Looks-Are-Everything Dating 192
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."
Good grief. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would've assumed that the justice departments of the world had this kinda technology already...
Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the reason the patent system is broken is there is a huge misconception among people about what a patent is and isn't.
I disagree, the patent system is broken because the patent evaluators have no clue about prior art and far too lax criteria for what counts as a specific implementation. That's why there are ridiculous yet valid patents for things like using windows as GUI elements or electronically serving structured documents from a remote server.
Protection, too (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, patents are supposed to grant protection to new idea, but software doesn't need any.
The idea is that some genius inventor, might have some great technological idea. But to commercially exploit that idea, a 1 billion dollar plant is necessary. Even building a prototype would cost in the range of hundreds of thousands.
The single lone inventor can't start a business like this. He needs to raise funds and for that he need to talk to investors. But the investor could run away with the idea with it. Or ther
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
I can have an absolutely stunningly brilliant idea that involves doing something with sentences.
It'll only be useful if I can build the complete word-processor to wrap around my invention.
Or if I can sell the invention to a current word-processor developer, in which case your logic of outside investors applies.
The problem with software patents is that my absolutely stunningly brilliant idea is exactly what every other developer would come up with given the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being sensible.
Re:every country has a motive to be lax (Score:5, Informative)
That's not quite correct, actually. Patents apply only in the country in which they are granted. However the Paris convention provides that filing an application in one member state gives you an exclusive right for one year, to file in any other member state. However your patent still needs to fulfill the requirements of the country you are filing in. So if you have a weak patent in the US, you may not be able to successfully apply in e.g. the UK (assuming they are more strict for the purpose of this example).
If you are based in the UK, the US patent could still be relevant for you though - e.g. if you are exporting to the US. That's one of the reasons why many foreign companies file for US patents, even for "inventions" which wouldn't be patentable in their home countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely half the police procedural shows on the TV would provide prior art in face matching software - I've lost count the number of times grainy low res photos are used to identify someone doing a facial geometric match against some federal database.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, if you look at the patent, what it describes is pretty much what anybody would implement as a method; it's obvious.
Use some undescribed magic to extract specific facial features from a photo (this is the part which probably WOULD be patentable on it's own) and build an obvious user interface around it (this is the part they actually patentented).
The problem here isn't a generic description of the goal, but a generic and obvious solution to achieve the goal.
Another part of the problem is that the paten
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:
Accurate, but hardly useful.
Re: (Score:2)
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:
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there's prior art...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmonkey3.htm [about.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Finally, Microsoft comes out with something useful (Score:2)
... where do I sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
So, can Mister Armchair Quarterback do any better at rejecting those claims?
Drug testing the Patent Office? (Score:3)
What a great idea! You should patent that.
Only the face? Not good enough. (Score:4, Funny)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Website name (Score:2)
And they'll probably call it iShallow.com.
Re:Website name (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Not shallow (Score:3)
Re:Not shallow (Score:4, Funny)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, that's SOP for MS anyway. They have always valued appearances over actual suitability.
Re: (Score:2)
Racist (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
But I love how you follow up with a stereotype.
Good game sir.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. Only lazy racists classify people according to their appearance; the meticulous ones demand a pedigree.
Re: (Score:2)
People will take more guff from charismatic persons. The attractive are indirectly taught that they don't have to be as nice to other people, to be liked, as less attractive folk
No, they are taught that there are prejudiced people and start ignoring people like you.
Using the same armchair psychoanalysis, one could as well argue that women who are less physically attractive become envious and bitter. They are indirectly taught that it's no use being nice since they will always be less liked than more attractive folk.
The type of woman who has less sweetness and disposition and generosity is not a beautiful woman, it's a woman that makes an effort to become beautiful. That kind of per
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Always marry an ugly girl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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]
Re: (Score:2)
I see your Penny Arcade, and raise you an XKCD: http://xkcd.com/800/ [xkcd.com]
fixed that for you (Score:3)
And they'll probably call it iSwallow.com.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
being with someone you are not attracted to is called desperate.
Isn't there a /. merit badge for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope it'll be something like this [beautifulpeople.com].
creepy creepy creepy... (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
How long 'til people get "creative" with it? (Score:2)
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?
iPhoto face matching (Score:2)
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.
I've been waiting for this (Score:2, Funny)
Can Microsoft deliver my Ms Portman look-alike petrified with hot grits down her pants?
Thx in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, both hot grits and Natalie Portman. This made my day significantly better.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you perhaps mean paralyzed? Or did I miss some new internet meme where people want statues of Ms Portman?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. Could you provide a car analogy?
Image editing (Score:2)
Ballmer Signed-Off on this Remarkable Demo (Score:2)
Steve Ballmer greeenlighted the patent application after seeing this remarkable demo [flickr.com] of the technology. :-)
Incomplete (Score:2)
The search needs to include the total person, i.e. all of the body characteristics.
The Borg (Score:2)
Prior art (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that the FBI and CIA already do this and have been doing so for a number of years.
What about makeup? (Score:2)
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.
Dear theodp, (Score:2)
You sound particularly bitter in this submission - are you taking it personally?
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, just ask Nina Reiser.
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he doesn't want to date a fat chick. It's not like fat guys want to date fat girls.
And it's not like girls want to date fat guys, either. His own obesity has a much larger impact on his prospects than the obesity of the female population. Men who are fit and look good are hunting among the population of females who are fit and look good. Given that the obesity rates are about equal among males and females, fit men may have fewer fit women to choose from, but they're also facing fewer competitors.
Net impact on prospects is that they're unchanged.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really counter my argument. In the U.S. today there's 1000 of those "suckers only" mail order get-rich schemes. Odds are, at least some of them actually will get you rich if you get in early (if it's a pyramid scheme/multi-level marketing) and get very lucky. They're not all scams (just 990/1000 of them)
Point is, if you cheat at the game of getting rich AND get very lucky you just might be one of the handful of success stories.
But that's the same argument with the book you reference (which I
Ugly people dont fuck. Its that simple (Score:2)
Ugly people have no hope in this world. Just live alone and pay to watch pretty people fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Slim Pickings (Score:2)
SEO for your face (Score:2)
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!
Meh ... (Score:2)
Sooner or later someone will upload a certain hello.jpg file.
if you cut out (Score:2)
What they should be developing instead (Score:2)
Let them patent this all they want. They can have it all.
Disappointment (Score:2)
Cue millions of really disappointed [tumblr.com] teenage girls.
Good old paranoia (Score:2)
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 . . .
Re: (Score:2)
The big technical leap would be tying in their credit rating and financial assets like property and stock. Is golddiggers.com taken?
Yes, it is. Funnily enough it redirects to http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/ [sugardaddyforme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe just a personal thing though.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no... You've got it all wrong. Microsoft employees have lots of money. They're fine with women. It's the Slashdot crowd I believe you're thinking about. ;)
I know some 'softies, and a wad o' cash often isn't enough to compensate. You notice that even Gates ended up going in-house?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft employees have lots of money.
Have you been following their stock price? The old timers are rich. The younger ones, not so much.
They're fine with women.
Heh. I was dating a stripper a few years ago. She wanted me to teach her enough about IT, programming languages and the like so she could converse with Microsoft 'marks' on their level and squeeze a few extra bucks out of them.
Poor social skills make you a target. If you've got money, all the more so.
Re: (Score:2)