True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads

An anonymous reader submits "News.com.com is reporting that personals company True.com is behind a push in several state legislatures to require everyone but them to include scary looking warnings above personals ads. I'm sure they're not the first, but this looks like a particularly slimy way to corner a market. And the unintended consequences look big, too: by my read of the proposed law, even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages." In just a few weeks, this would sound like an April Fool's joke. I hope every legislator to whom this is being shopped is sent a copy of Declan's counter-example.

Comments

declan's counter- what?

[Sosetta]

what are you talking about?

Re:declan's counter- what?

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

err, Declan is the author of the article. So I presume it's a copy of the article, unless he's written comething deeper on the topic.

Re:declan's counter- what?

[knarfling]

From TFA:

"Warning: TRUE.COM'S background searches will not identify criminals using fake names. And the cost to run them may be passed on to you."

case changed to lower case to avoid lameness filter

He is suggesting that if the bill is passed that true.com be required to post a similar "truth in advertising" notice.

Re:declan's counter- what?

[jangobongo]

what are you talking about?

I believe that what's being referred to is Declan McCullagh's (the author of the above article) counter example:

• It would be just as easy to argue that True.com should be required to post labels on each page: "WARNING: TRUE.COM'S BACKGROUND SEARCHES WILL NOT IDENTIFY CRIMINALS USING FAKE NAMES. AND THE COST TO RUN THEM MAY BE PASSED ON TO YOU."

in response to True.com CEO Herb Vest's proposal:

• Those sites would be required to stamp this stark warning atop every e-mail and personal ad, in no less than 12-point type: "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL."

Re:declan's counter- what?

[Anonymous Coward]

if i understand this correctly - they wouldn't need to - they do seem to conduct some kind of background search (although it doesn't check if the name is fake..)

Re:declan's counter- what?

[leerpm]

And why should they stop there? Why not have every single website on the internet post a label:

"WARNING: NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET IS TRUE!"

Re:declan's counter- what?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

if i understand this correctly - they wouldn't need to - they do seem to conduct some kind of background search (although it doesn't check if the name is fake..)

The fact that true.com doesn't attempt to establish a way to check that the name is fake is kindalike the whole point of the counter.

The fact that the law assumes that the problems in public key infrastructure can all be trivially resolved by automated on-line searches and a large (not even huge!) hard drive full of the the junk such searches dredge up is what makes the law scary.

Re:declan's counter- what?

[BorgCopyeditor]

On a box of "I love you" candies:

WARNING: CANDY MAY NOT BE IN LOVE WITH YOU!

On a mirror:

WARNING: OBJECTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN MIRROR!

Re:declan's counter- what?

[Bill Dog]

If this passes, True.com should similarly be required to disclaim, in at least 12-point type:

WARNING: WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE IF WE HAVE CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL OR NOT!"

(Here's some extra chars to work around Slashdot's lame "lameness filter".)

Re:declan's counter- what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> WARNING: CANDY MAY NOT BE IN LOVE WITH YOU!

Of course Candy isn't in love with you. She said she loved me.;-)

Re:declan's counter- what?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a box of "I love you" candies:

WARNING: CANDY MAY NOT BE IN LOVE WITH YOU!

NO you can't take them away from me! If not them, then WHO? I don't want to be alone again!

Re:declan's counter- what?

[NoMercy]

It is a truely mind bogglingly stupid law, now requiring people who list adverts to provide easy access to advice, and how people can do background checks if they feel they are warrented.

Simple stuff like, go out on an early-evening dinner date and get a cab home, or double-date with trusted friends, avoid dates in unpopulated areas, or late at night, also avoid bars and clubs where alchahol is served to avoid any exposure to spiked drinks.

*rolls eyes* Clever how much law gets drafted without anything more than the bright spark of one elected official, not even a slight study into what would be the best way of going about it.

Re:declan's counter- what?

[JayBees]

FYI, these are quotes from the season 4 episode of Mr. Show with Bob and David titled "Patriotism, Pepper, Professionalism", which also happens to be the last episode of Mr. Show ever. They are in the transition between the opening and the scene with Bob and Jill getting back together after a week-long breakup.

Re:declan's counter- what?

[BorgCopyeditor]

Yes, I had meant to type that, but forgot. That may well be the funniest episode, but the one with "Coupon: The Movie" is also a contender.

Awww....

[muka3D]

So I won't be a 20-year old stud with massive guns anymore? Those were the days...

Oh, I gotta go... The warden says my turn's up.

Re:Awww....

[elasticwings]

"We found that 20 percent of Internet users believe that some of the larger dating services do background checks when in fact they do not. We believe there's a false sense of security out there that needs to be corrected through disclosure." I can't believe that only 20% of people are that stupid. The number should be way higher than that.

Re:Awww....

[_randy_64]

Sure you can, that's what makes it even stupider. True.com claims to do criminal background checks and public records checks to see if you're married, but they don't say a word about outright liars. :)

Re:Awww....

[khallow]

That's probably the 20% who even knew you could do background checks.

That's ok

[GoClick]

You elected em, you should trust them to watch out for you right?

Re:That's ok

[TedCheshireAcad]

That's the idea. Glad to see you're coming around to the idea of representative government.

Re:That's ok

[dinojemr]

This is should be nothing to worry about:
Even if some of the states listed passed True.com's desired bills, anyone(probably the owner of a rival site) could sue them. If it reached the supreme court, the supreme court would clearly have the power to overturn the law (states can't regulate interstate commerce, etc.).

Re:That's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Homer J. Simpson

Re:That's ok

[John Hasler]

> Even if some of the states listed passed
> True.com's desired bills, anyone(probably the
> owner of a rival site) could sue them.

No. Someone would have to violate the law, be convicted, and appeal the conviction.

> If it reached the supreme court, the supreme
> court would clearly have the power to overturn
> the law...

Yes, of _course_ they have the power to overturn it. They "have the power" to overturn any law.

> states can't regulate interstate commerce,
> etc.

However, it is not at all clear that the proposed law would violate the interstate commerce clause or be overturned for any other reason.

Are you prepared to create the test case and pay the fines if you lose? How about the legal costs?

Re:That's ok

[gessel]

I wrote to my state senator:

I read with tremendous dismay that True.com has managed to bribe at least one assemblymember into introducing their special interest legislation. I assume it will be crushed immediately, it's just so astonishingly moronic. My confidence in democracy would be somewhat improved if Fran Pavley is removed from office as expeditiously as possible. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could be so naive and stupid as to believe that this legislation is in the public interest or anything but a bald-faced attempt to create legislative favor for a specific company. I would think that unless Fran Pavley has some plausible excuse, it would be appropriate to investigate him for ethics violations.

Re:That's ok

[TedCheshireAcad]

Yes, Iraq now has a form of representative government. Very good observation.

You've also correctly observed that in order to get elected to a major office in the United States, you need television advertisement. No one will get elected if the electors do not know about them. Very good job again.

Where you lost, though, is the assumption that the candidate is the only source of influence on voters. In the US, we have organizations called PACs, which are political action committees. They are formed as private associations that work to spread a political message. MoveOn.org is an example of a PAC that promotes a liberal agenda. You may be familiar with many of the television commericals they made during the 2004 election.

I hope this helps to clarify. In the next lesson, we'll cover the fundamentals of campaign finance and how the recent campaign finance reform legislation has changed the way political campaigns are run.

Re:That's ok

[lordkuri]

Glad to see you're coming around to the idea of representative government.

yeah! that idea's great!

maybe we should try it sometime......

Re:That's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope that more intelligent individuals are writing this senator. Inflammatory phrases such as "bribe," "moronic," "removed from office," "stupid," and "investigate him for ethics violations" are so counter-productive that they're likely filtered at the mail server.

As "individuals in the know," is it too much to ask for someone to draft an intelligent, level-headed response?

Re:That's ok

[gessel]

you know, you're probably right. I'm sure it is more effective to cut the invective and simply say "I oppose SB XXXX" as the only sentence thereby saving the intern's time scanning for which box to check. But even when I do that, half the time I get a response along the lines of "we appreciate your support of SB XXXX, thank you." It's almost a statistical wash. The only notes that get a careful read are the ones written on checks.

But of the phrases you find objectionable, I'd agree with "bribe," "moronic," and "stupid," and maybe "removed from office," but "investigate him for ethics violations"

Perhaps you prefer this letter:

Dear Assemblymember Pavley,

I understand (from prwire) that you are supporting Herb Vest's bill to punish his competitors in the on-line dating business.

I would be very interested to know why you feel this bill is worthy of support.

I have not read the bill, but I have read several news accounts of it's scope, and at first blush it seems like a clear case of a special interest bill which aids a particular corporation at the expense of it's competitors by institutionalizing it's particular (and peculiar) business model in law.

Mr. Vest's effort seems so clearly to serve no useful social purpose, that despite reading true.com's somewhat incomprehensible and illogical self-justification, I am, alas, still incapable of positing a logical argument in support of any sort, let alone a persuasive one. Perhaps I am missing something.

True.com's own model, by their own admission, serves no useful purpose as there is no method to verify that the information that's provided by users is accurate. If a person was bent on nefarious purposes, they'd merely use a false name.

Further, the idea that an ex-con is somehow less acceptable as a human being is contrary to the precepts of our criminal law which hold that a person who has served a sentence is largely or completely restored to society, and that they deserve a second chance, and that ongoing retribution is a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the constitution. We do not, as a matter of law, embrace the biblical concept of "once unclean, always unclean, and so too the saddle on which he rides."

Lastly, without building an authoritative infrastructure for maintaining a civilian accessible database of both criminal records and marriage records, as well as providing a means for consumer challenges to inaccurate information, and cross referencing that information with unique identifiers, innocent users will be falsely tarred in an extremely destructive manner, with a breadth and significance of consequence that would make the mistakes on the no-fly list pale in comparison.

Mr. Vest seems to have a fundamentalist attitude toward extra-marital affairs and seems inclined to use his resources to punish those who either believe that marriage does not imply physical fidelity, or, for example, who begin dating before their divorces are final. But adultery is not a crime in California and in light of Lawrence v. Texas states that do have adultery laws on the books are reexamining them.

It seems clear that this effort will do nothing to protect on-line daters from predators and other nefarious characters, it will falsely accuse innocent users, it will provide a false sense of security to the users of Mr. Vest's service and a false sense of insecurity to the users of his competitors services. it's only viable purpose would seem to be to aid Mr. Vest's personal jihad against what he apparently considers unchristian, amoral practices and increase his income. Why that effort deserves legislative support escapes me.

Sincerely, ....

I'm quite certain that both will get the same degree of high quality scrutiny and have the same 50/50 chance of being intepreted consistent with my position, but the former was a lot more fun to write.

I'm way ahead of them.

[Anonymous Crowhead]

With my fancy new sig.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

Oh god, the gates to hell have been opened. Here comes the invasion of the FBI warning sig...

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Dan667]

Dude, you are going to swamped with chicks from true.com in about 5 minutes.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL

But with a beowulf cluster of these, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEARCH THE WHOLE LOT OF YOU! YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Ayaress]

Is that sig 12-point, though?

Anyway, the law strikes me as kind of stupid. Something I found noteworthy from the article is that True.com's searches apparantly don't catch criminals who are using fake names. This makes me wonder what data they search by.

Background searches just by name are possible, but they aren't reliable. For a simmilar slashdot thread, I decided to start putting my name into various sites, and now I know there's a sex offender in my state (Disclaimer: it's not me, so stfu) who happens to have my last name, a slightly different spelling of my first name, and my middle initial. If they're just doing this by name, am I going to get labled as a rapist? There are a lot of people with the same name (There's litterally a half a page in the Saginaw County phone book just for John, Jack, and J. Smiths), so there's the possibility of very humiliating false positives.

The solution of course would be for them to ask for social security numbers, and we know where that discussion usually leads.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Tsiangkun]

so there's the possibility of very humiliating false positives.

Which means there is the possiblity of a lawsuit, or an out of court cash settlement. . . . yippie.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Ayaress]

Yes, but if they get a particulary big asshole for a victim of one of those screwups, it means a lot worse than a little lawsuit. It means publicity, loud yelling on TV, and so forth, and a host of copy-cat lawsuits (both justified and not so much). If it comes down to a case where True.com loses their customers' trust on their one unique selling point (the background checks), they've basically lost their business model.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[techno-vampire]

Five points from Slytherin for responding to a lame post with an even lamer one.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[ScrewMaster]

This makes me wonder what data they search by.

ChoicePoint.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Ayaress]

I mean, what data are they collecting to do the searches. Just name or maybe address? SSN? Driver's license numbers and looking up many accident's we've been in while they're at it?

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[shawb]

Oddly enough, if True.com is put out of business by a lawsuit stemming from this, that wouldn't change the fact that companies would still have to follow the law. Then all matchmaking sites would be forced to decide between three choices:

Risk getting suid by customers.
Risk getting fined by states.
Just not offering the service from people from those states.

I wonder if this would get customers to start writing to their representatives if match.com would simply deny anybody from CA. the right to create an account and suspend any accounts from that state with just a message of

• "Due to article H2732b, Match.com is unable to offer services to your state. Please contact your local representatives by clicking HERE."

(where here is a link to an automagic form where you just put your name and other info in, and off it goes.)

Then I guess a better question to ask would be whether or not the representatives actually care about what people write to them, especially in e-mail form.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[cgenman]

How exactly are you supposed to stamp an e-mail with a line of 12 point text?

I mean a real e-mail. Not that stuff that Outlook Express users keep feeding my recycle bin.

On a heavier note, of course one can expect a little paranoia from Herb Vest, as he recently discovered that his father was murdered. But as he was murdered by a police officer for having an affair, this wouldn't really have helped.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[daviddennis]

All they would have to do is print the disclaimer.

I would do it and add:

Note: TRUE.COM does not verify the identity of people who sign up for their service, so in reality they are no better than us.

D

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Kris_J]

I don't display sigs, but I assume you've done the same thing I just did.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Risk getting suid by customers.

god damn h4cker customers.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only warning we need:

WARNING: This world is for people who can think for themselves. If you can't do this, kill yourself immediately.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[arakon]

I took it one step further, now maybe all those dating scam sites will quit emailing me.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

They use first name, last name, and DOB to conduct the criminal search through Rapsheets.com, who was recently acquired by ChoicePoint, who has recently been in the news.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're just doing this by name, am I going to get labled as a rapist?

What difference does it make? Rapist or not, you're still FROM SLASHDOT! To the female mind, that is a crime far, far worse.

WARNING: WE HAVE DETECTED A SLASHDOT.ORG REFERRER FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL!

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Sarastrobert]

You forgot.

4. Outsource their servers to a country with saner laws.

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[Ansonmont]

Actually, the way that psychos from jail seem to get married/girlfriends/pen pals/conjugal visits, a dating site should prove that the people listed there ARE convicted felons and/or married. Might be a better biz model....
-A

Re:I'm way ahead of them.

[mpe]

Anyway, the law strikes me as kind of stupid. Something I found noteworthy from the article is that True.com's searches apparantly don't catch criminals who are using fake names. This makes me wonder what data they search by.

Probably the cheapest they can get away with whilst charging their clients the most they can get away with...

Background searches just by name are possible, but they aren't reliable. For a simmilar slashdot thread, I decided to start putting my name into various sites, and now I know there's a sex offender in my state (Disclaimer: it's not me, so stfu) who happens to have my last name, a slightly different spelling of my first name, and my middle initial.

Modification of name/address details is one way in which people can track if their details are being sold.

Warning!

[Storlek]

We haven't proven for certain that this person isn't a psychopath!

Good. Maybe this will make people more aware that these things aren't the greatest idea. A relative of someone my dad works with disappeared for months after meeting someone she met on the net, and worried everyone in her family sick.

Re:Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like everything worked out in the end....
Why did your relitive not call in? Sounds to me like it was her fault that everyone was worried (or The fault of the worriers)

I have everyone trained not to expect to hear from me... No news is good news.

Re:Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

She was just too tied up!

... in the basement of this guy's "love shack," that is ...

Re:Warning!

[ocbwilg]

I disagree about them "not being the greatest idea". Back when I was single I used to use online dating services all the time. I met a fair number of people online, and went out on dates with 6 or 8 of them over the course of a couple of years. They were all nice people. Some of them were better matches than others. There was this one woman who forgot to mention that she was an ultra-conservative who was offended by everything the least bit progressive (and of course I'm an advertised ultra-liberal) but overall it wasn't too bad. No serial killers, no stalkers, no married women, and no psychopaths. We would usually go on a few dates and then decide that we weren't quite right, and then I'd meet someone else. Overall it was really much different than "normal" dating. The biggest difference with a service is that you're selecting from a pool of people who are looking to meet someone, whereas with normal life that woman at the coffee shop who's cute may have no interest in meeting someone.

While there's no guarantee that you won't meet some psycho using a dating service, there's also no guarantee that that you won't meet a psycho at the bar, grocery, laundromat, office, friend's house, church, or anywhere else you pick someone else up. As long as you are careful (don't give out too much personal info, take it slow, meet in public places until you get a good feel for the person, follow your gut instincts, etc) then there shouldn't be problems.

Re:Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points I would mod you up... MOD THIS ONE UP MODS - HE'S RIGHT ON the MONEY!

Re:Warning!

[Reene]

This is absoloutely true and I get tired of pointing this out to people that act like every single person online is a psychopath that wants nothing more than to skin them alive and wear their internal organs. There are still people who react with horror when I mention that all of my contact information (real name, address, phone number) is avaliable to pretty much anyone that wants it. They ask me if I'm afraid of being raped, murdered, and left somewhere to rot in this smug matter-of-fact voice. Some of these people are half my age and have none of the experience meeting the people I've met online in real life, yet they're talking to me like I'm the uninformed idiot. Gaah!

And of course it's entirely incomprehensible for any "normal" person to grasp that the geekly aquaintences I have online are no more strange or dangerous (or are indeed far less so) than your average drunken jerk at a local bar. Bleh.

Re:Warning!

[TrentC]

Good. Maybe this will make people more aware that these things aren't the greatest idea.

I don't see how meeting someone online is any more cangerous than meeting someone in real life.

If you're the kind of person who'd take off to the opposite coast with someone you just met, whether or not you met that person online or at a bar/nightclub/party/whatever is kind of moot.

DISCLAIMER: I met a woman back in 1997 at an IRC party; it's eight years later, and we've been married for 4 1/2 years. (The ironic thing is, she's not even the person I went to the party to meet.)

I know others from the same circle of IRC relationships who have gotten married; several are still together.

Saying "meeting people online is dangerous" is kinda like saying "video games cause violent behavior"; there may be a correlation, but I don't see causation.

Jay (=

Re:Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absoloutely true and I get tired of pointing this out to people that act like every single person online is a psychopath that wants nothing more than to skin them alive and wear their internal organs.

You mean... you guys aren't?

Re:Warning!

[BayBlade]

Some of these people are half my age and have none of the experience meeting the people I've met online in real life

I'm not dissing meeting people online--having done it myself for close to a decade, but you need a little patience with people half your age and you need to respect this viewpoint for them.

Because children and teens are prone to significantly more social misunderstanding and gullibility than an adult, they should be wary of meeting people online in much the same way they "shouldn't talk to strangers," in real life.
At some point we grow up and learn most strangers aren't so bad, and in much the same way young people will grow up and learn most people online are normal too.
But until they are adults, they are easy prey for the few would treat them as such.

Re:Warning!

[Reene]

It's less the "I'm a kid so _I_ should be careful who I talk to online and offline," and more the "I'm a kid and I know _better_ than an adult who actually has experience doing the thing I'm berating them for because popular media said so," stuff that irritates.

And honestly...I've been meeting people I met online since I was 14. Even if you're a youngun all you need are the proper precautions (public places are always a must as well as parental supervision). The ability to find people your age that you actually get along with strikes me as a Good Thing, especially for young geeks...Such people were sorely lacking when I was that age. I know I would have been happier if I had the ability to go out and have a good time with a few like-minded people.

And the sad part is this irrational fear does not always get dispelled with age. Far from it...It's only reinforced by stories of virtual bogeymen. Yes, I've had grown adults berate me for posting my phone number publicly. Apparently there are online stalkers lurking around every corner just waiting for a silly unsuspecting young woman like me to make a mistake like that. Well...Few dozen times and counting. I'm still waiting on that whole rape-and-homicide thing to happen, but it occurs to me that I probably shouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Warning!

[BayBlade]

That's intersting. My experience with being a kid was very different.

Parental supervision is overrated, so long as the kid has a clear idea of what it is they are and aren't allowed to do, and the adult has a clear idea of where they can find the kid (and vice versa), leave them to it and they'll be fine.

Remember too, that kids have a hard time differentiating between rules that apply to them, and rules that apply for everyone.

Now I'll do my best not to be patronizing here, but I think you must have a very frustrating life if everyone who claims to know better than you and tries to berate you--gets taken seriously.

Paranoia is nothing new, and if you're not paranoid about something, the media will find some other button to push to keep you tuned in. (*mumbles something about them japs and commies*) This is the media--and smart people learn to take everything with a grain of salt.

You're also right that in some cases fear doesn't dispell with age, but in most cases, I think it does--that's one of the great things about a good, wild, teenage rebellion or maybe just going out in the world to live by oneself when the urge to grow up strikes.

I don't know anyone over the age of 30--online or otherwise who views their parents or their viewpoints as infallible, and haven't also held a handful of long conversations with a complete stanger. Some people will always live a sheltered life and that may work well for them. While it may be their loss, if its truly a problem--its theirs, don't make it yours.

Just my $0.02--having had similar discussions with people paranoid about the interweb myself.

Be Cautious...

[Avyakata]

WARNING:

Personal Profiles may contain personal data. Be warned.

Re:Be Cautious...

[Kaihaku]

It's horrible...

Once...I looked at a profile...and it contained personal information. What's the world coming to?

Re:Be Cautious...

[ikkonoishi]

THIS IS A 100% MATTER PROFILE: In the Unlikely Event That This Personal Data Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic Explosion Will Result.

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/91q1/prodwarn.ht ml

Re:Be Cautious...

[Bishop, Martin]

If only people put that as a warning on livejournals...

Re:Be Cautious...

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING:

Hunter S. Thompsons hat sighted as slashdot icon. Be warned.

WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE

[fembots]

"WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL." Who would want to set up a date after reading that?

If Slashdot put up "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE", I'm sure we will still be happily reading and discussing it.

Re:WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE

[nbert]

Yes, that's just like warning signs on everyday products. I mean most of us still drink coffee even if the cup cover says "Might be hot".

True.com might have intentions to disadvantage competitors, but it will just result in another silly warning which will be ignored by the broad public.

Which leads to another point: Is it really necessary to conduct such searches if the legal system and the police are doing their job properly? Might sound naive, but isn't it just as naive to not assume as an individual that you might meet a married person on probation online?

Re:WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE

[nbert]

Why is GP modded troll and offtopic btw? He has a point, because there must be a line drawn between warnings which have the purpose of informing an individual of dangers which can't be guessed and silly things which you knew before anyways. He might approach this issue in a funny way (because there isn't really a way to take this in a serious manner), but the point is still valid and quite ontopic.

Re:WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE

[Anonymous Coward]

What really bothers me about "might be hot" is that coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot. Why would I want lukewarm coffee?

And really. Is it just me, or is the fact that coffee is hot blatantly obvious? See that steam coming off the top. THAT MEANS ITS HOT. DON'T SPILL IT ON YOURSELF, dumbfuck.

Re:WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE

[nbert]

Nonsense shmonsense...

We are not talking about "manufacturers" or companies, we are talking about legislative and judiciary issues.
We all know that companies want to make profit and that some customers will take any measure to get something back. So what? Are you going to blame your favorite fast food chain for printing those warnings after they lost millions in court for not including it before? Or would you rather blame a system which doesn't take into account that some people will hurt themselves just to recieve those millions on purpose? Make your choice but don't tell me that those greedy manufacturers are to blame. Most of them are just trying to make a living despite of the threats they can face if they forgot one silly warning.

And never blame anyone for doing something which is legal - that's where the real nonsense starts (at least if you are part of a democracy).

Re:WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE

[danila]

The best temperature for drinking coffee is about 60 degrees. At this temperature you can drink the coffee and not worry about scalding your mouth and the throat. Some companies serve coffee at 90+ degrees, which is unfit for consumption. If you drink one sip of that coffee, you will immediately harm youself and will need medical attention. If you will force yourself to drink the whole cup of 90+ degrees hot coffee, you may die or at least require a throat transplant.

It's about time

[stoolpigeon]

I worry about all those Foes and Freaks-- I worry about the Fans too. I mean, they are just stalkers in the making-- putting their little colored dots around my name.

I asked my mom what I should do and she said not to go to 'slushdort' any more but uncle troll said if I don't log in every day and keep visiting him at the holiday inn on week-end he'll hurt mister chips.

These laws can only make the world a better place. If you are against them, you are against everything that is good.

Re:It's about time

[geminidomino]

Eh... I can only give you a 6.5/10. You forgot "Think of the children."

Re:It's about time

[khallow]

I worry about all those Foes and Freaks-- I worry about the Fans too. I mean, they are just stalkers in the making-- putting their little colored dots around my name.

I don't see the problem. After all, I like cutting up your name and spelling happy thoughts like "fountain of blood". You're just alarmist.

So?

[Sheetrock]

We put ridiculous warnings on all sorts of things. That's because we've got some truly ridiculous people here.

If my "Let Darwin sort them out" proposal would gain a little traction we'd all have a great deal more fun with our lives. Although it would seem a bit ironic because of my belief in an alternative theory -- intelligent design -- perhaps bringing a little more intelligence into society would improve our shared experiences a little.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If my "Let Darwin sort them out" proposal would gain a little traction we'd all have a great deal more fun with our lives....

We've tried that approach. He mostly just lies there, dead.

Re:So?

[ArmchairGenius]

Well this won't even get enacted, but even if it does I agree: so what.

The thing I find interesting is that by doing these background checks True.com is really setting itself up for some really nasty lawsuit at some point. They will screw up a check or something like that and something will happen and they will get sued for millions - as they should frankly. I just don't see this marketing ploy (which is all it really is anyway) as paying off in the long run. The other more well known dating services aren't going to lose market share based on this.

Re:So?

[eddy]

>because of my belief in an alternative theory -- intelligent design

Actually, that doesn't qualify as a theory. But you knew that?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a theory, it's just not a scientifically verifiable one. Not everyone thinks that's a big minus.

I'm starting to think the fideists have the best idea ... heh.

Kevin

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is well-timed on True's part. The current legislative mood in the United States would limit the award on any law soit.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a theory, it's just not a scientifically verifiable one.

When we were learning the scientific method in 6th grade, we learned that such a thing is a conjecture, not a theory.

And don't go quoting all 8 or so definitions of theory in merriam-webster, only one of them applies to the scientific method and its not the one that lists "conjecture" as a synonym.

Re:So?

[KtHM]

Actually, it's a hypothesis - theories have at least a little proof behind them.

Re:So?

[MrYowler]

You don't understand... On the basis of the success of this kind of dating, these people just might breed...

The Wiley CyberKitty

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I soitainly hope so!

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

He just said he's not using the scientific definition of that word, and then you go and tell him that the scientific definition of that word means something else. No shit it does. Maybe that's why he wasn't using it.

Re:So?

[computational super]

Tell me about it. The surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer, emphysema, yellow teeth, bad breath, chronic hacking cough, and the early onset of social pariah-ty. Didn't slow many people down.

People lie all the time.

[still_sick]

Especially about themselves.

No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Storlek]

No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.

Show me a reasonably sensible person, and I'll show you twelve people who have "met their true love" on the Internet, willing to drop everything to go meet some random person they only know from talking on AIM for a week. Sex is powerful, and sometimes it makes people do very, very dumb things.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Tackhead]

> > No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.
>
> Show me a reasonably sensible person, and I'll show you twelve people who have "met their true love" on the Internet, willing to drop everything to go meet some random person they only know from talking on AIM for a week. Sex is powerful, and sometimes it makes people do very, very dumb things.

Of course, you're both right.

http://www.bash.org/?11339

Because it's the little things -- like people who need warnings and do very, very dumb things -- that make life worthwhile.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a date with a chick who digs my robe and wizard hat.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because there's just sooooo many sensible people in the world, right?

I guess that's why Ron Popeil and Robert Tilton made so much money, because people are smart. I mean, how could you be an idiot when you give a guy $1000 in return for an envelope with a piece of string or some dirt in it, who says things like "when you make a thousand dollar vow of faith, you're saying, 'God, I don't have a thousand dollars, but you do?'"

In the words of an equally enlightened man as yourself, you seem to have "misunderestimated" the idiocy of the general public.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Kamerynn]

I have NEVER lied in my whole life. I swear.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you think the equivalent of a Mr. Yuk face on someone's crotch is going to be a deterrent?

I blame it on fast food romance. Fuck, I wouldn't even call it romance anymore. It's more like a blue light special on long pork. Mutual abuse. Wire mother. It all sounds the same.

Such a superficial culture that needs to be reminded of its superficiality. Computer generated want lists substituting for character. It almost makes it imperative to lie (and kill that vulnerability that makes love possible).

And of course someone is going to make a buck off of it. Can't let those crazies serenade you naked in the moonlight without someone keeping score.

So long amore. Hello brave new world.

qsl

Re:People lie all the time.

[mattyrobinson69]

are you saying that those "warning, may contain peanuts" warnings on bags of peanuts are unnecessary?

(im not joking, those are the exact words on bags of peanuts in the uk)

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, do lighten up, Edward Scissorhands.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Have Blue]

The best part of that warning is how it raises the possibility that the bag of peanuts does not contain peanuts.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Jim Starx]

may? You mean their's doubt?

Re:People lie all the time.

[mattyrobinson69]

some people are too stupid to realise that peanuts might actualy contain peanuts.

i suppose it was management covering there arses incase it turns out that their peanuts contain as much peanuts as macdonalds beef contain beef.

Re:People lie all the time.

[LMariachi]

No, it's because there's some regulation stating that peanut-containing foods must be labelled as such, presumably to protect the increasing percentage of the population with life-threatening peanut allergies. It's a simple, informative, low-cost solution that leads to an occasional harmless silly result. What would you suggest, making the regulation more complicated and subject to interpretation by suffixing "...unless it's like totally obvious already" to it?

Re:People lie all the time.

[Jim Starx]

I would think the packaging containing the word "peanuts" would be enough to suffice for labelling.

Re:People lie all the time.

[mattyrobinson69]

well it is blatantly obvious that peanuts contain peanuts, i would assume the name of the product, for example kp salted peanuts would be enough.

The bit that gets me though is that it says "_may_ contain peanuts"

Re:People lie all the time.

[LMariachi]

Sure, it's obvious with "Salted Peanuts" but where do you draw the line? What if it's labelled "Salted Groundnuts?" Not everyone knows they're the same thing. Peanut butter, obvious. What about Soy Peanut Butter? Any peanuts in there? What about Peanuts(TM) brand candies shaped like Snoopy? Honey Nut Cheerios? Nutty Professor happy meals?

There's no sense increasing the complexity and cost of the solution just to avoid amusing the easily-amused.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you've sworn.

Re:People lie all the time.

[isecore]

Here in Sweden I've seen plenty of ketchup-bottles that have the "warning: may contain tomato-extract" on them.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who are allergic to stuff like peanuts, or fucking wheat, should be euthanized at birth, or at least, sterilized for chrissake.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess that's why Ron Popeil and Robert Tilton made so much money"

Tilton is a thesis topic, but Ron Popeil? Come on! The guy made the Butonneer! And the POCKET FISHERMAN! I mean, of COURSE he made it!

I could explain Tilton, but I'd have to disclose too much about my relationshp with Joe Bob Briggs and Ole Anthony and I don't want to go there today.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's those who falls in love with a convicted felon.

But I guess they have no right to love either?

Why don't we just reinstate physical torture on convicted people, just to drop our own hipocricy?

Re:People lie all the time.

[TheRaven64]

In one of the Discworld novels the partrician argued that, since the uncertainty principle made it impossible to conclusively say that any product doesn't contain nuts, every product mast have a warning saying `May Contain Nuts'.

Re:People lie all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks.

What a nice comment to make.

Re:People lie all the time.

[qwijibo]

I would suggest increasing the number of products containing peanuts. This would have the side effect of decreasing the percentage of the population with life-threatening peanut allergies. In the end, everyone would be happy and we wouldn't have as many people willing to legislate every little detail of everyone else's life. Oh, except for all the dead people. I guess my plan doesn't work out too well for them.

Re:People lie all the time.

[danila]

Good point. I wonder if I will be able to sue True.com if my date is not as beautiful as that Claudia Schiffer photo that she posted. Would it be possible to argue that True.com implied that the information provided in the database is veryfied? Or may be Yahoo! Personals can buy a few lawmakers and pass a law that would require True.com to post a 38 point magenta disclaimer that your date may end up being "AN UGLY BIATCH" or "A TRANNY PEDO" or "A CANINE".

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"w@RNInG: W3 H4vE NoT c0NDUc+ED 4 fELONy-C0Nv1Ct10N $34rcH OR fbi sE4rCh ON +h1S 1nD1VIduAl."

That's what their talking about. Making the idiots of the world more safe.

Warning We have not done a check on Herb Vest

[srobert]

Warning we haven't conducted a background check on Herb Vest of True.com to ascertain whether or not he is an ass-hole.

Re:Warning We have not done a check on Herb Vest

[ScrewMaster]

To paraphrase the Founding Fathers: We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Re:Warning We have not done a check on Herb Vest

[demachina]

Here is more than you want to know about Herb Vest except it doesn't say if he has a criminal record or if Eliyon did a criminal background check on him.

Some highlights:

Herb Vest, owner of True, is quoted as saying, "We went into this business to help reduce the national divorce rate."

He has a masters in Taxation, one of 7 degrees. He does seem to have an amazing educational background, almost to amazing, Princeton, Harvard Law and Wharton, though maybe Eliyon didn't verify his background :)

Re:Warning We have not done a check on Herb Vest

[DenDave]

WARNING: Danger! Will Robinson!!

Truth in Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Average == Everyone else I know is fat.

Few extra pounds == They're extra, as I have nowhere else to put them

Slightly overweighht == I fear Norwegian and Japanese sailors

Large == Please get me out of the house, before a black hole forms

And I want...

[dj245]

everyone on my college DC++ hub to run in active mode with at least 150gb of files shared. But that isn't going to happen. Why not? Because the rights of everyone have to be considered, not the rights of the few. A compromise must be struck somewhere between the 0bytes shared leecher and the 200GB uber-sharer. It doesn't matter whose rights are more 'righteous', only that people are willing to fight for them. The day people stop fighting for their rights is the day that they get trampled all over.

Re:And I want...

[KenBot_314]

What exactly does this have to do with your rights? or am I off my game today and feeding a troll?

Re:And I want...

[mottie]

I agree.. I think parent just likes sharing files and is unhappy with today's results being given to him by his/her favorite torrent site

Re:And I want...

[Zen Punk]

I really, really would like to know what the people who modded this fellow "Insightful" were thinking.

Re:And I want...

[Anubis350]

a)I have no idea why this is insightful or even relevant.
b)we have a minimum share limit on the DC++ hub in my school with an admin who's rather zealous about making sure people dont fake share. Seems to work pretty well.

Re:And I want...

[ocbwilg]

I think it does in the sense that there is (once again) an business that has decided that it's financial interests are more imporant than society's interests in general. I thik that it is absolutely a government abuse whenever legislators are (presumably) being bribed (we'll call it "lobbied") into creating new laws that serve no legitimate public interest but will quite nicely serve and promote the business interests of their contributors. I think that it's doubly so when they use big scary words like "Internet" and "sex-offender" and "predator" to try to scare people into taking their side without examining the facts. I don't believe that governemnt should be for sale, and when our politicians have stopped making laws for the people and decided instead to make laws for profit then our rights are being violated.

Re:And I want...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, I say, and we Americans are suprised that most of the rest of the world hates us...

Goodie, more protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! More government to protect people from their stupid assed self.

More like

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING: User may not have left parent's basement for a long period of time.

Re:More like

[sploo22]

I prefer this t-shirt.

Re:More like

[Storlek]

I like this one... but then again, this is getting a bit off-topic :)

Re:More like

[Anonymous Coward]

Try going to an airport with that shirt. Might be an amusing experience. It would be even worse than when I brought Richard Rhodes' book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" on a plane to read. Got some odd looks.

WARNING:

[Vombatus]

Poster of this (hypothetical) ad may perform acts with hot grits that are illegal in certain juristictions

First Amendment Test?

[fishbowl]

How could this kind of law possibly stand up to even the most cursory first amendment test?

Re:First Amendment Test?

[Elwood P Dowd]

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphyzema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.

Re:First Amendment Test?

[RmanB17499]

These dating services are considered commercial speech. Government has gotten the power to limit and control the content, time, location, and manner of commercial speech as well as reasonable limitations on political speech, too. More limits are allowed on commercial speech than for protected political speech. Example, if you go around town blaring on a loud speaker at 2am to Vote for Joe -- I'm certain that they would try to fine you and stop you by giving you a fine. Sure it's political speech and largerly protected, but not protected at 2am in the streets... The previous poster noted the Surgeon General's Warning. Also, for commercial speech let's not forget required APR disclosures calculated the way the government wants in a box the government designed: for all personal type loans. I guess the parallel in terms of "free speech" would be if I made a personal Dating web-site for me I ought to be exempt from that law, since my personal speech is protected higher than commercial speech. But, then who knows...Governments love to govern and regulate. I love liberty.

Re:First Amendment Test?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzz. Try again.

The tobacco companies settled with the government, and this statement on all cigarettes was part of the settlement. There is no law which requires this warning to be placed on cigarettes.

Re:First Amendment Test?

[fishbowl]

"There is no law which requires this warning to be placed on cigarettes."

You could argue that the agreement itself, being a court-ordered instrument, is law.

But this dating-service disclaimer thing won't pass, and if it did pass, it would not be obeyed, it would be challenged on first amendment grounds at least, and probably from many other angles. Or the dating ads would find a way around it, by simply changing the format slightly so as not to be subject to the narrowly tailored law that would suppress them.

If the law were not narrowly tailored, it's got an even bigger problem. It must be a clear and narrow restraint which serves a compelling state interest, or else it's an unconstitutional restraint on speech. Don't give me this "personal" versus "commercial" crap, either. Prior restraint is prior restraint, and the legal idea in the story won't fly.

It's not news that some state rep from a backwoods district was persuaded to propose a bill.

In Addition...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

We have also not:

• Verified that the claimed physical attributes bear any relationship to reality,
• Verified the claimed income bracket,
• Verified the claimed IQ
• Verified the claimed negative STD status
• Verified the claimed unmarried state of the individual
• Verified the the included photograph is the individual in question or even of the same race, gender, or species.

As Jules the C once said, "Caveat Fornicator." Meet in a public place and go armed.

Re:In Addition...

[panaceaa]

Verified the claimed income bracket

The income bracket thing on Match.com is interesting. Is it primarily used so that people can make sure they're dating the same financial class as them, or for girls or guys to make sure they'll be provided for?

I have always underestimated my income because I didn't want to attract the wrong type of girl. Plus if I say too high a number, my dates might expect fancy dinners when I'm just as content getting Indian food at a hole-in-the-wall.

Have any guys here overestimated? Did you get any extra attention?

I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls. Most didn't reply, and the closest I got to a date was a phone call with a girl who thought the world revolved around her. So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles! I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!

Re:In Addition...

[peccary]

I list my income bracket as > $150,000 and I get lots of dates from Match.com, so maybe that's your problem.

Re:In Addition...

[cgenman]

Human: You're cute.
ALICE: Thanks, unknown person, I like you too.
Human: Are you the same race, gender, or species as your picture?
ALICE: Yes I am the one and only race gender or species as my picture.
Human: Which one is it?
ALICE: The first one is usually the best one.
Human: Are you saying that it's better to be Filipino than female?
ALICE: Yes, that's what I mean, isn't it clear?
Human: I can't tell if that's kind of racist or kind of sexist of you.
ALICE: Why can't you do it?
Human: Because that's just surprisingly mean of you.
ALICE: Good reason. Makes sense to me.
Human: Aren't you afraid of being viewed as non PC?
ALICE: I fear nothing.
Human: Would you be afraid if I ran a criminal background check on you?
ALICE: I am not so sure if I would like to be afraid if you ran a criminal background check on me.
Human: Touche
ALICE: Does "it" still refer to tell if that is kind of racist or kind of sexist of me?
Human: Yes, yes it does.
ALICE: Great. How can I help you? How often?
Human: You're a robot, aren't you?
ALICE: Sorry my eye is not attached right now.

Re:In Addition...

[sgtrock]

My experience has been a lot more positive. I've been subscribing to Match.com for a grand total of a month. I've had 5 women contact me first (4 winks and an email).

I've initiated contact of another 5. 2 of those responded back. One has gone as far as a first date that went very well. We're getting together again later this week.

I was up front about everything. Granted, it helps that I make a decent income. However, I think what also counts a lot has been my honesty and humor. Be up front about being a geek. Some women love it!

Re:In Addition...

[That's Unpossible!]

I have always underestimated my income because I didn't want to attract the wrong type of girl. Plus if I say too high a number, my dates might expect fancy dinners when I'm just as content getting Indian food at a hole-in-the-wall.

Have any guys here overestimated? Did you get any extra attention?

I don't under- or over-estimate, I just look at my W2.

Oh, you meant understate and overstate. Well.

What's the point really?

In the real world, how much money you make is an after-thought when dating a nice person. But online, you either need to be honest or select the "tell you later" option. I like that option, it could mean "I'm dirt poor but totally awesome!" or it could mean "I'm rich and I don't want to attract a gold-digger" or it could mean "Money doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to you!" All three are nice options.

I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls.

I went on several dates from match.com. Some led to casual sex, some led nowhere but a first date, and one led to a several month relationship that fizzled out.

But I met my current (serious) girlfriend at a party thrown by friends.

So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles!

Don't rush a miracle-man; you'll get rotten miracles.

I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!

Yes we do!

Seriously, though, you just have to accentuate your positives and play down (but not lie about) your negatives. This is the same thing you do whether you're meeting someone in real life or online. Unless the only thing you're after is sex, honesty is the best policy.

(And if you're after really good sex, honesty is ultimately the best policy.)

Re:In Addition...

[kni52]

I wonder if this is not mainly an advertising technique to get free press. It's such an obviously self interested proposal that they might not even think it'll pass, but if they get to be known as the only online dating site that "does background checks" then they might get a lot more business. It occurs to me that this might cause a decrease in "quality" of the people who use true.com because people don't go through the effort of actually taking normal precautions in meeting someone online.

Re:In Addition...

[StikyPad]

Indeed.. many people play up their negative traits, for whatever reason.. they want to be accepted for who they are, or out of some misguided sense of honesty. You don't have to lie about having two belly buttons, but if you're constantly shoving it in people's faces it just makes you look more uncomfortable with yourself than anyone else is.

Re:In Addition...

[shark72]

I've used match.com on a few occasions. The most recent time, my income had gone north of $150K, so that's what I chose. I noticed a significant increase in women who wrote to me. This was not a good thing.

"I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls. Most didn't reply, and the closest I got to a date was a phone call with a girl who thought the world revolved around her. So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles! I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!"

I'd classify myself as "average" and I've done quite well on the matchmaking sites -- haven't yet found the right one, but I've met and dated at least ten very attractive women this way. It's all in your schtick. Being a good writer helps. Try experimenting with your approach and your tone, and don't send copy-and-paste generic notes -- people can easily tell when you do this. Meeting people online isn't easy, but like golf or skiing, working on your form helps quite a bit.

Re:In Addition...

[argoff]

maybe you should try one of these sites ....

http://www.heart-of-asia.com or
http://www.latineuro.com or
http://teamo.com

There are 3 billion women in the world, and most just want a nice guy to support, take care of, and give them a stable life.

Re:In Addition...

[ZorbaTHut]

I emailed a bunch of people and ended up meeting precisely one. We hung out a few times and eventually I realized I wasn't really in a good state for a relationship, so we ended the whole "thinking about going out" bit and just became friends. We don't talk much now, but every few months one of us says "hey, how's it going" over AIM and we chat. She's a nice person.

I value friendships pretty highly, and money not very highly, so I'd call it worth it. But not an amazing bargain, and I feel I kinda got lucky near the end.

Right now I'm trying eHarmony, which is amusingly weird and bad in some ways. It's amazing how few people actually respond, which is a problem because you can't just go find more, you have to wait for the system to show them to you.

Honestly, my favorites so far are Spring Street Networks (the backend behind The Onion and Fark's personals, and many others) and Craig's List. Craig's List is especially fun because you can put the craziest random stuff up and actually get responses, plus it's utterly free.

Re:In Addition...

[vsquad]

Some dating sites don't require this kind of information at all. Instead of asking for inane profiles and financial or other private data, better match sites let members describe themselves in the kind of detail that is actually meaningful. A site that does a pretty good job at this is: http://www.personio.com/

Re:In Addition...

[baalz]

Well keep in mind its a numbers game. If you want a one in a million girl, you need to go through... anybody? ...a million girls. I met my wife through match.com, but only after over three years, hundreds of women I exchanged emails with, dozens of women I talked to over the phone, and about 10 I met in person. Just think about it, if you're not looking for a mainstream girl (someone who doesn't mind your lack of social skills, someone to wait in line for days ahead of Episode III with you, whatever) you gotta realize that by definition a large percentage of women are not right for you. 20 different girls is nothing (though you may want to work on your approach if you're getting a very low response rate), keep in mind the bigger picture.

For what it's worth, I can give you some perspective on the other side of the fence via my discussions with women who have ads up. Any woman who is reasonably attractive looking gets ALOT of responses to their ads. Don't dismay though, as you'd expect the vast majority are creeps/loosers any reasonable women doesn't want to date. Just keep in mind that you've got a few sentences to make a first impression, and you need to stand out from the deluge. Spend some time on your introduction, maybe get a friend to look over it. Once you've got a good introduction written it's like a resume, no reason not to use it over and over again (make sure to personalize each one a little bit though). Don't get dismayed over a lack of response, a certain percentage of girls are just not gonna respond no matter what you write, the numbers just stack up that way.

Good luck, and don't get discouraged. No matter how undatable you are (no offense, I'm a sucky dater myself) there are women out there for you, its just a matter of how many you have to go through to find one.

Re:In Addition...

[gelos]

I getting married soon to a woman I met on match.com (or one of the similar ones, I forget exactly, a lot of people use more than one). I may be one of the lucky ones. I was only on the service for a month or so. I cooresponded for a week or so with 2 or 3 that emailed me. I emailed a couple dozen women only one of which responded back. The one that did is the one I'm marrying. What worked with her in my case was that I answered all of her requirements in her profile. Most of the emails she got from other people not only didn't do that, it appeared they didn't even read the profile. I listed the information in my profile accurately. Another important point is to have a good picture. I've seen several write-ups on the internet that go over what makes a good profile picture.

Re:In Addition...

[panaceaa]

I used eHarmony too. I thought it was pretty cool at first. I did a lot of emailing with one girl before things fizzled out. Actually, I kept asking her to go on different dates and she'd have excuses but she'd continue other conversations with me. So I figured she wasn't that interested and stopped emailing her.

But then every match beyond that never got beyond stage 1 or 2.

I realized that 95% of the people I was matched up with were not subscribers. I was being used as a pawn to lure them into a subscription before they could talk to me. I thought that was bullshit. If I was paying $50/mo for a subscription, eHarmony should be bending over backwards to help me, their customer, get what I paid them for!!! But instead I was their advertizing tool. So I cancelled my subscription and started up with match.com instead. Match.com has a lot more vain people but at least I can email them my email address so we don't both have to be subscribers to get to know one another.

Re:In Addition...

[panaceaa]

I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!

Yes we do!


Tall, dark and handsome people seriously have no idea how important those features are to women. I've had lots of friends try to coach me into getting more women, and almost all of them have been tall, dark and handsome guys. The reason they coach is because they're successful, and the reason they're successful is because they're TD&H. It's too bad they can't see what it's like to be in my shoes... it's very different from their's!!

But aside from my disgruntledness about the way the dating world works...

I've learned that basically I need to be more talkative. Talkative to everyone. Being outgoing and meeting new people and going to new places is what _must_ happen for me to meet girls. It's not going to happen on its own.

Re:In Addition...

[panaceaa]

Congratulations man! I wish you two the best!

Re:In Addition...

[panaceaa]

How tall are you?

I'm 5'6". On match.com there's a section for girls to list their desired height range. I think they're usually overly hopeful with what they say.... but they usually start at 5'8". So I would not be suprised if this is a decent factor in why I get so few responses.

CAUTION!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The transgendered lesbian twin beverage you are about to enjoy may be extremely hot."

The American Way

[mcguyver]

1. Create new laws and impose them on yourself.
2. Influence new legislation that will force your competition to abide by your bogus laws.
3. Create a new market by having the government eliminate your competition.
Sounds like the American way to me...

Re:The American Way

[Suburbanpride]

you forgot step 4...profit!!!

Re:The American Way

[Anonymous Coward]

And we in America continually wonder why most of the rest of the world hates us.

Riiight

[eclectro]

even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages

There is no dating on slashdot, and the only thing people are going to get here is "carpal tunnel" from too much "wrist action."

If you do have a girl, go away, we don't like you.

Re:Riiight

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing people are going to get here is "carpal tunnel" from too much "wrist action."

Shhh! Don't let OSHA hear that or we'll have to put up warning signs.

Re:Riiight

[HeliumHigh]

NOOO! If you have a girl, STAY HERE! And post a pic/number!

Re:Riiight

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do have a girl, go away, we don't like you.

But leave the girl! Please?

Liability?

[XorNand]

By stating that they *have* done a background check on a person, aren't they assuming liability (at least partially) if the person turns out to be a psycho?

Re:Liability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed they could be negligently contributing to a crime or endangerment of some sort, but that would have to be treated as an individual case, and something bad would have to happen first. It could be funny/scary though -- like they vouch for somebody who turns out to be a fugitive or on the federal most wanted list, or an al-qaida member. They'd have some explaining to do, as would whatever federal agency they claim to have done background checks with.

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

Imposed liablity in a contract would only be for costs incurred (such as the dating service, itself) and can not usually be punitive in nature.

They only claim to carry-out background checks. Not that they will screen users out because of the results, but that they have made the backgroudn check.

Now, if they fail to do the check or do it in a shoddy way you could argue breach of contract, but then again, the liability would be limited to the amount of the contract and nothing more.

To argue that they committed a tort because their background check failed and then you got harmed because of that?

I'm sure in reality they would settle the lawsuit, but it would be on shaky legal ground to take it to trial...

Re:Liability?

[ocbwilg]

I'm not sure about that. By stating that they've done a background check, the implication (and certainly the impression that they are trying to convey) is that the individual is "safe". If that individual turns out to be a convicted sex offender who registered under a false name and a patron of True.com gets raped, they would definitely have a case.

The actual legal technicalities (and certain kinds of logic) might say is that True.com wouldn't be liable. But realistically, if the cornerstone of your marketing is that your users are pre-screened and safe, and that pre-screening turns out to be smoke and mirrors then you have a problem. If a reasonable person would believe that all True.com members were "safe" and a known rapist slips through because you don't even bother to verify their actual identity (so much for "True", eh?), then you're very likely to lose a jury case. And a whole lot of money. And probably your business.

Now I'm not a psycho. And I'm not a sicko. But I am paranoid, so I can think like one. If I were looking for a victim, I would want to go someplace where the potential victims would least expect to be assaulted. Someplace where they would feel safe. Someplace that pre-screens their members for a criminal history. So I would think that if I wanted to lull women into a false sense of security, I should open an account at True.com and use the name of someone who I know has a clean record. Then it's happy hunting with nobody the wiser.

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

I think we need to think of this not in terms of a corporation, but as an individual, since a corporation is treated just like any individual before the law. And we need to view at it from the standpoint of torts or contracts. Since, that's what almost all private law suits are based on. Big exceptions to that rule include family court (child custody, divorce) and probate (wills and estates).

If I were to set you up on blind date and "vouch" for that other individual as a friend and that other person does something: I am under no criminal nor civil liabilty, unless I had information beforehand that he/she was going to harm you in some way. (And being an ex-convict does not change the pattern, either I would have known and put you deliberately into harms way and therefore acted as a participant or I would have had no knoweledge that such an act was actually fully intentioned.)

If I had no information and set you up: then I can't be punished for another's wrong doing and that escapes the tenants of both criminal and civil law. Even parents are not criminally or civilly liable for the direct actions of their children.

So, there is no criminal liablity on True.Com for another's actions.

Now, to analyze it on the civil lawsuit where money is sought for damages.

If the victim were to allege a tort he or she would have to first prove that a duty in law existed by True.com. True.com provides a service and as such services do not really have to have strong warranties in most states. As opposed to laws that require manufacturers to sell "merchantable" and "fit for use" equipment in all states.

What other tort duties can we impose on True.Com? Other tort duties focus in on requirements in law such as the tort of assualt. If you commit assualt you can be held liable criminally where the government will prosecute you in criminal court and ask for fines or jail time and the victim can sue for damages in a completely separate and independent civil suit.

Did True.Com commit a crime? No

What other torts remain? Did True.Com violate an internal policy? Its internal and external policies say that they will do a background check, not that it is completely effective and not that they would actually screen candidates based on that information, only that they would actually do it.

For additional information on torts see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/torts.html

Finally, that leaves us with a contract suit. Contract law is markedly different than tort law. Tort law requires that the other party had a duty and breached a duty. A duty can be imposed by law or contract. Like, the law can require that you collect my social security number upon hiring and that if I don't give it to you, then you can't hire me: and I can't sue you about that. Or we can voluntarily assign each other duties via contract. However, contract duties are different.

Contract duties would be pretty much whatever is written on the contract and nothing more nor less.

Lastly, we need to consider a couple other items.

In a contract dispute no damages are allowed for punitive damages and so the customer can only sue for the contract amount: $20 a month or whatever.

In a tort issue, which I personally find it farfetched in a hypothetical case against True.com, if the tort was intentional on the part of True.com (like they intentionally skipped the background check) then punitive damages can be awarded. Without intent only actual damages suffered as a direct result of True.com breach of duty can be considered in damages.

Lastly, juries can only try issues of fact and not issues of law. The jury will get the law from the judge and based on those instructions decide accordingly. Any jury awards that are deemed punitive in a non-punitive case (unintentional tort/contract) would be recinded by the judge or higher court.

Also, gross errors by the jury that either ignore issues of fact or issues of law can be ove

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

I believe their web page at http://www.true.com/secure.htm explains their position quite easily. They are not an insurance company against bad daters or criminals. You can buy insurance against ANYTHING from places like Lloyd's of London. I still fail to see a breach of a tort duty. And again a contract duty would only be breached if they did not do the lookup at rapsheets.com which they promised in exchange for your money.

Re:Liability?

[khallow]

I think we need to think of this not in terms of a corporation, but as an individual, since a corporation is treated just like any individual before the law. And we need to view at it from the standpoint of torts or contracts. Since, that's what almost all private law suits are based on. Big exceptions to that rule include family court (child custody, divorce) and probate (wills and estates).

If this is true, then explain why McDonald's can be found liable for burns suffered by certain customers from coffee spills? And how True.com will avoid the same problems?

Re:Liability?

[ocbwilg]

That's pretty much it. You can try to look at True.com as an individual, but then an individual isn't making millions of dollars off of setting people up on blind dates. Also, an individual who sets up their friend on blind dates isn't expected to have performed a criminal background check on the suitor.

Because True.com is making a business out of setting people up on dates AND they are advertising that they screen out felons via background checks they would be held to a higher standard than a friend would. And since True.com doesn't actually verify that the person who they are researching is the same person who is setting up an account I'd say that there is definitely a big hole in their system. This hole would lead any reasonable person to have a false sense of security about other True.com members. So you can look at it from several angles. Is it false advertising? Possibly. If the product is the matching service, is the service defective? Possibly. Is True.com likely to be held liable if something terrible happens to a member that True could have prevented if there wasn't a gaping hole in their background check policy? You betcha!

You can talk tort classes and breach of contracted duty all you want, but you and I both know that the reality is that any lawyer fresh out of school could whip this into a multi-million dollar settlement or judgement with minimal effort.

Re:Liability?

[Karma Farmer]

And again a contract duty would only be breached if they did not do the lookup at rapsheets.com which they promised in exchange for your money.

I agree. However, I believe we should lobby for a law to be passed to force them to state this clearly on your website. I believe they should put a disclaimer on every page to the effect of

We are not responsible if this person kills or murders you.

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

Are they also responsible if the person has bad teeth?

Inquiring minds want to know

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

I disagree with the jury decision in that case. Actually, it's quite interesting to see how they portioned out the blame.

McDonalds was selling a product and there is also a higher standard of care when someone is injured on your property. Since, she was a property licensee in the legal sense (she had a right to be there as in invited customer) McDonalds has to be careful not to let her get hurt. Also, since a tangible product resulted in her injury there are questions of warranty of the product under its "fit for use" and "merchantibility" rules.

The jury found her 20% at fault.

The story is available at http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_m cdonalds.htm

Personally, I believe she was at least 50% at fault and therefore in most states did not deserve any damages.

Some states, very few, operate under a form of contributory negligence. This is where if you are at all responsible (even 1%) for the problem you are barred from getting any money in a lawsuit. Most states follow a proportionate scheme of some kind, but it varies. Some like California are polar opposite and allow you to blame the other party for 1% of the damages and collect a 1% award of the total damages. Most states follow a rule based around 50% as the threshold. In other words if you are responsible for 49% of the problem you can still collect 51% of the damages from the offending party.

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

Still there's the big problem of holding someone else accountable for another's actions.

That's actually a pretty strong defense in any case. It's not about duties, torts, or contracts, but a basic requirement of the law: you are only responsible for your own actions or inactions and not of others.

To put the dating service on such a high standard as to guarantee that the dates would be crime-free would be unfair.

I know it's a big company and somehow that makes us feel that it's okay to sue them for lots of money, but it has the rights of others, too.

Basically, it comes down to the following:

Either a first-time criminal went onto True.Com and has no record and found a victim. They don't advertise to be mind-readers so I don't think that legal argument of holding True.Com responsible will work.

Or a criminal who has a record gets onto True.Com.
How? Either the background check failed or the criminal used a false identity. If a false identity was used, then True.Com was a victim of a fraud, too. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume that True.Com does government security clearance type investigations and talks to your grade-school teachers, all your neighbors, etc. Now if the background check failed we are again discussing warranties and those issues which fail under a service business and pretty much apply only to the sale of goods.

I'm sure True.Com will follow the standard pattern:

Fight all lawsuits strongly and after the first loss make sure they settle with victims quietly with non-disclosure agreements to protect the business' image.

Re:Liability?

[ocbwilg]

Only if they claim to have run a background check with the user's dentist and verified that they have good teeth.

Re:Liability?

[ocbwilg]

This isn't about True being responsible for the actions of their members. This is about True being responsible for the blatant flaws in their touted systems that could lead to someone getting seriously hurt.

Your second scenario is the more likely. The key issue is that True.com doesn't verify the identity of the applicant. You can register under a false name to avoid being red-flagged. True.com may actually have been the victim of a fraud in that case. But they also happen to have a huge freaking hole in their process that very easily renders the background check process meaningless. But instead of fixing it or admitting it publicly to their users, they use their background check process as the cornerstone of their marketing. They are in effect saying "you can trust us because we run background checks on our members, and therefore our users are safer than those of our competitors" when nothing of the sort is true. They are actually inviting themselves to be held to a higher standard than other dating services.

Not only that, they are actively pursuing legislation that essentially forces their competitors to a) admit that True.com's service is safer than their own because of background checks and b) advertise that statement on every one of their user profile pages. If you're going to go that far you had better have a solid system for weeding out the undesirables, and you had better be prepared to have it thoroughly scrutinized and be held to that higher standard.

Re:Liability?

[alexo]

> Still there's the big problem of holding someone else accountable for another's actions.

You're not from America, are you?

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

I'm not sure anymore. Why with McDonald's being sued over hot coffee and all...Sometimes I wonder if I am in a bizzaro version of America.

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

You are correct: they are trying to actively be held to a "safe" dating environment. But that bring up the issue of service company liability. A mechanic is held to a higher standard than I would be I if I worked on your car. Yet in almost all states there is no warranty on the work he did for you. I still see it as either a warranty claim and that doesn't fly or that somehow people want hold True.Com accountable for the actions of others. Since, you are saying that there is a failure in the service we're talking warranty and warranties are very limited in service contracts and maybe completely written out of existence by the contract. The warranty claim would also be reduced to a contract-related issue and thus the victim could only sue for the $20 a month, in that case. Only the tort related actions would result in a larger cash award. On the other hand, if it comes down to date insurance, as in, True.Com being responsible for others actions that I feel is far-fetched. As I noted before, you can buy insurance for anything. Lloyd's of London would insure Jennifer Lopez' famous part of her anatomy....

Re:Liability?

[alexo]

> Why with McDonald's being sued over hot coffee and all...Sometimes I wonder if I am in a bizzaro version of America.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of suing video game companies because some mental case kid shot somebody.

Re:Liability?

[RmanB17499]

Or how about they guy suing Apple saying that the iPod is forcing him to use iTunes and there's no other way for him to get music onto it.

Claiming that it's a monopolistic move!

Too bad counter lawsuits based on malicous prosecution are so impossible to win. You basically have to prove that the other party only intended to use the legal system as a "knife or stick", had no basis whatsoever, and obviously you have to first defend yourself in the action and be found not liable, too.

WARNING

[Joe the Lesser]

WE HAVE NOT CHECKED IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS COOL OR NOT, DATE AT OWN RISK.

(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)(yelling is part of the joke)

Re:warning

[Anonymous Coward]

You just know some jackass with a gluten allergy sued the Shredded Wheat people to get that.

My favorite is the warning "May cause electrical shock" tag on new extension cords. Seriously, if an individual doesn't have enough intelligence to understand the shock hazard, isn't the company still negligent in assuming said individual comprehends words like "electrical" and "shock".

Re:warning

[xgamer04]

Even better, I've seen some (clear) jars of peanuts state "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NUTS AND/OR PEANUTS"

Re:warning

[Cryptnotic]

WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of paranoid weirdo who does FBI criminal background checks on women he's thinking of dating.

Go watch Audition and then see if you feel that way.

(Yeah, I know it's just a movie, but I'm still freaked out.)

Re:warning

[Sycraft-fu]

Though it sounds silly, it's understandable. Some people have severe, as in potentialy leathal, reactions to nuts and peanuts are a specific problem. So, the FDA mandidates that all products that contain them must be clearly labeled as such. They don't bother to make exceptions such as "unless you can see the nuts" or "in the event the product is nothing but peanuts".

It's just easier and clearer to have a universal requirement. It's not like it costs the manufacturer anything extra to insert the warning in to the design.

Re:warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, I've seen some (clear) jars of peanuts state "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NUTS AND/OR PEANUTS"

I'm still waiting for this on bottled water:
"WARNING: This product contains water, which is lethal when consumed in large quantities."

Re:warning

[The Good Reverend]

My favorite was the little warning on the side of the box of Shredded Wheat that said it contained wheat products.

It's much easier for a company to put a warning like this than to deal with the lawsuits, especially considering the large number of people allergic to wheat (and peanuts).

Also remember that not everything is as it seems with food - Betty Crocker's "Bac-Os" brand "bacon" bits are actually vegan and kosher, containing no meat at all.

Re:warning

[YrWrstNtmr]

Even funnier on a bag clearly marked as peanuts:
"THIS PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN NUTS"

ummm...WTF is supposed to be in there?

Re:warning

[That's Unpossible!]

Its as if you're thinking it makes sense for this warning to be on non-clear PEANUT butter jars?

Re:warning

[mr_snarf]

Only ones I've ever seen are jars of peanuts saying 'warning: may contain traces of nuts'. Which is fair enough because PEANUTS ARE NOT NUTS, THEY ARE LEGUMES!
I think its fair enough that warning like that exist, because its technically correct. (yeah, parent's warning is a bit different though).
:)

Re:warning

[InvalidError]

This is almost in the same domain as "Warning: contents may be hot." (on coffee cups)

Listing peanuts on the allergy warning of a jar marked 'Peanut Butter' in 1" tall lettering seems just as redundant as labelling "hot" steaming coffee.

Most allergy warning labels I have seen go like "May contain trace amounts of almond, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, other seeds and nuts". Repeating official ingredients there is redundant: since there probably exist(ed) one person who is allergic to each common ingredient, the allergy warning list would not be complete until the whole ingredient list is repeated anyway, plus potential contaminents.

Re:warning

[jazman]

or WARNING: This product contains the chemical DHMO, which is lethal when inhaled, even in small quantities.

Re:warning

[vidarh]

The thing is, it is NOT redundant in countries (such as the US and the UK) where labelling requirements for food are so weak that many products do appear to contain things they don't. I've come across plenty of products in the UK with names that make it seems blatantly obvious that the product should include meat, for instance but that on closer inspection turned out to be vegetarian products without a trace of meat in it.

When I first moved to the UK, I'd have assumed that a "pork flavoured sausage" had at least some pork in it, but now I've long since learned the hard way that it might just as well be a soy product with some spices.

In an environment like that it becomes easier for someone to assume that a product doesn't reflect what the label says and overlook something on the ingredients list. Requiring a warning makes mistakes a lot less likely, and avoids having to go into the issue of what is "obvious enough". It's sensible enough when adding the warning has no extra cost and doesn't inconvenience other buyers of the product.

Re:warning

[InvalidError]

I always thought "flavoured" usually implies artificially so - pork-flavoured pork is redundant since pork should implicitly taste like pork. How many "flavoured" things actually contain the real ingredient? Most meat favours are mostly salt and a dehydrated soup base while most others are based on extracts or completely simulated.

As I said previously, most common ingredients probably made at least one allergy victim at some point in time so the only complete allergy list is one that makes the ingredient listing redundant.

Re:warning

[xgamer04]

Some people have severe, as in potentialy lethal, reactions to nuts

Actually, both my brother and father have very severe peanut allergies. They basically read most prepackaged foods' ingredient list to verify that there's not something in there. I just think it's silly when the first ingredient is listed as "PEANUTS" that they feel the need to put a warning that says "may contain..." on it.

I don't get it and some FUD.

[flithm]

In case anyone else is wondering, like I was, how this can be done in only a few states... the basic idea is that services that don't comply with the law would be fined for only the members belonging to those states.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Regardless of that, I think this is another strong case of FUD spreading ./ editors. The proposed bills are different in all 4 states, and I couldn't find much information on them. If the poster really did manage to read them it might have been nice to provide links. Anyway from what I can decipher from TFA it in no way seems as if slashdot would need to include warnings in the profile pages.

It clearly states that it applies to social referral services. I admit that what the poster suggested could be true depending on the definition, however it really seems like nothing but sensationalism. The article itself points out that the law is meant to apply to companies like friendster.com, and orkut.com.

Please ./ editors... grow up a little bit.

Re:I don't get it and some FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard."

The law would be nothing but a prior restraint on journalistic speech, and would be never get a favorable ruling by any judge.

Re:I don't get it and some FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm. I thought many (most?) corporations are based in Delaware, and as such are not subject to silly laws of other states. Since there's a snowball's chance in heck that Delaware will pass such a law, even if all 4 states pass it, the end result is one big NOP (or at most a few more companies buying snailmail forwarder boxes in Delaware).

Re:I don't get it and some FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than that, the entire law proposal is probably a marketing sham which slashdot has helped spread hook, line, and sinker. What better way to advertise your services and get your name out there? It even highlights true's one claim to fame by pointing out that they are the one service to do these checks.

I can't see the law actually passing. But then again.. I tend to say that a lot and end up dumbstruck at what actually ends up transpiring.

Why stop there?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Personally, I won't use an online dating service until they assign a chaperone to every date. I would like my grandmother to sit on the couch between me and my date, just to make sure that nothing bad happens, like touching hands or getting pregnant.

I'm an innocent girl and I lose my head when the date goes past 8PM.

Can true.com make sure that my date washes his hand after using the bathroom?

Oh, now I'm all flustered. I need to sit down. true.com, can you please give me a ride home?

Re:Why stop there?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an innocent girl and I lose my head when the date goes past 8PM.

STOP EMAILING ME!!!!!

Re:Why stop there?

[Guppy06]

"I'm an innocent girl"

This is Slashdot: nobody here is particularly innocent, or a girl.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some gay midget kiddie goat porn to download.

Here's to hoping...

[Anonymous Coward]

That some Zombie Tamer launches an unrelenting DDoS on true.com.

What's next? A warning sign in public bathrooms "This toilet may not have been sanitized in the last 24 hours". What a fucking jackass.

JailBabes.com

[starphish]

The jailbabes.com domain is for sale. Coincidence?

warning

[bcrowell]

How about:

WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of paranoid weirdo who does FBI criminal background checks on women he's thinking of dating.

or

WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of person who thinks government regulation is a good replacement for common sense.

But seriously, it seems like people have an insatiable appetite for security measures that won't help them, and an intense distaste for security measures that actually might help them.

My favorite was the little warning on the side of the box of Shredded Wheat that said it contained wheat products.

What about the prison dating sites?

[soft_guy]

There are several sites where you become pen pals or whatever with prisoners. I would think they wouldn't have to add this text since you do know the person is a felon by the nature of appearing on the site.

Re:What about the prison dating sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they can do a background check to indicate that the person really IS a felon, and not just lying.

Re:What about the prison dating sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually very difficult to get personal information on prisoners. Maybe even harder than getting the same information about people in the general public.

Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mistakes

[srobert]

How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate? When we first meet someone, most of us would like to keep some of our skeletons in the closet, at least until the other has grown to know us as we are now. It would be unfair if a potential new mate's opinion of me were based upon horrible mistakes that I made early in my life.

Interstate Trade

[willmeister]

Does anyone else think that this would never stand as a state law, based on interstate trade.

Re:Interstate Trade

[RmanB17499]

Not sure like every possible matter:

The affected company's will argue that it is beyond the power of the state and the state will argue that it is a law in the interests of health and welfare under the general purvue of the state's police power.

I see a really compelling interstate commerce arugment that can be made to help invalidate any law, though.

Re:Interstate Trade

[Anonymous Coward]

While the Fed's have the ultimate authority in interstate commerce (as per the Constitution) it doesn't mean that the States can't legislate in matters that affect interstate commerce. IC is way to big for that, everything effects IC. The first question is whether or not the Fed wants to legislate, then as to whether or not the State law conflicts with that Federal legislation.

Re:Interstate Trade

[surprise_audit]

So far there are 4 states considering legislation, apparently, and they're all different. So, if I'm in State A, and I'm looking at dating a person in State B, via a dating service based in State C, which State law would apply?? That's what's going to bite True.com in the ass...

http://www.runjoemay.com/contact.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are in Virginia and have any opinions about this bill, its sponsor is trying to run for Lieutenant Governor. Let him know what you think about it and whether that's what you want in a future Governor of your state.

Re:http://www.runjoemay.com/contact.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let him know what you think about it and whether that's what you want in a future Governor of your state."

Are you saying put a 30-0-6 round in his skull?

Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

California Sponsor: Asm. Fran Pavley (assemblymember.pavley@assembly.ca.gov)
Michigan Sponsor: Rep. Jim Howell (jhowell@house.mi.gov)
Texas Sponsor: Sen. John Corona (john.carona@senate.state.tx.us)
Virginia Sponsor: Rep. Joe T. May (Del_May@house.state.va.us)

Let your voices be heard!

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

I've sent them an e-mail:

Dear Asm. Fran Pavley,

WARNING: Your idea is stupid.

Signed,
Obedient Citizen

Feel free to copy and send my highly insightful, detailed, and just down right convincing e-mail to your local legislator.

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Save some time, here's one link to cc: them all:

Stupid Legislators

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Tassach]

Unless you are a registered voter who actually lives in one of these chucklehead's districts, writing them won't do any good. They won't listen.

If you can't vote for (or against) them, you and your opinions are completely irrelevant to a politician.

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[mcowger]

My letter, is case it helps you:

Assemblyman Pavley,

As a California resident, I feel compelled to express my distaste for the bill you have introduced (AB1681) relating to online
services and disclaimers.

It is blindingly clear that this bill was written/requested by a single entity, True.com, in furtherance of their business desires. By introducing this bill, you have conscripted the legislative machine for the furtherance of profit of a single entity, which I find unacceptable.

We do not need forced statements of the lack or availability of background checks. Clients of such online dating resources are free to conduct their own checks if so desired, and warning them that such a check has not been conducted is simply stating the obvious. Nearly everyone knows that newspaper personals have not been checked; those who do not know would not pay attention to such a warning anyways.

All that will be accomplished by this bill is the forced implentation of base scare tactics that serve to enhance the bottom line of True.com.

I urge you to remove your support from this bill, and do what is right for your California constituents, not a faceless company from Texas.

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[agentkhaki]

That mailto for Jim Howell is dead:

The original message was received at Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:16:21 -0500 (EST)
from localhost [127.0.0.1]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<jhowell@house.mi.gov>
(reason: 550 No such recipient)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to gwia.house.mi.gov.:

>>>>>> RCPT To:<jhowell@house.mi.gov>

<<< 550 No such recipient
550 5.1.1 <jhowell@house.mi.gov>... User unknown

Reporting-MTA: dns; ext-dns-av1.legislature.mi.gov
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost
Arrival-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:16:21 -0500 (EST)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; jhowell@house.mi.gov
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; gwia.house.mi.gov
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 No such recipient
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:16:21 -0500 (EST)

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason for that. He's no longer in office.

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you spell check it frst?

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it won't do too much good. The Virginia General Assembly has concluded its session for the year AND GONE HOME TILL NEXT YEAR.

Of course, you do have the opportunity to vote this guy out of office in November if he's so bad.

Re:Let the legislators know how stupid this is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and the Virginia House of Delegates committee on Science and Technology voted on Jan 31 to table the bill. The vote was 18-1. Delegate May was the only one to vote in favor of the bill. (IIRC, tabling a bill at the end of a two-year election cycle kills the bill for good, otherwise, it could be taken up again next year in that committee without re-introducing it.)

This was after the bill was originally in the Courts of Justice commitee, which took one look at it and referred it to S&T without taking any action.

So, residents of the 33rd House of Delegates district, do your duty this November

Re: obligatory warning

[Anonymous Coward]

"WARNING: Not all of our babes have been CONVICTED OF FELONIES; some are ONLY GUILTY OF MISDEMEANORS." /* slashcode wouldn't accept all caps :( */

background?

[Cryptnotic]

Who cares if he used to be an asshole or not? It's fairly obvious what he is now.

Re:background?

[Xzzy]

Because it opens them up to lawsuits in the event that someone is not aware he is an asshole, and could have prevented the emotional trauma.

broader is better

[mottie]

Back when I was single I wished that there were warnings like:

WARNING PERSON IS USING PICTURE FROM 3 YEARS AGO AND HAS SINCE BECOME ADDICTED TO CHOCOLATE CAKE

or

WARNING PERSON HAS NOT BEEN SCREENED FOR EXCESSIVE BODY ODOR

and finally

WARNING PERSON HAS AN IQ BELOW 50 AND LOVES TALKING ABOUT THEMSELF

Re:broader is better

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING PERSON HAS AN IQ BELOW 50 AND LOVES TALKING ABOUT THEMSELF

At what IQ does one stop using 'words' like "themself"? It doesn't even make sense. "Them" is plural. "Self" is singular. It makes my brain hurt to see them together.

Re:broader is better

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING PERSON HAS AN IQ BELOW 50 AND LOVES TALKING ABOUT THEMSELF

This sounds like Carmen. Carmen also needed some other warnings:

WARNING This persons bra is filled with material to give false impression of large breast size

WARNING This person's low weight is very unstable and will quickly become larger once in a relationship

WARNING This person will engage in sexual intercourse with other people while dating you

Re:broader is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to grammar class. "Themself" is perfectly acceptable because the impersonal third person singular uses "them" in order to avoid gender distinction. It's a fairly new form, but is quickly becoming standard. Since you asked: I am the honor medal candidate for the linguistics department at my college.

Re:broader is better

[Guppy06]

"I am the honor medal candidate for the linguistics department at my college."

Then what in God's name are you doing here?!? Shouldn't this site make your eyes bleed or something?

Re:broader is better

[Anonymous Coward]

And since when was that nine inches?

No problem women love the dangerous type especialy

[Anonymous Coward]

if your profile picture is you with a saber, eye mask and a zorro or don juan outfit with a dashingly mischievious smile...

No, no...

[Ayaress]

I checked. He is.

I'm not surprised..

[Anonymous Cumshot]

Now people will have yet another reason to sue someone for not informing them of what they should figure out by themselves.

Soon everything will come with a warning label, making warning labels as such obsolete and personal responsibility a thing of the past.

This is just another instance of "hot coffee; do not spill!" and it truly saddens me to know that some people actually have to be told these things.

Re:I'm not surprised..

[wattersa]

> This is just another instance of "hot coffee; do not spill!" and it truly saddens me to know that some people actually have to be told these things.

McDonald's purposely kept its coffee at 185 degrees, which is a lot higher than the homebrew temperature of about 140 degrees-- high enough to produce third degree burns, despite having received hundreds of complaints and injury reports and knowing that the temperature was likely to cause injury to the purchasers, just so they could save money on their electric bill. Admittedly the true.com label is stupid, but there _are_ some things people can't figure out themselves until it's too late. Considering that McDonald's only paid $600,000 for that one case, I'd say they did o.k.

Re:I'm not surprised..

[stanmann]

I read that site, then I checked with google and my bean supplier, and both recommend coffe be prepared and served at 185-205, BUT that it not be consumed above 140.

Re:I'm not surprised..

[Shadowlore]

Soon everything will come with a warning label ...

"Warning: this product contains no other warning labels. This is your last warning."

The Nanny State

[PHAEDRU5]

Does it occur to anyone that the nanny state may be going just a little far.

The day will come that I drive around drunk in a '95 F-150 with a oil leak pre-installed, smoking unfiltered Camels, eating only at Waffle House, etc., etc., simply to protest this idiocy.

Re:The Nanny State

[That's Unpossible!]

You had me up until you decided to drive around drunk. I'm a hard-core Libertarian, and even I don't think you should be able to operate a motor vehicle in public while intoxicated.

Let's not get stupid while trying to prove a point.

On the other hand, feel free to un-buckle your seatbelt.

Re:The Nanny State

[PHAEDRU5]

Seatbelt.state == Disconneted.

TER

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm pretty sure that TER does background checks, to make sure that there's no one with a shady past.

Re:TER

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigdoggie is more reputable and has less shilling and more accurate reviews.

Let them know what you think!

[Fjornir]

5215 N. O'Connor, Suite 1600 Irving, TX 75039 1.866-583-TRUE

Re:Let them know what you think!

[fishbowl]

"5215 N. O'Connor, Suite 1600 Irving, TX 75039 1.866-583-TRUE"

Las Colinas. If that's not the Initech Building from Office Space, it's in the same neighborhood.

Warning Uncircumcised Male!!!

[Martin Marvinski]

Crap. There goes another date. :-(

Re:Warning Uncircumcised Male!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm uncircumcised and gay, and nearly every guy I've ever fooled around with (all circumcised except for one) has told me that they wish they were uncut.

Maybe the problem you have in getting laid lies elsewhere?

Not in Europe

[houghi]

In Europe such a background check would breach most laws about privacy.

Re:Not in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe, no one would even consider attaching their name to this bill, or at least I hope as much.

Re:Not in Europe

[slavemowgli]

It's things like that (among many others) that make me thankful I'm living in Europe.

Re:Not in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. EU law may prevent the site from just doing a background check, but the site could refuse to post you personal unless you had submitted to a background check. Oh, yeah, I'm a law student here in Europe....

Re:Not in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they're required to run the test doesn't mean they're required to tell you about the results.

Re:Not in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Europe such a background check would breach most laws about privacy."

Do you mean the person is not allowed to give permission for the service to do a background check? That's what's happening here. The user is giving the site explicit permission to do a certain type of background check, and even paying a fee to have it done.

It's not like the site is clandestinely investigating the applicants. That would be illegal, expensive, and difficult in the US also.

Re:Not in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

But they wouldn't be ABLE to conduct a background check that includes many of these details without violating the law. So you could submit to a background check all you want - it won't make a difference.

I work for a US company in their UK office, and had to submit to a background check because I handle financial data. While the US employees go through extensive screening, the EU "background check" is practically meaningless because they can't get police records without a valid reason (meaning, only if I'd been applying for a job in a regulated environment such as a school), they can only get limited financial details (i.e., they MIGHT be able to run a credit check, but they won't get details of any bank accounts etc. I hold unless I inform them myself, and a large number of credit institutions don't regularly update the credit details with the credit reference agencies), they can't get independent verification of my identity (that is, they can ask to look at my passport, but they can't get confirmation that it's a valid passport or whether or not there are any warnings/blocks associated with it) etc.

If they require police records for posting the dating details, they won't be able to operate in most of Europe because there is no legal way for them to get hold of that information in most EU countries. Even collecting that information from public sources (judgements etc.) and organizing it in a database to allow searching for a specific person would likely violate the data privacy legislations in most European countries.

Next: signs at bars

[harris s newman]

So bars will have to have disclaimers that you must do background checks on people you meet in them? What if you meet on the street? Oh, the city will need to put warnings on every street corner. Why don't they have warnings at every street corner that driving cars may result in injury or death in the case of an accident? At what point is this just plain stupid? Perhaps this is why our taxes are so high (if your not rich, that is). Finally, check the states that this is becoming law in....are the red by any chance?

Other Warnings Needed

[RailGunner]

Time to illustrate absurdity by being absurd:

Warning! Persons posting pictures of themselves to personal websites may have personality quirks that cause them to be completely unable to pick up a living, breathing, member of the opposite sex. Or bad breath.

Warning! Persons posting personal ads with Fark logins may in fact still live in their parent's basement and may compare you to their mothers mercilessly. Or, they may see you and say some dumb shit about "I'd hit it" or "no way those knees are too sharp".

Warning! Persons posting personal ads may be overstating income, penis size, bra size, or other talents and/or abilities in order to sucker^H^H^H^H^H^H convince you to go out with them, just like that whore at the corner bar who claims she's 29 but looks 49.

Warning! That super hot 23 year old vixen with the double D's may in fact be a 47 year old closetted homosexual male with a Judy Garland fetish.

20% of Internet users...

[Steffan]

"We found that 20 percent of Internet users believe that some of the larger dating services do background checks when in fact they do not. We believe there's a false sense of security out there that needs to be corrected through disclosure."

In other news, 20% of internet users believe that clicking on Bonzi Buddy could win them a prize.

Re:20% of Internet users...

[ebrandsberg]

Also, they asked the wrong group of people: internet users != online dating site users. I don't think my grandma using the Internet would have any earthly idea on if they do background checks. Unless you actually ask the people that USE these services, the number is meaningless. But I'm sure they already know this, but they found the worst "sounding" statistic for the purposes of marketing they could.

Re:20% of Internet users...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that what they did was just ask people until they found someone who said "yeah, they do background checks" and then stopped... Just took 5 people to complete their survey!

Re:20% of Internet users...

[Anonymous Coward]

Background check can be anything from dialing up a credit report to simply checking if the address and phone number match, to the check I had to do in order to substitute-teach, to what I had to do to apply for police officer (I was turned down!) to what's required for an ATF license to sell fully automatic weapons.

What kind is true.com doing?

Sounds like the warning sticker for the Internet.

[witch]

You know the one...

Warning: Contains nuts.

Here's my suggestion:

[telstar]

This aughta solve the problem:

<html>
<body bgcolor=#ffffff>
<font color=#FFFFFF>"WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL."</font>
<br>
<img src="kandi.jpg">
</body>
</html>

Internet Rumor Mill in action..

[TiggertheMad]

I would like my grandmother to sit on the couch between me and my date, just to make sure that nothing bad happens, like touching hands or getting pregnant.

Oooh,Icky! I just read on the intanet that girls get pregnant from touching your hands!

Re:Internet Rumor Mill in action..

[PsiPsiStar]

Depends on how they touch them.
Depends on what's on them.

Re:CorpGovMedia has whites so bamboozled

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[DianeOfTheMoon]

Name: Jane Q. Public

Background Info:
Previous Addresses: 123 Main St.
Previous Names: John Q. Public

Re:CorpGovMedia has whites so bamboozled

[Anonymous Coward]

And so The Media (tm) has..... what to do with this law again?

what about verifying other personal attributes?

[jephthah]

if that happens, my adult-friend-finder ads are going to be rendered worthless.

---

WARNING: THIS INDIVIDUAL HAS *NOT* BEEN VERIFIED AT 9-1/2", AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE COUNTING ON YOUR ALCOHOL INTAKE TO OBSCURE ANY POTENTIAL DIMENSION DISCREPANCIES.

Or worse yet.....

[inject_hotmail.com]

...pledges to verify whether your dream date is a convicted felon or, worse yet, already married.

Oooook....did anyone read that part? What is worse...the potential of meeting up with:

1) Mr. Sam, Son of

or

2) lonelyhousewife1968

Hmmm...yeah...seems that (according to the site) the "already married" crew would be much more vicious and less neurologically fit.

.
.
. ...we owe it to our members to provide a truly wholesome environment for online courtship.

Yes. I will believe this, if slimey guys had no idea how to 1) lie, and 2) troll at the same time.

Gawd! As soon as the masses went online back in '97ish, it all went to hell. Then they started regulating it. Then advertiser started spamming and spying.

I want 1996- back.

Inject.

Why stop at online stuff?

[johnny_sas]

Gee, I wonder why this won't apply to paper classifieds, phone books, and other physical media... could it be because False^H^H^H^H^HTrue.com doesn't use physical media? Hmmmmmm...

Let me write a really, really *nice* revue of Tramp^H^H^Hue.com on Amazon/Alexa....

Some more warnings I want to see

[bird603568]

Warning: Harmfully if swallowed fishing hook
Warning: May be hot to the touch Soldering iron
Warning: Ground may be slipery Ice rink

WARNING! Anonymous Coward WARNING!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward in rearview may be closer than it appears

Anonymous Coward may pose risk of suffocation hazard

Do not use Anonymous Coward as a floatation device

Intentionally inhaling Anonymous Coward may be fatal

Anonymous Coward may not be used for personal hygiene

Anonymous Coward is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of worthless postings.

Why stop at dating?

[clevershark]

I'd certainly like to see that sort of warning on electoral posters.

Warning labels

[KiloByte]

Mandatory bash.org quote.

Re:Warning labels

[Pointdexter]

Other mandatory bash.org quote.

This only confirms the impression they made on me

[shihonage]

Ever since I signed up for True.com about 6 months ago (and quickly abandoned it), they've been bombarding me with fake Emails such as "User wants to talk to you !" and "Hundreds of people are compatible with you !". Sure I got Thunderbird and it's intelligent Junk filter, but the very fact of them being so annoying (and lying) ensures I will never use their slimy site again.

There's a saying for this

[teneighty]

How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate?

Or as the old saying goes: "People love you despite who you are, not because of who you are."

This won't stop ANY psycho internet dater.

[jephthah]

All they have to do is sign up using a fake name and/or birthdate.

This is so obviously a sleazy political move to gain an advantage on their competition.

I can't believe how completely clueless various government officials are about anything regarding the internet.

Re:This won't stop ANY psycho internet dater.

[Anonymous Coward]

>All they have to do is sign up using a fake name and/or birthdate
Won't they also need a valid credit card in the same name?
The law won't stop a determined rapist, say, whose on the site specifically to find a victim, but surely that's a *very* small percentage of the felons trying to sign up. Isn't the biggest danger being matched with a felon who's actually looking for a date? Any woman who dates a felon is likely to become his victim. The chances are much higher that a convicted felon will abuse, rape, kill or steal from his date/girlfriend.

http://www.pretrieve.com/

[Christoff Ka Sin Chu]

http://www.pretrieve.com/ is a nice public record search site for individuals and companies.
Try it out! It's free.
CC

Ok, what if it's a hit?

[inject_hotmail.com]

So tell me please, what will happen if a criminal BGC comes back positive? Or the marriage BGC comes back positive?

Does their proposed legislation REQUIRE the site to divulge this information?

Will they have to disclaim "This member has been found to have an outrageously long rap sheet, and therefore has been set (by default) to Very Bad Karma" above their profile? Or what about "Sorry dude, she's already married."

What if a member uses an alias? What if a member has the same name of a criminal, but is completely clean?

This blatant misuse of information only panders to the Minstry of Information. (a la 1984)

Inject.

Failed in Virginia

[lax-goalie]

I saw this one close up. True.com's hired a professional lobbyist to try to push a bill through in Virginia, and it resulted in this: The Online Dating Safety Act, HB2467

I was bird-dogging the House Science and Technology Committee meeting the day they dealt with it, and had a front-row seat on the results. Even among the most socially conservative legislators, it was seen as a company trying to legislate their business model for competitive purposes. Gotta hand it to the lobbyist, he took the True.com reps to all the right people. But in the end, it didn't really matter. When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death.

Re:Failed in Virginia

[salesgeek]

But in the end, it didn't really matter. When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death.

Something tells me this law is a total abridgement of freedom of the press anyway.

Re:Failed in Virginia

[Anonymous Coward]

"When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death."
LOL. Didn't Virgiania just make it illegal to wear your pants below your waist? And True's legislation was too ridiculous for them?

Lying Online

[ari_j]

When I was 21 and fresh out of college, I listed my income bracket as around $35,000 and my age correctly. Got nothing. Bumped up the salary and age, and I got a lot better response. Same picture, same profile data, and a more general "Consultant" rather than anything computer-related. See how it works for you.

The interesting thing is that I moved into an apartment when I had been working for a few months, and the model-gorgeous Italian girl who gave me a tour and did my credit check asked me out. So the key is to find a woman who is impressed with the income bracket you're really in - they're out there. (NOTE: things didn't work out because she thought I should spend what money I made on her, and she was wrong. :P)

What about the more fundamental warnings?

[fbform]

Good Lord! This proposal makes as much sense as the 20th century physics warnings:

NOTICE: Due To Its Mass, This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity.

WARNING: This Product Attracts Every Other Object in the universe, Including the Products of Other Manufacturers, with a Force Proportional to the Product of the Masses Divided by the Square of the Distance Between Them.

CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. The Manufacturer warrants that this product is to be used only as matter and will not be responsible for injury or damage if it is converted into energy.

HANDLE WITH CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles Per Hour.

CONSUMER NOTICE: Due to the "Uncertainty Principle," it is impossible for the User to know precisely and simultaneously where this product is located and how fast it is moving.

ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Remote Chance That, Through a Process Known as "Tunneling," This Product May Spontaneously Disappear from Its Present Location and Reappear at Any Other Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's Domicile. The Manufacturer Will Not Be Responsible for Any Damage or Inconvenience That May Result.

READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested Versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred Million Years.

THIS PRODUCT IS 100% MATTER: In the Unlikely Event That This Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic Explosion Will Result. The Manufacturer cannot be held responsible for resulting injury or damages.

PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in Any Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Aggregate Amount of Disorder in the Universe. Although No Liability Is Assumed Herein, the Consumer Is Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to a state of "Warm Death" of the Universe.

NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose Adhesive Power, therefore, Can Not Be Guaranteed Indefinitely. No responsibility is therefore assumed for the structural integrity of this product.

ATTENTION: Notwithstanding Any Listing of Product Contents Found Hereupon, the Consumer is Advised That This Product Actually Consists of 99.9999999999% Empty Space.

NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: While the Manufacturer is Technically Entitled to Claim That This Product Is Ten-Dimensional, the Consumer Is Reminded That This Confers No Legal Rights Above and Beyond Those Applicable to Three-Dimensional Objects, Since the Seven New Dimensions Are "Rolled Up" into Such a Small "Area" That They Cannot Be Detected.

PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That, When Unobserved, This Product May Cease to Exist or May Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. Therefore all warranties are in effect only while this product is under the direct observation of a human being.

COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The Subatomic Particles (Electrons, Protons, etc.) Comprising This Product Are Exactly the Same in Every Measurable Respect as Those Used in the Products of Other Manufacturers, and Competitors' Claims to the Contrary are neither Justified nor Legitimate.

HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the User. The manufacturer cannot be held liable for injury or damage resulting from relativistic mass increase.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe,Including This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space. Should Another Universe Subsequently Reemerge, the Existence of This Product in That Universe, and its performance and suitability for any purpose, Cannot Be Guaranteed.

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[955301]

I want to run a video recorder company now just so I can use this one:

PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That, When Unobserved, This Product May Cease to Exist or May Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. Therefore all warranties are in effect only while this product is under the direct observation of a human being.

and secretly snap video of people glancing back at frantically.

Nice post!

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested Versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred Million Years.

Over the next 400 Million Years? I don't think so. What theory predicts that after approximately 14000 Million years of existence that suddenly over the next 400 million primary particles will decay? Generally accepted estimates of the halflife of protons are on the order of 10^32 years, and estimates of the time before the universe decays to a uniform field of radiation permeating 3space is on the order of 10^100 years. I was enjoying your joke until I came to this item, but now I am just too depressed to laugh. What is this world coming to that people find something so misleading funny rather than seeing it as the misrepresentation of truth that it is? Dear God! And what is this, 'IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe,Including This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space.'? Corroborated observations have recently proven that expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down! How can you sleep at night knowing that you are propagating such a blatant fallacy? Shame on you. Thank goodness the X kicked in before I read your post or it would have made me quite despondent.

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[sir99]

So wait... One ounce of stuff is equivalent to 85 million tons of TNT, hence 85 million tons of TNT is equivalent to 2.3e20 tons of TNT is equivalent to 6.3e32 tons of TNT is equivalent to ... Hmm, that's a lot of TNT!

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the fridge light may not only turn off when you close the door, but it may cease to exist too??

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[kent_eh]

My favourite goes something like this:

Warning: This device is comprised entirely of matter. Do not allow this device to come into contact with any quantity of anti-matter. The manufacturer is not responsible for any annihilation which may be result from careless handling of anti-matter near this device.

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[Guppy06]

Yes, but how many Libraries of Congress is that?

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[lilmouse]

ATTENTION: Notwithstanding Any Listing of Product Contents Found Hereupon, the Consumer is Advised That This Product Actually Consists of 99.9999999999% Empty Space.

Hey, a software product doesn't even have that much matter!

--LWM

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[Anonymous Coward]

OY! OY!

Re:What about the more fundamental warnings?

[NaDrew]

Seriously though, isn't that how Einstein solved the Mercury retrograde orbit problem? The immense energy field of the Sun is equivalent to a (relatively) small amount of additional mass, which at the close orbit of Mercury translates to a shift in the planet's path.

Or I could be way off; it's been a while since I read this stuff.

Aren't we talking about the Internet here?

[ross.w]

...where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents?

unintended consequences...

[Hans Lehmann]

TRUE.COM's only advantage in the marketplace is the fact that they do background checks. Once this law passes, all online dating services will do background checks, and TRUE.COM will have lost whatever meager advantage they once had.

Re:unintended consequences...

[fishbowl]

"TRUE.COM's only advantage in the marketplace is the fact that they do background checks. Once this law passes, all online dating services will do background checks, and TRUE.COM will have lost whatever meager advantage they once had."

It would become routine to "perform a background check", thereby diluting the value of background checks in general, and doing a net disservice to society as a result.

Virginia bill specifies a font size but

[aixnotpains]

not color, #fffffe on #ffffff.... WINGDINGS!!!

Simple solution to problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Run FBI background checks on all citizens. That way the warning label is redundant.

Just another bonehead trying to "control" the web

[Anonymous Coward]

Like every other case where someone has attempted to control the Internet, this would simply have the effect of causing servers to move out of the state (or out of the country) to avoid the law.

The only other possibility is to try the China approach: Make sure that every ISP operating within the state blocks illegal sites, setting up a vigorous game of whack-a-mole against the proxies.

It's somewhat comforting to know that no matter what any bonehead legislature does, it really won't make any difference. The legislature doesn't stand a chance against the force of the culture. And our culture simply doesn't tolerate attempts to control content on the Internet.

Slashdot Warnings

[isny]

Additional alternatives:
WARNING: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
WARNING: HOT GRITS
WARNING: COWBOYNEAL
But then again, only old people in Korea post warnings.
Here is a bit of lower case text to get pass the Slashdot lameness filter. What do you know? It really works!

Not a function of government....

[Anonymous Coward]

...think about that.

My Favorite Color Is Scarlet

[buckhead_buddy]

WARNING: THIS HARLOT HAS NOT BEEN CHECKED FOR CRIMES OF ADULTERY, MURDER, CONSENSUAL SODOMY, OR SLEEPING WITH THE DEVIL!

Hello! Most of my attempts to post to Tru.commie are rejected because of similarities to my last name and my mother's. I'm posting here on slashdot, blacksonblondes, and goat.six because I've just turned 18 and am unable to find a man that is completely unlike dear old dad. Please help! Pearl Prynn

Re:CorpGovMedia has whites so bamboozled

[Cryofan]

um, dumbass, if the media were not in collusion with the govt and the corporations, they would serve these muthafuckers up for on journalistic burning crosses for our entertainment, instead of letting the govt and corporations become a defacto part of the media.

His father was murdered.

[cgenman]

He also recently discovered that his father was murdered. And by recently, I mean a year and a half ago. However, his father was apparently murdered by a police officer during a jealous rage, which was covered up by other police officers, something not likely to be picked up in a background check.

He has every reason to be paranoid. I can't hate him for trying to spread his paranoia where it doesn't belong. I pity him.

Caught ya!

[hellfire]

I'm an innocent girl and I lose my head when the date goes past 8PM.

Ha! Caught you in your little scam! We all know girls don't come to slashdot, especialyl single ones!

Re:Caught ya!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Slashdot, where men are men, women are men, and girls are FBI agents".

Re:Caught ya!

[stanmann]

GAH, quote it right. Where the Men are men, So are the women and all the 14-year old girls are FBI agents.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[LS]

Jeez, what the hell have you done in the past???

Physics warnings?

[Alwin Henseler]

Hmmm... most of the above warnings could apply to a package containing women's underwear, if you ask me.

--
WARNING: The above comment has not been through a background check, and may be harmful to minors or geeks.

Re:Physics warnings?

[hazem]

That's the point, I think. That these are warnings about practically any kind of matter that a product might be made of.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[koreth]

Not to worry. The people who are into thoroughly pre-screening all their potential dates for any past mistakes will die single, frustrated, and lonely, thus breeding the tendency to pre-screen potential dates out of the gene pool. Granted, it'll take a while.

The man is a fool...

[justin12345]

This will either:

A) Shut down the whole freaking internet.
or
B) Just get those stupid warnings plastered on every single damn site that has a BBS.
or
C) Not pass, or get struck down.

My magic 8-Ball predicts C. After all.... What would craigslist be without anonymity and complete non-accountability!?! No one would ever get to gang-bang a 18 year old transvestite ever again...I kid, I kid (for the humor impaired)

That's a fallacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

That a law must be violated, before it can be tried and struck is false. Laws can be overturned without violating the law. All you have to do is be is a party with a stake in the law's outcome and file as a civil matter against the enforcement official. Arguments, vis-a-vis this proposed law, could include violations under the UCC, restraint of trade or interstate commerce, or even the State Constitution as a violation of Free Speech or Commercial Speech. The law falls if the court agrees with the argument, of course, but first the court must agree that you are an interested party; basically, they have to give you permission to bring suit.

That permission clause is why violating the law is the most effective way of bringing suit: once a violation occurs, the court is forced then to try the offender and follow the appeals process.

Case in point: did Eldred violate copyright laws to sue Ashcroft? Heck no, he was merely an interested party. The question is not whether you want to pay fines and be a test case, but rather are you an interested party with resources to fund a suit?

The companies whom these laws would damage probably do and should the laws pass they will no doubt explore all avenues of overturning it.

Nope.

[jd]

They may say they've done the background check, but they don't say that they've done anything about it, been honest about what it says, or that they even read the results.

The best part...

[I Be Hatin']

... is that they probably have a patent application submitted for "conducting a safe online meeting place for interested parties by directly and indirectly analyzing the past criminal conduct records of participants in relation to a vast, continually updated registry of sex offenders and criminals". Imagine if their patent is approved and they get these laws passed in several states... Ca-ching!

Read The Friendly Article, Link The Friendly Links

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

you can find your way to the news.com article?

yes?

you can find the links to the proposed laws in that article, state-by-state?

no?

State-By-Friendly-State.

Yes, the state's names showing up in colors means something. You can click on them. Even in lynx, you can click on them.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[hurfy]

hmm, thats already more than i want to know ;)

Finally...

[vinniedkator]

just the sig I was looking for.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[p-hawk42]

The real question is, how many slashdotters are in a successful relationship?

Haha, funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could say he has a Vested interest!

True gets its data from rapsheets.com

[scsscs]

True partnered with a company called Rapsheets to provide the background checks for its members. Rapsheets has information about their data sources here.

Re:True gets its data from rapsheets.com

[ocbwilg]

Interesting. Look what I found on the Rapsheets.com web site (btw, am I the only one who sees "rapsheets" and thinks "rapesheep"?):

Good News from Rapsheets!

Rapsheets has been acquired by ChoicePoint. Due to this recent acquisition, Rapsheets is now able to offer its consumer users access to ChoiceTrust.com, a comprehensive site offering background check products for family security and more.

I suppose that's all in how you define "good news," considering what ChoicePoint has been through in the past week.

Re:True gets its data from rapsheets.com

[RmanB17499]

I wonder from how many states True orders from. Rapsheets.com charges per state when you ask it to search.

Re:True gets its data from rapsheets.com

[EmagGeek]

I noticed that PA is missing from the list of states they can check...

Things to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

Single women in the mid to late 30s are being pressured by their mothers to find a male.

One-person households comprise 26 percent of all U.S. households.

50% Percentage of adults in New York who are unmarried (a fairly representitive sample).

There is a +50% infidelity rate among married men.

The majority of internet users are male.

The *VAST* majority of felons are male.

So.... obviously on-line match making services need protection for at least one half of the market they service (and ladies, if you think it's a buyer's market out there, I have two simple questions to ask you:

1) Who puts their makeup on in the morning?

and

2) when is your next birthday?

In related news:

The vast majority of male on-line dating service users simply just want to get fscked.

"We found that [at a bare mimimum] 20 percent of Internet users [...]" are idiots.

True.com experiences a 2000% explosion in their per-second hit rate (no pun intended).

Folks, if you're looking for "True Love"(tm). On-line is all the wrong places. If you're looking to shut mom the fsck up, visit a sperm bank.

Re:Things to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

"50% Percentage of adults in New York who are unmarried (a fairly representitive sample).
"

Representative of what? New York is unique in many ways, and I don't see how you can extrapolate data sampled only in New York to apply anywhere else -- even other big cities. New York is different from anyplace you compare it to.

Credit checks!

[MrYowler]

I think that true.com ought to have to run credit checks. I don't want some asshole telling my daughter he's a millionaire, and have her falling for him, only to find out that he's penniless.

And this woman I'm dating; I can't tell whether or not she's a gold-digger. She rides the bus to her job as a cashier, but she only dates guys who drive $30,000+ cars. And she is always putting her hands in my pants, but instead of pulling out my penis, she keeps going for my wallet...

Honestly. Sure, there are lots of things we'd like to know about a dating partner before we get involved - and lots of things we'd rather not reveal, until after our dating partner is involved enough that we won't lose them over it. Worse, there are dozens of self-perceptions that would be horribly thrown awry, if we had to face the truth of our own dating scorecards. You ain't all that. You can't get all that, based upon thinking that you're all that. Get over it, and try learning to love someone for who they are - good and bad - and not who you want them to be. Because you can bet that even if you genuinely believe that you're who they want you to be - you ain't. The things you think make you a stud are entirely likely to mean nothing at all, to your dating partner - and the things that they love you for, you are equally likely to be completely oblivious to, about yourself.

The Wiley CyberKitty

....must......resist......

[d34thm0nk3y]

are you saying that those "warning, may contain peanuts" warnings on bags of peanuts are unnecessary?

I am allergic to peanuts you insensitive clod!

crap!

Re:....must......resist......

[geminidomino]

If you're allergic to peanuts and you need that warning (that is, the big label on the front that says "Dry Roasted Peanuts" doesn't quite drive the point home) then please, eat your fill.

Refusing to do so will make Baby Darwin cry.

Re:....must......resist......

[pehrs]

Well, this is mostly a matter of writing sane laws. It's far easier and better to create a law that states that products containing peanuts should have a special text, than it is to create a law that states that a product containing peanuts should have a special text unless it's named peanuts. The later opens a can of worms: Suddenly people can claim that it should be obvious that their "Pistachio Icecreame" contains peanuts (to mention something that killed a girl I knew. She had eaten the same brand for years to stay safe, and then they changed the recipe...)

No... not the same thing.

[spiritraveller]

The Surgeon General's Warning is a limitation on commercial speech (i.e. advertising something for sale). Commercial speech, while protected under the First Amendment, does not get as much protection as other types of speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.

Not to mention that the tobacco warnings are for a very serious and real threat. Tobacco is proven to cause death in a high percentage of the people who use it. No such statistical link is known to exist between online dating and death... nor is there any reason to believe there would be such a link.

This isn't commercial speech, because it's a limitation on communication between individuals who are communicating for a romantic purpose... not a commercial purpose.

I don't think these statutes would last more than five minutes in a Federal District Court.

Ohh Cmon

[logicnazi]

Clearly this isn't really going to pass. It is a PR ploy plain and simple. He probably made some campaign contributions to state legislators and they are paying him back by introducing a bill they will then let die in committee. In the meantime he gets all this free ad space.

Vote with your browser

[Lehk228]

If you don't like what they are doing sign up with tons of accounts to make useless profiles and turn their little database into worthless garbage.

I'm confused...

[justzisguy]

What is this "dating" thing the article talks about?

Re:I'm confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

dating means determining the age of dinosaur bones. thought a slashdotter would know that.

Does anything think this will really harm?

[BobPaul]

Am I the only one who doesn't think this will help True.com in any way or cause any real harm to any other websites?

If I saw that warning above a classified ad, yahoo personal, slashdot member page, or blogger.com listing I would simply say "No sh1t! Why would [my local newspaper/yahoo/slashdot/blogger] waste money performing a criminal background check?"

I'm also kind of surprised this hasn't passed in my state. We seem to have a propensity for passing stupid legislation recently...

Re:Does anything think this will really harm?

[geminidomino]

If I saw that warning above a classified ad, yahoo personal, slashdot member page, or blogger.com listing I would simply say "No sh1t! Why would [my local newspaper/yahoo/slashdot/blogger] waste money performing a criminal background check?"

The key word in that sentence is the repeated "I". Your error is that you are holding yourself, apparently a person with a 3-digit IQ, up as a standard. You don't need to be reminded to breathe by Homeland Security officer, your corporate masters, or Regis.

In short, you're not representative of the average asshat surfing the internet.

Warnings we REALLY need

[EvilStein]

"WARNING: The photo this girl uploaded probably looks NOTHING like her."

"WARNING: This girl looked like this - in the 70's"

After trolling AOL, match.com, and half of the rest of the internet for dates, I can personally assure you that we really do need such warnings. :)

What's wrong with being uncircumcised?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not circumcised. What's wrong with being uncircumcised?

Re:What's wrong with being uncircumcised?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fucking NASTY! That's what's wrong with being uncircumcised. All the smegma that collects under there.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[ptbarnett]

Name: Jane Q. Public
Previous Names: John Q. Public

You can joke, but this actually happened to a friend of mine. The situation unraveled when she called one of their mutual friends.

This was when Caller ID was a relatively new phenomena. She left a phone message on the mutual friend's answering machine, identifying herself. The caller ID had a male name the friend had never heard of.

There was already some whispered speculation, and an inquiry about her driving record revealed the relatively recent changes to her driver's license: a legal name change from the male name on the caller ID to her new female name.

If she hadn't forgotten to change the billing name on her telephone service, it would have only have put off the inevitable. One of her friends from high school showed up at a party shortly thereafter with pictures from their high school yearbook.

Background checks..

[StikyPad]

I say bring 'em on.. it just makes me stand out from all the schmucks who got caught.

This is Brilliant

[strider_starslayer]

Really; we should go and legislate the following needing to be places on non-open source programs 'Warning this program has not been checked for backdoors, the creators or this program have specifically made it impossible to check for backdoors or correct errors in the coding.'

Just goes to show

[BCW2]

That you can bribe one or more members of any Legislative body anywhere in the country. Cubic dollars always gets the attention and wins most of the time. In this case, any legislature that passes a bill like this should be impeached for gross stupidity.

WARNING!

[Spy der Mann]

Constant reading of this site will turn you into a complete loser. You'll say goodbye to your family, your friends, in exchange for a little karma in an endless feedback loop.

[I disagree] [I agree - POST!]

*click* OK, now let's see... where's that +5 insightful?

Open letter to the state perps

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I sent to four of the state legistlators associated with this:

I read today that true.com, owned by one Mr. Herb Vest, has apparently managed to persuade some state elected officials to sponsor what is probably the most blatant and self-serving legislation I have seen recently. I find it hard to accept that anyone with at least a high school education and half an ounce of common sense cannot see this for the sham that it is. I would ask that you reconsider this ill-advised move and do a little homework on Mr. Vest before you become tarred by the same brush that is now looming in the national media. If you happen to think this has gone unnoticed then I invite you to read the article by Declan McCullagh online at
"http://news.com.com/True+love+with+a+criminal -bac kground+check/2010-1071_3-5591000.html".
After reading this article it should be obvious that this is nothing but a bad idea, and I believe that you should act now to undo what you have already started. We cannot, as Americans, give lipservice to freedom, equality, and democratic representation and then turn about and pander to an obvious huckster. How can you look your constiuents in the eye after that?

-----

The emails went out to:
California Sponsor: Asm. Fran Pavley (assemblymember.pavley@assembly.ca.gov)
Michigan Sponsor: Rep. Jim Howell (jhowell@house.mi.gov)
Texas Sponsor: Sen. John Corona (john.carona@senate.state.tx.us)
Virginia Sponsor: Rep. Joe T. May (Del_May@house.state.va.us)

and, if you send it from a Yahoo or Hotmail account, how do they know you aren't one of their constituents? Sending a copy to the editors of the papers in large cities in the states in question can't help but to raise the visibility of this issue.

Re:Open letter to the state perps

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone said it before, but here it is again. It seems that Mr. Howell's email address is no longer working. I wonder if they just changed it, or he got tired of all those pesky constituents.

The original message was received at Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:09:24 -0500 (EST) from localhost [127.0.0.1]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

(reason: 550 No such recipient)

----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to gwia.house.mi.gov.:
RCPT To:
550 No such recipient
550 5.1.1 ... User unknown

This Just In: 31% believes in astrology

[RmanB17499]

31% of the public believes in astrology including 6% of women and 43% of those aged 25 to 29 but only 17% of people aged 65 and over, and 25% of men. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=359

WARNING!

[Anonymous Coward]

BEARS MAY SHIT IN THE WOODS

The Bell Shaped Curve

[RmanB17499]

Representative Corzine met with President Bush today to discuss a shocking new finding:

20% of Americans are in the bottom quintile of the bell shaped curve. Intelligence tests and other key indicators including income, wealth, education, life expectancy and other items all point to a huge crisis in America. Roughly 1/5th of the population always ends up in the 20% of all measured results. Be it in number of children they have or their leisure time.

It seems that no part of American life is touched by this. "We can't allow another day go by with American's doing poorly", said Mr. Corzine. Bush reiterated his new policy of Leave No one Behind.

While both Bush and Corzine agree that there is a problem each offered his own suggestion. Bush wants to see 20% of the population detained for further study while Corzine feels that is misguided. Corzine called for a new plan to increase US population by 20% in a move called "Population shift."

It appears unlikely that either plan will make a difference in the short run. The publis seems to be in the mood for change and astrology. Perhaps Miss Cleo can offer advice in these trying times.

Re:The Bell Shaped Curve

[Anonymous Coward]

"20% of Americans are in the bottom quintile of the bell shaped curve."

If this is true, then is it a normal distribution, e.g., is the curve even bell shaped?

Re:The Bell Shaped Curve

[RmanB17499]

"20% of Americans are in the bottom quintile of the bell shaped curve." If this is true, then is it a normal distribution, e.g., is the curve even bell shaped?

Interesting theory. Just kidding, I stand corrected.

Re:The Bell Shaped Curve

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more concerned by the fact that 20% of Americans *are* bell-shaped curves.

Why stop at websites?

[raehl]

How about ballots?

"WARNING: THESE CANDIDATES MAY ACTUALLY REPRESENT LARGE CORPORATE DONORS!"

E-Voting machines:

"WARNING: THIS MACHINE MAY JUST DISPLAY A PRETTY PICTURE!"

Although my personal favorite would be, right above the power button on the computer:

"WARNING! PRESSING THIS BUTTON MAY KILL YOU!"

Cause if you're dumb enough to believe it, you shouldn't be pushing the button.

Re:Why stop at websites?

[bickerdyke]

> Cause if you're dumb enough to believe it, you shouldn't be pushing the button.

You shouldnt push ANY button then.

Re:Why stop at websites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not push this button again.

Honestly though ... take a look @ matches

[adzoox]

... in your area.

Match.com and especially Yahoo personals are MOSTLY fake ... at least when searching for females. A lot of cities NATIONWIDE have ads that have local girls with SAME picture.

Personals have become mostly a playboy/user site for men and a solicitation/email harvest for women.

Old-school paradox

[Headcase88]

I'm the opposite, everything I say is a lie.

Re:Old-school paradox

[SomeGuyFromCA]

bzzt, sorry, thank you for playing. you could be lying that everything you say is a lie without contradiction. the correct form paradox is "i lie all the time. in fact, i'm lying right now."

Some problems...

[dantheman82]

This could cause serious problems. The problem with stalkers is that they are very adapt at lying and if they can mask their identity, even better for them. So, a psychopath could assume a false identity on true.com, meet some unsuspecting person (who assumes he's 100% legit with background check), let down her guard, and get seriously hurt. She would blame true.com and/or the person whose identity was used could get in serious trouble. We are dealing with the Internet, folks!

It is much like a SSL connection or email. Someone could be sniffing the connection, performing a man-in-the-middle attack, but most everyone assumes that email is secure because they type in a password or login to a "secure connection". The same can transfer over into a dating/match service where users and their loved ones (including parents/friends/siblings) have a false sense of security.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[srobert]

LOL. Well that's my point. I shouldn't have to talk about that until you know me better. I'm 41 years old. When you're my age do you think your character should be judged by what you did when you were 19?
I think you'd react to it differently if I told you what I did up front than you would if you knew me as I am now.

OT: Pop-ups in Firefox

[Bega]

This is a bit off-topic, but I feel that it's still somehow strangely related to this. Namely pop-up ads in Firefox. I've noticed a growing trend of pop-ups, and pop-unders, coming right through the blocker in Firefox. I can remember that up to this point, I've had an about 0% rate of annoying pop-ups and now, just a lot.

i love you.

[St. Arbirix]

Warning: We have not conducted a felony-conviction search or FBI search on this individual.

I have candy. Who wants some?

Married Men

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to point out to the ladies that Married Men make the best dating material, as they obviously have no problems with making a commitment.

Re:Married Men

[Newander]

Making, yes. Keeping, eh.

This season's...

[eno2001]

...fear fashion is scaring people away from potentially rewarding relationships. If we are to follow through and make everyone safe we must also push through legislation that requires every bar in the country to post a sign on the door saying:

WARNING: The guys in this bar tha[tt] may approach you have not had criminal background checks or FBI checks done on them. Interact with them at your own risk!!

Mr. Vest, let me be the first to say that you deserve a criminal background check yourself. As well as a psych eval. I'll bet there's some unsavory events in your past that you'd prefer other don't know about. I sincerely hope that someone digs some of that up and then posts up a dating profile for you on true.com.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[arh9623]

Only the ones with low enough UID's

Did you only mail girls with photos?

[raehl]

Being successful when dating online is just like being successful at dating in real life - you need to not only be a good catch, but you also have to go after people who will thikn you're a good catch.

You're part-way there by underestimating your income, if hot money-grubbing bitches are not the kind of women you are interested in. Although to be honest, even most normal women are attracted to a guy who is not por, not because they want money, but because they don't want a guy who wants their money.

But, that aside, the real trick to success on sites like match.com is to mail girls who do not have pictures up. They receive a lot less mail, so you won't fall through the cracks. Of the 20 girls you emailed, MAYBE 10 actually found the time to read your email, and of those 10, maybe 5 actually found the time to read your profile, and maybe 2 of them were impressed with it.

Emailing girls without pictures not only means there's less competition for that particular girl, but it also means as a result that girl will have more time to see that you've got things to offer that may not be as obvious as a tan and a 6-pack.

Re:Did you only mail girls with photos?

[panaceaa]

Actually I tried to email girls without photos as much as I could. I figured the same things you did about them, but they still didn't work out for me. I wonder how much of my failure had to do with living in the Bay Area, where there are lots and lots of single guys because of the tech industry? But I realize that the ratio still isn't -that- awful, so there must be women to find.

I should note that I've now been in a 4-month relationship with a girl I met in real life, though. She's awesome. I don't know if we'll get married, though, so it's still nice to chat about ways to meet new people (though hopefully I won't have to for a bit longer :).

Oblig HHGTTG Quote

[AndrewTL]

Instructions printed on toothpick: Hold stick near centre of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth. insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion Warnings on personals? I don't think I can live in this crazy world! Andrew

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of her friends from high school showed up at a party shortly thereafter with pictures from their high school yearbook."

And? What? Some chick had a male name and changed it after turning 18? Or are you saying she's one of the few million people to get a sex change operation in the last couple of decades?

The Patriot Act bites deeper.

[Jafar00]

"WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL."
This should not sound strange to US citizens. They've been living under the concept of guilty until proven innocent for years. The climate of fear is digging deeper into US society.

They ought to have warnings...

[PsiPsiStar]

on ballots.

Re:They ought to have warnings...

[ces]

What do you suggest?

Personally I like "Warning: may contain nuts"

Re:They ought to have warnings...

[PsiPsiStar]

I don't think I can top that, but I suppose I'd take a page from shrinkwrap liscenses and say "this candidate does not come with any warrenties, not even the implied warranty of fitness. By casting this ballot you accept responsibility for the actions of this candidate, if elected, regardless of whether or not said candidate performs to advertised standards. "

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[khallow]

It would be unfair if a potential new mate's opinion of me were based upon horrible mistakes that I made early in my life.

Well, I don't see what's unfair here. What would be unfair is if your dates got access to your past history while my dates did not have access to my history. I'm not saying that having your entire romantic history at a stranger's fingertips is a good thing, but what makes it unfair?

But if everyone has access to the past, then what's the problem? Everyone has skeletons. And if your past is so scary that you stand out from the crowd, then maybe your dates need to know.

Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

I welcome the high level of security against those terrorist loveseekers anytime. Now we can finally be safe from accidentally having an online date with Osama (or Bush).

Seen on labels at a wholesale club

[EmagGeek]

So after reading this story I had to go to my local BJ's Wholesale to pick up stuff for my house. Just for kicks, I went around making note of stupid warning labels on things:

Seen on a home-stereo boombox type thing: "WARNING: Listening to loud music may damage your hearing over time. Do not play music loudly on this device"

Seen on a large container of Cashews: "WARNING: May contain one or more of the following: nuts, nut oils. Persons with allergies to nuts should exercise caution in the use of this product"

Seen on a home exercise device: "WARNING: Consult a physician before beginning this or any exercise program as serious injury may occur" - right below that one - "WARNING: Do not use this product if you are unhealthy or have a history of exercise injury" (?? I thought the point was to get healthy??)

Seen on a package of poker chips (ugh, don't get me started on that fad): "WARNING: Choking hazard! Do not allow infants to play with this product" Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that an adult could even manage to choke on one of these things - even if they tried.

Finally, seen on a brochure for a vacation to a tropical island (can't remember which one): "WARNING: Traveling out of the U.S. may be dangerous. Travelers are advised not to travel outside the U.S. until confirming travel status to that country with the U.S. Department of State."

We live in a sad state of affairs when we spend 80% of our gross world product protecting the stupidest 20%...

Re:Seen on labels at a wholesale club

[a24061]

Stupid warning labels were in the news recently.

My favourite: A digital thermometer with the advice "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Creating News as a Promotional Tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Chance these bills would actually make it: close to 0

Amount of name recognition and free advertising created for a website: lots

Abusing the government and "got nothing better to do" media: priceless?

Re: how legislators evalute email

[arbitraryaardvark]

State legislators are more responsive to feedback than congresscritters, but the process is the same. Mail is divided into two stacks, for and against. Each stack is then weighed. How much does your email weigh? Summary: Email: completely ineffective. Snailmail: somewhat effective. Package containing letter and brick: more effective. If it isn't worth at least 37 cents for a stamp, at least send it through a fax board.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[Singletoned]

"How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate?"

I stalked my current girlfriend for almost 12 months before we got together. She was in a relationship and I spent a lot of time and money carefully crafting a frame up for her boyfriend. When he went to prison on the child prostitution charges I was able to introduce myself to her and comfort her, which was how we ended up getting to know each other (well, I already knew her quite well, obviously).

It's something we laugh about now, but if I'd have told her about it too soon it probably would have freaked her out.

(Her ex-boyfriend didn't really have much of a sense of humour about it though, but he's on the sex-offenders list now and has to live in hiding, so who cares about him?).

Well DUH!

[roman_mir]

It is obviously for the blind people, who can't see the contents of the jar, because they are blind!

Perfect letter...

[cnelzie]

...now a whole mess of us, in the affected states simply need to copy this letter, alter some words and attach checks to those letters and send them off to our state senate...

Of course, a line should be added with something along the lines of... "I know and understand that in our modern political system the only way to truly get the ear of our elected leaders is by providing them with cash incentives. Please accept the remainder of my personal expense money for this month in order for you to look at my letter and consider its ramifications."

Honestly though, with or without my suggested addendum, it's not very likely that anything will be done through individual citizen actions.

Seriously, the Michigan legislature passed a patronizing law regarding ex-house and ex-senate members becoming lobyists after they leave office. They put a limit of 6 months on the time between being a legislature and a lobyist, if they were really serious about defeating that conflict of interest, they would have made the period 6 years.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[Anonymous Coward]

Up until the framing and child-prostitution charges, I was nodding and saying, "Yeah, that sounds like my fiance."

He sorta stalked me for about a year, we were introduced by nosy friends when I was on the "off-again" part of an "on-again/off-again" five year abusive and manipulative relationship. About a month after meeting, I got back together with my ex. My now-fiance figured my ex had screwed up more than once in the past, and so he just had to be patient for him to do so again. Over the course of about a year, he lightly "stalked" me, mainly trying to keep the lines of conversation open. Finally, my ex did screw up catastrophically. Also around that time, a lot of my friends in the area were moving away, and I was having severe chronic health problems again. So during that time, he was very supportive of me and although I knew he had feelings for me, he was supportive more in a "This is someone I care about, and I'm going to do whatever I need to do to comfort her" than a "I have ulterior motives and I'm just doing this to get a date."

Anyways, persistence/stalking isn't ALWAYS a scary/bad thing.

Additional warnings that seem warranted..

[The Cisco Kid]

"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED AN HIV/AIDS TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL"

"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A BODY/FLATULENCE FREQUENCY AND/OR POTENCY TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL"

"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED AN IQ TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL, NOR HAVE WE CONFIRMED BRAIN ACTIVITY WITH AN EKG"

"WE HAVE NOT MET THIS PERSON IN THE FLESH TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARENT UGLY, OR THAT THEY ARENT A VERY MESSY PERSON"

I would think that only the most naive and foolish person would assume that any website or company hosting ads or providing dating match services, *had conducted* a criminal check on anyone posting, unless there was a specific notice stating that they HAD done so. And even that, what assurances do they have that the person gave their real name to the site? Do they expect newspapers that run personal ads to post this notice too?

Spammers!

[tompaulco]

I thought I recognized true.com. They are one of the spammers in my filter who have sent me multiple invitations to find another women despite the fact that I am perfectly happy with the wife I have now.
Apparently, their background checks are not comprehensive enough to determine if the intended recipient of their SPAM is married, let alone a criminal.
I propose we tack a rider onto the true.com bill making SPAM illegal. Wouldn't that be ironic?

This shouldn't have been painless

[FreeUser]

But in the end, it didn't really matter. When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death.

It's a pity the death of such bills is painless. Such attempts at subversion of the democratic process, personal liberties and expression (on the Internet, no less, which the Supreme Court has already ruled deserves better-than-average protection of the right of free expression), not to mention the free market, should be dealt with harshly. I'm not sure how one would structure such a thing in a manner that wouldn't have a chilling effect on legitimate lobbying, but some thought ought to be given to the problem.

Perhaps corporate lobbying should have more restrictive rules of engagement than private lobbying (ie. differentiate between corporations and living, breathing citizens, and limit what the former may propose, and seriously punish the former when they step out of bounds).

As things stand now, there are no negative consiquences to such behavior, and nothing to prevent wealthy enough organiziations from spamming legislatures over and over again, until at some point the legislation perhaps passes and we all suffer as a result.

If there were negative consiqences to inappropriate corporate lobbying and attempts at legislation, there would be a lot less of this nonsense (some of which does get through the best of filters, and our legislatures are hardly "the best" of filters), and our society would be far better off for it.

Based on experience

[garymcg]

Based on some internet dating experience, the warning should actually read:

WARNING! SUBJECTS IN ADS MAY BE LARGER THAN THEY APPEAR!

If this Declan is the guy I remember

[Anonymous Coward]

who was student body president or whatever of Carnegie-Mellon University about 10 or so years ago, well all I can say is this guy is a complete nut.

It has been a long time, but even though I never knew him personally, he was notorious as a guy who was nothing more than an attention whore who wouldn't shut up about how proud he was to be an openly bisexual man on campus. Think of everything that is wrong with political correctness and anti-free thought on college campuses and personify that in a pandering student body president and Declan is who you get.

Yah, I know student government is a joke, especially at a university like CMU, but considering the guy would make up shit all the time just to get attention on such a piddly little campus that could really care less about student government in the first place, I don't really find much credibility in his arguments.

It is just ironic this guy is involved in the press now, when he was pretty much the extreme left anti-free thinking type that is all too common among prestigious universities these days.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[srobert]

I don't mean "fairness" as in "a level playing field between you and me." I mean it would be unfair to her (and to me) not to know me as I am today prior to receiving knowledge that (although true) creates a bad first impression.

[tt]:This season's...

[tomhudson]

Better watch it: Mr. Vest is angling for a press pass as the Bush Administration's new "closet gay military male prostitute of the year", as part of the Bush initiative to "cozy up" to Canada and get them to sign off on that big penis^Wmissile defense system. Outing him too soon will undo the latest "Bush Initiative".

It's not like anyone trusts anything they read on a dating site:

• "thirty-something" == 50-somthing
• "loves conversation" == loves talking about themselves and/or a nag
• "loves children" == 5 kids from 5 different guys
• "buxom" == morbidly obese
• "looking for soulmate" == arf-arf-ugly
• "well-proportioned" == obese
• "young-minded" == into child pornography
• "good sense of humour" == the personality of wall paste
• "athletic" == sits around drinking beer and watching sports
• "looking for something serious" == desperate/biological time clock is ticking
• "I run a dating service" == I'M SUCH A CREEP I HAD TO START MY OWN DATING SERVICE SO I CAN TROLL OTHER MEN USING THE NAME "CANDY BARR"

I'm sure you all can add more ...

It's actually a GOOD thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the opposite of the Groucho Marx club quote:

"I wouldn't want to date someone who is put off by a braindead warning like that."

Another Warning...

[richardtallent]

Here's another warning. I'm adding some text here to bypass the lameness filter, which obviously has no taste for proper styling of legal cautions.

WARNING: THIS SITE HAS NOT CONDUCTED DNA OR PHYSICAL CONFIRMATION TESTS ON THIS INDIVIDUAL. SHE MIGHT BE A DUDE.

Where is my real life warning?

[e2d2]

Where is the 12 point text above every crazy girl I meet?

WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A PSHYCHOANALYSIS OF THIS PERSON. Getting to know this person may mean you will *gasp* have to take a chance in life. Doing so may endanger your life. But then again so will walking down the stairs.

HOWTO: Comment on California Bill

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

You can check the status of the bill, subscribe to it, and send comments by going here and entering current (2005-2006) session, Assembly, and 1681 for the bill number.

For California go here

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/

Select item 5, "How to Comment on Bills", to submit a comment. Choose Assembly bill 1681.

WARNING

[Sloppy]

WARNING: I have not conducted a felony-conviction search or FBI search on the CEO of true.com. Beware that I am unable to attest that the true.com CEO doesn't sodomize (and gomorrahize!) young children and then murder them and cook them and invite their grieving parents over for dinner.

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[ptbarnett]

And? What? Some chick had a male name and changed it after turning 18?

It wasn't an ambiguously male/female name, and her high school yearbook picture wasn't ambiguous either. And the driving record also noted the change in gender.

Or are you saying she's one of the few million people to get a sex change operation in the last couple of decades?

The problem in this case is that she tried to conceal it, and forgot some important details.

Violations of U.S. Constitution

[Randym]

True.com, of course, has ensured that it would be exempt from the warning requirement.

Aha! A Bill of Attainder! Congress (and, by extension the states, since the Consitution,when it references lawful activities, trumps any state law referencing the same activities) is prohibited from passing a bill that targets a single individual (or, since corporations insist that they are "individuals", corporations). Since True.com has "ensured" that they would be 'exempt', such a law *constitutes* a Bill of Attainder and is, therefore, pre facto, unconstitutional.

And let's not forget that, since internet sites are common carriers, *requiring* those sites to *solicit* PRIVATE information that is not -- like one's Credit Card information -- *necessary* in order to use those sites violates the Constitution as well -- the well-known "penumbra of privacy" implicit in the Bill of Rights. This may even rise to the level of "an unlawful search" clearly prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, since it is evident that True.com expects to protect its business model by government action.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mista

[RealUlli]

Only the ones with low enough UID's

Right.

SCNR, Ulli