Slashdot Mirror


OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE <3 <3 <3!!!

Chapium writes "Google Romance (Beta) is a place where you can post all types of romantic information and, using our Soulmate Search(TM), get back search results that could, in theory, include the love of your life. Then we'll send you both on a Contextual DateTM, which we'll pay for while delivering to you relevant ads that we and our advertising partners think will help produce the dating results you're looking for. With this addtion has Google gone too far with its data collection?"

165 comments

  1. Slashdot users rejoice! by noamsml · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Slashdot users rejoice! by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      I really don't think this is a bad idea. As for the personal dating thing, have some video link on their Jabber server and make the 'first date' an online chat for the first date.

      Brings together what Google is good at - data search, and a good platform for selling ads on.

    2. Re:Slashdot users rejoice! by Dasch · · Score: 1

      Dude, you *are* aware of what day this is, right?

    3. Re:Slashdot users rejoice! by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he is. But he also has a point. It's not so far-fetched to think Google will get into this eventually, even if they joke about it know. They already have orkut, you know? And online dating services are moderately popular and an interesting type of site for advertising.

      More generally, Google <insert whatever word you want> Beta is not unlikely to happen eventually.

      --
      Favorite quote: &quot;
    4. Re:Slashdot users rejoice! by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i thought this might be like GMail, and be a real but fake-looking product. Unfortunately it's not :-(

  2. 404 by pikine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh no, my soul mate is 404 Not Found.

    --
    I once had a signature.
    1. Re:404 by hanssprudel · · Score: 1

      I need this on a T-shirt!

    2. Re:404 by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      404 N. Found's? Wow, you must be popular!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:404 by Fanboy+Troy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, mine also... >:(

      I'm suing....

    4. Re:404 by digger_chen · · Score: 1

      Funny. Can you see the difference between romance and romance/? Apparently yes to Google, she treats "romance" as "Not Found".

    5. Re:404 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I typed 'Find me a bitch' and hit I feel lucky, but it took me to a picture of Steve Ballmer...

    6. Re:404 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine is 503 Service Unavailable

    7. Re:404 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a similar problem; women are always giving me a 413 error.

    8. Re:404 by nevernamed · · Score: 0

      ROFL. That's funny. I thought that they were being serious. But I think that this could become a reality in the future. There are already so many online dating services. What says Google won't jump on the bandwagon? :-)

  3. Making love to google... by Boo5000. · · Score: 1

    Anyone else in?

  4. rofl by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    This was such a funny coincidence with Slashdot's new girly style. :-)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a conspiracy! See also Planet Half-Life and Wizard of the Coast.

    2. Re:rofl by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      ...or is it? What have their servers been getting up to?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  5. How cute by jxs2151 · · Score: 1

    How cute is this? Could Google get any more useful?

    1. Re:How cute by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 1

      Not as cute as this: http://www.cuteoverload.com/.

      LOLZ!!!! BRB CYA!1

      --
      Favorite quote: &quot;
    2. Re:How cute by William+Robinson · · Score: 1

      Sure. Use google earth to see her right away:)

  6. April's by hytrex · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    fools day

  7. Slashdot at its best. by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

    With this addtion has Google gone too far with its data collection?

    Even the April Fool's jokes have Google flamebait.

    1. Re:Slashdot at its best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having RTFA, one could say "Google at its best: Even their April Fools jokes have Google flamebait."

      From the FAQ:

      6. What is Contextual Dating?
      Its a free date plus the added accrued value of the past decades worth of post-Industrial Age online marketing genius, all tied into a real-time, video-based, GPS-tracked, psychographically astute and environmentally pervasive promotional system.

  8. Slashdot Drinking Game by mixonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, time to get april 1st started:

    Story contains "OMG": 1 shot
    Story contains Google, MS: get a beer
    Zonk says something foolish: shot of beer

    SLOW DOWN DAAMMIY!!11ToO muCh..1!!lk21;l1k

    1. Re:Slashdot Drinking Game by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2

      Keep them coming, its the only thing allowing me to peer through the pinkness.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Slashdot Drinking Game by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 0

      The best part of this game is that, given the above rules, you can get sh*tfaced playing it on any day of the year, not just today.

      --
      Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
  9. Goog's search data put to good use! by PetriBORG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we really understand why google has collected so much data on everyone! They weren't doing Evil, just trying to get everyone dates.

    --
    Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    1. Re:Goog's search data put to good use! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your second sentence contradicts itself.

    2. Re:Goog's search data put to good use! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an idea for a match site based on what kind of cookies were on the computer.

    3. Re:Goog's search data put to good use! by aaqubed · · Score: 1

      Exactly. "Don't be evil", by definition, means, "Actively be good." And to actively be good, you have to help those in need. And many, many Google-lovers and admirers are in need in this area.

      --
      Need help - license plate reverse lookup. NY plate CSE-2960. Guy almost hit me, blamed me, pissed me off.
    4. Re:Goog's search data put to good use! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the US government was just trying to get married!

  10. Google romance not far away from being feasible. by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine if Google profiled you by your Gmail account and web-searches, blogger entries, etc and was able to use this information to do a psychometric profile of you. It could then compare this with other people's profiles and suggest members of the opposite sex that it thinks you would most like!

    I don't know whether this would be cool or damn scarey. What's worse is that the only thing standing in the way of this happening is programmer time. What's amazing is how effectively we've created 1984 and in how little time we've done it.

    Simon

  11. "Don't be medieval" by Exaton · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the FAQ :
    3. What is Soulmate Search?
    Here on the Google Romance team, we follow the philosophy "Don't be medieval,"
    Fell off my chair or something ^^
    1. Re:"Don't be medieval" by Medieval_Thinker · · Score: 1

      Looks like I am screwed... but not literally or anything.

      Sigh.

  12. From the Google Press Release :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Romance users who find one another via Soulmate Search(TM) may then select the Contextual Dating option, which offers an all-expenses-paid romantic evening in exchange for viewing contextually relevant advertising throughout the course of the users' date (learn more). "Our internal projections say Contextual Dating is going to be unbelievably huge, just a total cash cow," said Google CEO Eric Schmidt in prepared remarks placed into the notes section of an executive PowerPoint presentation and intended solely for internal use but promptly leaked onto the web and then roundly mocked on Digg and Slashdot.

  13. The other button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I'm getting lucky"

  14. from the faq by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

    3. What is Soulmate Search?
    Here on the Google Romance team, we follow the philosophy "Don't be medieval," so we brought only the latest psychographic and search algorithms to bear on the problem of hooking up our users. First you fill out an extensive personal profile carefully designed by a team of both married and single Google engineers for the express purpose of gathering and analyzing romantic information. Then you fill out an equally obscure and elaborate profile describing various attributes of the person with whom you wish to spend the rest of your life and click 'Search Romance.' It's that simple.

    4. Really? It's that simple?
    Well, you know how when you do a regular Google web search, you get back uncannily accurate search results?

    5. Usually. But sometimes they're a little off.
    Yeah, that's why our early testers thought that Soulmate Search's "Did you really mean...?" feature came in very handy.

    6. What is Contextual Dating?
    It's a free date plus the added accrued value of the past decade's worth of post-Industrial Age online marketing genius, all tied into a real-time, video-based, GPS-tracked, psychographically astute and environmentally pervasive promotional system.

    7. Come again?
    You see ads that might make your date better.

    8. Such as?
    Flowers. Music. Personal advice. E-greetings. Later on, depending on how our long-term opt-out natural-language-based monitoring system thinks things are going, personalized thank you notes, romantic getaway offers, various intimate pharmaceutical come-ons, engagement and bridal wear catalogs - you know the drill.

    9. What if I don't want to see contextual dating ads?
    Don't use the product.

    10. What do you mean when you say Google Romance is a beta product?
    What do you mean when you ask us what we mean when we say Google Romance is a beta product? It is what is it, okay? It's new, it's probably still buggy, which is to say that yes, by using this product now you conceivably are setting yourself up for a disastrous outcome - but on the other hand, you might also be on the verge of thrilling to an experience that will transform your very existence and only could have come about because you took this step, right here, right now. You're online; take a chance. We may never pass this way again. Carpe diem. The world could, like, end tomorrow, you know? Gather ye rosebuds while --

    11. Okay, okay, I'll try it.
    Great, babe, great.

    12. So, um - how do we begin?
    Just sit back and relax. And say, we're curious - what's your sign?

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  15. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's amazing is how effectively we've created 1984 and in how little time we've done it.

    Depending on you how you look at that claim, one might say we've actually been quite slow though. ;-)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  16. I for one ... by to6o · · Score: 1

    would welcome our Google overlords, if only it wasn't the 1st of April. (always wanted to say that :P)

    --
    "People's problem is not that they are mortal, but that they are suddenly mortal" Terry Pratchett
  17. OMG! 3 by c0l0 · · Score: 1

    Who's that terrific babe on google's romance front-page? Maybe another cogent reason for the average heterosexual geek to want to work at google?
     
    In any case: ASL && more pix??

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:OMG! 3 by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 1

      Well there is a lot more pictures of user A here in the tour.
      There are many nice little features to this aprils fools, I like the diffrent error messages and there is even a press release about how the new tool was leaked to /.
      One would almost think that this was somehow coordinated between /. and google, these two april fools fit so well together.

    2. Re:OMG! 3 by ahso · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that green label... Is she drinking Sierra Nevada Pale? I want her! http://www.google.com/romance/images/4.jpg

    3. Re:OMG! 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the Weinhardt's root beer that Google has free in the fridge.

  18. Translation, please? by rocjoe71 · · Score: 2, Funny
    OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE <3 <3 <3!!!

    For those of you having difficulty with the above emoticons, take note they can be read in either of 2 ways:

    OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE less-than-three less-than-three less-than-three!!!

    -- Which means on a scale of 10, this site only rates a "3"

    OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls

    -- Which makes no sense whasoever, must be some kind of April fool's joke.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
    1. Re:Translation, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE (heart) (heart) (heart)!!! ... you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Translation, please? by slashflood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Search here for "<3"...

      Your geek card has been confiscated.

    3. Re:Translation, please? by Tarmas · · Score: 2, Funny

      > less-than-three less-than-three less-than-three!!!

      mushroom mushroom

      > conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls

      snake, it's a snaaake!

      --
      Signature has left the building.
    4. Re:Translation, please? by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Oh, good. I thought that maybe the "<3" meant that Google Romance was being prejudiced against polyamory, and that their service was only good for arranging romance among "less than three" people. One could also infer that their search engine might find that you deserve to be in a relationship of 1 person (just yourself) or 0 people (even you can't stand to be with you).

      I'm so glad to learn that the "<3 <3 <3" stands for three hearts, and as such is poly-friendly.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    5. Re:Translation, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you're really lazy it's a heart.

    6. Re:Translation, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it as:
      OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE conehead-with-boobies, conehead-with-boobies, conehead-with-boobies.

      Needless to say I am very confused now. It appears as Google has created a dating service for coneheads. Yay for coneheads I suppose?

    7. Re:Translation, please? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls

      those are actually ass-cream cones.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
  19. Perfect Match by TimeForGuinness · · Score: 5, Funny

    My Google Soulmate Search found an overweight girl living in her father's garage with orange cheeto stained fingers sucking down a Diet Mountain Dew posting messages on /. about how April Fools Day stories just aren't funny.

    She is my delicate flower.

  20. Yaay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    search rsults for "racebit's soul mate". Displaying 1-20 of about 5,000,000,000,000

    I always knew i was had a pimp within...

  21. Perfect tagline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[Because] Dating is a search problem"

  22. Grr... by atroc · · Score: 1

    It keeps matching me up with a Level 20 White Wizard of Hagrath. I'm a guy, I don't want to date another guy, even if it IS a wizard!

    --
    Friendly fire isn't!
  23. So gay = bad? by SUB7IME · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm really impressed with the latent homophobia in nearly every single 'aprilfools' post so far today. The 'gay' tag? Is that necessary? It's really not funny.

    Maybe you could put 'fag' next time instead? OMG, like that would be SOOOO FUNNY!!!

    1. Re:So gay = bad? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is slashdot, online home of many many gamers. They use such terms.

      Slashdot also has a very healthy "words evolve" faction which holds that words do not mean anything other than what the speakers of the words think they mean, so if "gay" means "bad" it's not homophobia, it's evolution.

      I'm now taking signups for the "just fucking get over it, you're not that special" faction. Sign up now and get a free "There was only up to 1 cross in history that mattered, and yours ain't it." T-shirt.

    2. Re:So gay = bad? by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      'm really impressed with the latent homophobia in nearly every single 'aprilfools' post so far today. The 'gay' tag? Is that necessary? It's really not funny.

      You're gay. Gaaaaaaaayyyyy! (scnr)

    3. Re:So gay = bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not necessarily bad. Just over-the-top stereotypically gay. See the pony article.

    4. Re:So gay = bad? by thisissilly · · Score: 1

      'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
          --Humpty Dumpty

    5. Re:So gay = bad? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      words do not mean anything other than what the speakers of the words think they mean, so if "gay" means "bad" it's not homophobia, it's evolution.

      Indeed. Take the word "suck," for example; a person I insultingly call "gay" is no more homosexual than a person I insultingly say "sucks". Or what about "jerk"? A "jerk" was originally someone who...jerked himself. Jerk has become a word accepted in society (its slang status notwithstanding), and "suck" is bordering at least passive acceptance.

      What about "SOB"? Do I really insinuate that you are human on your father's side and canine on your mother's? If I call you a "butthead" do you really excrete from your brain? If you're a "booby" do you actually produce milk? If you're a "dirty bastard" are you really someone born out of wedlock who didn't take a shower? All of these are terms that are clearly not taken literally. "Gay" is the same.

      At the risk of offending a racial group too in the same post, I'll mention that I think "gay" is like "black"/"nigger": they both refer to groups that are too ready to be insulted. Nobody cares if you're gay or if you're black if you don't care either.

    6. Re:So gay = bad? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Let it be misconstrued that I agree with that group that says "words only mean what the speaker thinks they mean," I want to go on record as saying that I don't. If you can't find the words to say what you mean, it speaks less about the language and more about your education in it.

      That said, they still score higher in esteem than anyone who talks about being "offended" by words.

    7. Re:So gay = bad? by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Am I allowed to hate Christians and Gays for making so much god damned noise that this country is falling into the shitter faster than the scumbags at the top can flush?

      Just kidding! April Fools! You were saying something about 2000 year old fairy tales and their relationship to the civil rights granted under Jefferson's list o' rules...

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    8. Re:So gay = bad? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Am I allowed to hate Christians and Gays for making so much god damned noise that this country is falling into the shitter faster than the scumbags at the top can flush?

      Why not? I do.

      You were saying something about 2000 year old fairy tales and their relationship to the civil rights granted under Jefferson's list o' rules...

      No I wasn't. If it's the t-shirt that convinced you otherwise, note the "up to" qualification. ;)

    9. Re:So gay = bad? by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1
      If I call you a "butthead" do you really excrete from your brain?
      No. The crap commonly comes out one's mouth.

      *ZING*

    10. Re:So gay = bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Instead of gay that should have been rampant anal faggotry. Will fix.

    11. Re:So gay = bad? by elGrippe · · Score: 1

      I thought gay = happy? Didn't anyone ever watch the Flintstones?

    12. Re:So gay = bad? by natrius · · Score: 1

      Take the word "suck," for example; a person I insultingly call "gay" is no more homosexual than a person I insultingly say "sucks".

      All that means is that the intolerant people who started using that as an insult got the term to spread so much that most people don't know how it started. That doesn't mean that the original intolerance should be forgiven, and there are many people out there who use "gay" as an insult because they think being gay is bad. I don't see how anyone can not understand how hurtful it must be for a word that describes you to be used as a general term for "bad".

      Nobody cares if you're gay or if you're black if you don't care either.

      The problem is, there are plenty of people out there who do care about your race or sexual orientation, and will treat you differently depending on them. To suggest otherwise is rather ridiculous.

    13. Re:So gay = bad? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      The problem is, there are plenty of people out there who do care about your race or sexual orientation, and will treat you differently depending on them. To suggest otherwise is rather ridiculous.

      No. There aren't. People who would hate you for it are already looking for a reason to hate you, so it doesn't matter if race or sexual orientation is the answer they find. They're probably the same ones who'd accuse the straight WASP of being rich and intolerant.

      Race is probably harder to hide, but sexual orientation doesn't have to be obvious to these people. Take it with a less-easily-offended attitude and things will be a lot better.

      (No, I'm not a WASP. I've often been on the receiving end of bigotry. I'm not just preaching.)

    14. Re:So gay = bad? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      not to be mean but the word "gay" also means happey so the fact that every time you see it you think it means bad - well - that is a personal issue for you

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    15. Re:So gay = bad? by Dante+the+Bard · · Score: 1

      You know, that just dumb. Your the reason Nerds, Geeks, Gamers, and whatnot are given bad names and why so many people seek to censor the net. Stop spreading such ignorant filth. Natural Selection eliminates the useless and I can't wait till it snuffs you out.

    16. Re:So gay = bad? by ReagansUndeadBrain · · Score: 1

      The 'gay' tag is like, uber geigh ...

    17. Re:So gay = bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are gay people who use the word "gay" to mean "bad". They don't seem to get offended by it.

    18. Re:So gay = bad? by SUB7IME · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I were gay I'd probably sign up for your new little faction. Instead, I'm actually just amazed that you're an apologist for bigotry. Nice work!

    19. Re:So gay = bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, don't be such a nigger (by which I mean a jerk).

    20. Re:So gay = bad? by natrius · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that there are two groups of people: people who are looking for something to hate everyone, and people who are looking for reasons why people hate them. The reality is that there are plenty, if not a majority of people in the gray area in between. Some of the nicest people I know really can't stand interacting with gay people and will treat them with less respect than they would straight people. They don't look for reasons to hate people, they just happen have a trait they dislike in a person. That's called intolerance, and there is no reason why you should tell someone who is offended by that that they shouldn't be. You can try to say that those intolerant people aren't worth interacting with anyway for those gay people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be angry or offended. You're blaming people from being offended by perceived intolerance, so does that mean you don't think there are intolerant people out there? Do you think people shouldn't be offended by intolerance? I really can't see what point you're trying to make that could have any justification whatsoever.

    21. Re:So gay = bad? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I see it as an excellent and refreshing example where one socio-political group appropriates language (the word 'gay') to fulfull their agenda, and a larger group grabs the word back and makes a mockery of it.

      It wouldn't be nearly as funny if the second larger group had done it in a hateful fashion.

      I support people's right to be who they want to be and act the way they wish. I, myself, living in a rather dismal 'middle America' small town, have had little high school dinks accuse me of being homosexual to my face. However, it is not 'homophobic' to react in revulsion to something you find repulsive. It isn't 'corprophobic' to be repulsed when seeing somebody eat shit. It isn't 'homophobic' to be repulsed when seeing someone make out with a member of the same sex.

      GET OVER YOUR COMPULSION TO IMPOSE YOUR WORLDVIEW ON OTHER PEOPLE.

      Thank you.

  24. maybe it's slashdotted by moochfish · · Score: 1

    Damn. I tried to use the search and it gave me an error. =(

    I guess I'll try again tomorrow.

  25. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    Paris Hilton would be a busy girl.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  26. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1984 was more of the opposite sort of direction...

  27. gay by dummyname12 · · Score: 1

    I really hate that the term "Gay" is being used to tag all of these April Fools posts, but in this case it's actually appropriate:

    If everyone on Slashdot signed up for a dating service, the only ones who would find compatible mates would be the gay members.

    1. Re:gay by cribb · · Score: 1
      not only are the articles 'gay', but reading them will *make* you gay.

      gay, adj.

      • cheery: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile"
      • full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth; "the jolly crowd at the reunion"; "jolly old Saint Nick"; "a jovial old gentleman"; "have a merry Christmas"; "peals of merry laughter"; "a mirthful laugh"

      --
      Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
  28. No romance.. by Treeleaf · · Score: 1

    Database Capacity Exceeded (again)
    That's just great - once again, the sheer volume of our users' thirst for our products has exceeded our capacity to quench it, therefore, deja vu, this service is not available at this time (at least not to you).


    I wish I had registered a little sooner .. :(
    Now I will never find romance !!

  29. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by TeknoHog · · Score: 0
    Besides, remember how GMail was launched on an April 1st, and many people thought it was just another joke? This might well be for real.

    Anyway, I'll stick with good old carbon-14 dating.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  30. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by caffeination · · Score: 2, Informative
    The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four is a political, not a technological, dystopia.
    From Wikipedia. In fact...
    None of the three blocs has much genuine interest in technological progress, since it could destabilise their grip on power.
    I haven't read 1984 myself, but I do demand accuracy in my Slashdot cultural references!
  31. Pain in the Arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April 1st is such a pain in the ass.

  32. Yahoo News Flash thing Re:No romance.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo News Flash thing
    LinuksCentertsentr (LCC), proven leader in open software distribution announced release of the revolutionary distribution - SEXLinux http://sexlinux.com/. Development team of this product, and outsourced community specialists attempted to maximally consider the preferences of the strong half of humanity. Approach used was derived from the words of another creator - "Software is Like Sex - It's Better When It's Free". And creators of SEXLinux exerted all efforts so that the portion of sex in this distributive would be to maximum imaginable capacity along with versatile approach and scalability. Sponsored by http://www.google.com/romance/

  33. I want this so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you Google!!!

    I have been wanting this soooo bad. To google up my next 'lets have a dinner buddy', my next 'let's go watch this movie buddy', my next 'let's fuck, baby fuck buddy'.

    Let me understand how this works...
    I can google horny sex partners, of given parameters in short distance of my zip code, for any given night, right?

    Thank you Google!!!

  34. Google-Match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theoretically yes, a google search for a romantic partner would work. But the matches would be so perfect as to eliminate The thrill of romantic conquest!

  35. Romantic AdSense by Tarmas · · Score: 5, Funny

    8. Such as?

    Flowers. Music. Personal advice. E-greetings. Later on, depending on how our long-term opt-out natural-language-based monitoring system thinks things are going, personalized thank you notes, romantic getaway offers, various intimate pharmaceutical come-ons, engagement and bridal wear catalogs you know the drill.



    +------------
    | Ads by Goooooogle
    |
    | V 1 A G R A - En1arge yuor pen1$ n0w
    |
    | Advertise on this site
    +------------

    --
    Signature has left the building.
  36. Re:WTF Stupid Slashdot by Eric+Coleman · · Score: 1

    You're obviously not a very good April's Fool jokester since everyone can plainly see you're not the first poster.

  37. Check out the FAQ by gavri · · Score: 1

    http://www.google.com/romance/faq.html

    It's a satire of Google's own business model. Their contextual ads and their Beta products.
    And it's biting. I'm just reminded why I like Google.

    6. What is Contextual Dating?
    It's a free date plus the added accrued value of the past decade's worth of post-Industrial Age online marketing genius, all tied into a real-time, video-based, GPS-tracked, psychographically astute and environmentally pervasive promotional system.

    7. Come again?
    You see ads that might make your date better.

    8. Such as?
    Flowers. Music. Personal advice. E-greetings. Later on, depending on how our long-term opt-out natural-language-based monitoring system thinks things are going, personalized thank you notes, romantic getaway offers, various intimate pharmaceutical come-ons, engagement and bridal wear catalogs - you know the drill.

    9. What if I don't want to see contextual dating ads?
    Don't use the product.

    10. What do you mean when you say Google Romance is a beta product?
    What do you mean when you ask us what we mean when we say Google Romance is a beta product? It is what is it, okay? It's new, it's probably still buggy, which is to say that yes, by using this product now you conceivably are setting yourself up for a disastrous outcome - but on the other hand, you might also be on the verge of thrilling to an experience that will transform your very existence and only could have come about because you took this step, right here, right now. You're online; take a chance. We may never pass this way again. Carpe diem. The world could, like, end tomorrow, you know? Gather ye rosebuds while --

  38. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's amazing is how effectively we've created 1984 and in how little time we've done it.

    1984? Dude we are way off schedule... Do you by any means work at microsoft? :)

  39. Heartbroken... by zanglang · · Score: 1
    From the 404 page: This means that you either 1. Fell for our April Fool's joke, in which case ha ha, wasn't that amusing and harmless and mostly in good taste and not all psychologically damaging under various and sundry aspects of contemporary tort law, please don't sue us;
    Not at all psychological damaging?!?!

    Just while all this pinkness and cute pictures of fluffy little animals has managed to stirred up long abandoned faint hopes of locating a perfect soulmate, your preposterous prank has shattered it all!!! All I tell you!!! Why God why?!?! *whimper*
  40. from another faq by caffeination · · Score: 1
    Next tonight on copy/pasting random crap in an effort to glean some karma from other people's content:
    Will some of the subsections spin off as sites in their own right?

    For example, it would be cool if the YRO section were to hit dead tree form in some way like soon. It's too important to remain outside the radars of 9-5ers in Pleasantville.

    There are no formal plans at this time, but it's something we're thinking seriously about.

    Answered by: CmdrTaco
    Last Modified: 10/28/00

    I need information about Slashdot for a paper I'm writing!

    Believe it or not, a lot of people contact us about this. Sorry, we would love to help, but we really don't have time.

    Answered by: Robo
    Last Modified: 03/04/02

    Can I use Slashdot icons freely on my site?

    Yes, we are fine with you using any icons from Slashdot on your site, provided you ask permission, and you link us back and credit us as the source for the graphics.

    Of course, some of the icons are copyrighted by other people. So, you'll have to decide for yourself if you can actually use them under fair use.

    Answered by: CmdrTaco
    Last Modified: 04/14/02

    I have found a bug on Slashdot, Who do I contact?

    Please visit our fun and exciting SourceForge project page where you can see our list of outstanding bugs and feature requests, as well as submit your own.

    We're sorry, but you will have to log in to SourceForge to submit a bug. We tried allowing anonymous bug/feature feedback but as often happens, a few bad apples ruined it for everyone, or at least created a minor inconvenience for everyone.

    Answered by: CmdrTaco
    Last Modified: 06/18/03

    If you are missing my point, here it is: this article was linked because it was deemed interesting. You don't get to milk it for a second time by quoting parts of it verbatim unless it's done in some sort of context, like "Look at this BS:".
    1. Re:from another faq by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

      knowing how many people fail to RTFA, I decided to post something I found funny. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  41. Could be worse by jfengel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mine is 402: Payment required

    1. Re:Could be worse by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Just check the statutory laws where you are, you don't want one that's 403.

      --
      I don't get it.
  42. Maybe true by matthewchen · · Score: 0

    think about Google can get all your search histories, so it is possible to find a romance just by comparing search histories, or the clicks you had. If you search more for porn, probably you will find a bitch:)

  43. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After exhaustive analysis it has been determined that you want the one with the big boobs

  44. OMG ? by mennucc1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    would someone please explain me what OMG stands for ?

    1. Re:OMG ? by dave-tx · · Score: 1

      Oh my God, you don't know??!?

      --

      >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    2. Re:OMG ? by William+Robinson · · Score: 1
      would someone please explain me what OMG stands for ?

      You don't know that? :-O..Oh My Gawd..

    3. Re:OMG ? by Dr.Fujitronic · · Score: 1

      You better bookmark this : http://www.noslang.com/

    4. Re:OMG ? by ytr · · Score: 1

      Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Gark?

    5. Re:OMG ? by hains · · Score: 1
      would someone please explain me what OMG stands for ?

      OMG stands for "Object Management Grouping". It is a markup tag that tells indexing software that the following few words should be treated as keywords. It is rarely needed these days, because modern indexers (like Google) treat all words as potential indices. In this way, it's sort of like the "register" tag in C and C++, which has become largely unnecessary as compiler optimization has gotten better.

      This information has been carefully checked for plausibility.

  45. hah! by todd10k · · Score: 0, Troll

    i have mod points today. anyone who attempts to be humorous will get their stuff ruined.

  46. So this kid is at a ballgame.. by murderlegendre · · Score: 1

    Since all these AF stories are getting tagged 'gay'... here's a little joke to fit the context.

    So this kid is at a ballgame, and goes to take a whiz. As he's standing at the urinal, he loooks over and sees a cowboy standing next to him..

    Kid: Hey mister, are you a real cowboy??

    Cowboy: I sure am son, would you like to wear my hat?

    The kid happily accepts, and puts on the cowboy hat. Just as the kid is finishing up, a man in a sailor suit walks in and stands next to him..

    Kid: Hey mister, are you a real sailor?

    Sailor: I sure am son, do you want me to suck your dick?

    Kid: (Hastily grabbing for the hat) Oh... No... I'm not a real cowboy, I was just wearing the hat!

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
  47. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Why+Login · · Score: 1

    Google folks would have to be proficient in a lot of languages to make that happen. Otherwise, you'll be seeing something like: Romance Beta. Available ONLY for English-speakers :-)

  48. Google... still catering to the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Post multiple profiles with a bulk upload file, you sleaze"

    It's nice to see that Google is still catering to the hardcore user.

    Oh, wait, that didn't come out right *at*all*.

    1. Re:Google... still catering to the... by r_j_howell · · Score: 1

      sounds about ight to me.

  49. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    What you describe isn't anything like 1984. In fact, it's the complete opposite! 1984 was all about the elimination of choice, and even the elimination of the existence of choice. Suggesting dating choices for people by analyzing their information isn't really Big Brotherly thing.

  50. I'm Feeling Lucky by hnile_jablko · · Score: 1

    Google date just announced? I thought thats why the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button was designed. Its all clear. Always wondered why when searching for some idiot who would actually shag me, the result was generally the white house George W. Bush bio page.

  51. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    Not! But tubgirl would be happy,

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  52. Obvious homophobia by BlueBiker · · Score: 1
    so if "gay" means "bad" it's not homophobia, it's evolution.

    Of course it's homophobia. The fact that a slur is unfortunately trendy doesn't make it less of a slur. Would you argue that to "jew someone down" isn't anti-Semitic merely because the expression was in common use?

    The expression "that's so gay" is considered the universal insult in American schools, something that would be readily rejected as vulgar if applied to any demographic besides gays.

    1. Re:Obvious homophobia by Isotopian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey man, don't be so gay. That's not cool.

      --

      It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.

    2. Re:Obvious homophobia by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Ever hear the N word while hanging with a few "black" friends?

      I have, all the time.

      Words, like everything else, EVOLVE. Gays, like everyone else, are TOO SENSITIVE these day.

      If you are unhappy, and yet expect someone *else* to change in order to remedy this, you have a poor strategy for sucess.

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    3. Re:Obvious homophobia by BlueBiker · · Score: 1

      C'mon, if everybody were saying "that's so Christian" as their favorite generic insult then Christians would rightly object. Not because they're unhappy or too sensitive, but because it's not too much to expect basic civility from other people.

    4. Re:Obvious homophobia by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Just for the sake of clarity:

      Come on over to my house, have a drink, put your feet up. I will refer to you however you please. And this offer goes to anybody.

      I just doubt a species too stupid to stop eating itself to death is going to learn etiquette anytime soon. Now excuse me as I go find some chips...

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
  53. OMG OMG BALLS!! by seanmeister · · Score: 1

    Unless you read right-to-left, <3 = "ball sac".

    1. Re:OMG OMG BALLS!! by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      This would be more impressive:
      ==3

      Or if you've got a really tiny curved penis

      ~%

  54. A 4/1 joke or ambivalence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is Google's way of introducing a dating service without it looking like it was their idea. After all, it's embarassing.

    Google builds Google Romance.

    They're ambivalent about introducing it.

    Product Manager has the brilliant idea to introduce it as a joke, monitor interest, and later claim, "Oh, it started as a joke, but people really wnated it, so we did it."

  55. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except, you know, how they say it's an april fools joke

  56. OMG First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait...

  57. slashcode bug by arabagast · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems like slashcode removes the from the title of the article in the title tag in the HTML. Probably not the gravest bug, but still :) You'd never expect something useful coming out of 1. April, but there you go.

    --
    Doolittle : ...What is your one purpose in life?
    Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
    1. Re:slashcode bug by arabagast · · Score: 1

      apparantly the lameness filter, combined with me not bothering to preview, removed the alligator from my post too.. hmmm,, lameness filter in TITLE tag, that's a nice one.

      --
      Doolittle : ...What is your one purpose in life?
      Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
  58. I'am feeling luck!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They should have a "Get laid" button, me thinks.

  59. Google DOES do Romance by jp8000 · · Score: 1

    It's called Google Date-a-Base

  60. Invites! by mqj · · Score: 1

    Invite a friend... "Would you like to be a part of this romance MFF?"

  61. This shows Google's uninterested on online dating by __aadkms7016 · · Score: 1

    This April Fools joke wouldn't have happened if Google had a serious interest in online dating -- it wouldn't make sense to ridicule a business concept and then enter the business.

    Match.com and competitors are breathing a sigh of relief today ...

  62. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'd all get women who are bitter, surly, and hostile to men.

  63. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by cp.tar · · Score: 1

    Well, yes...

    But what if that is the actual joke?

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  64. Searching doesn't work by X-Phile · · Score: 1

    I searched for "Arrogant Prick" and it returned my own profile as a result. WTF??

    --
    "Well you're not Fiona Apple, and if you're not Fionna Apple, I don't give a rat's ass."
  65. APRIL FOOLS! by Eideteker · · Score: 1

    APRIL FOOLS!

    --
    sic
  66. One word... by O_at_TT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    BABERANK

    -Oliver / TreasureTunes.com

  67. New Google product name info incorrect by cavehobbit · · Score: 1

    It will be called Snoogle!

    It was decided to keep the *oogle theme going after G-male, G-Female and G-Spot were all rejected.

  68. Re:This shows Google's uninterested on online dati by asland · · Score: 1

    or it could be something called strategy

  69. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by abb3w · · Score: 1
    It could then compare this with other people's profiles and suggest members of the opposite sex that it thinks you would most like!

    Presuming it thinks you like the opposite sex. Better cut back on searching shemale zoophile sites, everyone...

    What's worse is that the only thing standing in the way of this happening is programmer time.

    No, what's worse is that programmers likely to have the requisite time are correspondingly likely to have the motivation to work on the project.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  70. peonies by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    especially the bit about a bouquet of peonies.

  71. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    wait until it's no longer a "suggestion" as required by laws for the "security" and future "well-being" of the country. Such a Brave New World!

  72. Blame the victim = bad by BlueBiker · · Score: 1
    People who would hate you for it are already looking for a reason to hate you, so it doesn't matter if race or sexual orientation is the answer they find.

    Preposterous. Bigotry is often directed toward groups of people, an individual of which the bigot has never met. It's much harder to hate gay/les/bi/trans people when you take the time to meet your gay neighbor and get to know them as an individual and not just as a faceless member of a group you've heard bad things about.

    Race is probably harder to hide, but sexual orientation doesn't have to be obvious to these people.

    Minority groups are under no obligation to hide their identities to escape the prejudices of other people. Nobody should be forced into the closet just so that others won't have to confront their own preconceptions.

    1. Re:Blame the victim = bad by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Nobody should be forced into the closet

      Nor out, either. Do you know if I'm straight or gay?

      If you met me in real life would you know? (No, I don't have a boyfriend or girfriend, and if I did, they wouldn't be soldered on to me like some people seem to be.)

    2. Re:Blame the victim = bad by BlueBiker · · Score: 1

      Dunno, my gaydar's never been very accurate. PDAs don't bother me as long as they don't frighten the horses!

    3. Re:Blame the victim = bad by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Minority groups are under no obligation to hide their identities to escape the prejudices of other people. Nobody should be forced into the closet just so that others won't have to confront their own preconceptions.

      Nor should anyone else be forced to know far too much information about any other given person.

      Not to mention that there's a list of people as long as my arm that "offends"(read: makes me question the value of humanity) me whenever they open their mouths. Nobody's moving to shut them up. Anyone who thinks they somehow deserve special dispensation because of what they like to do with their dangly bits is welcome to a free positron-collider enema, courtesy of me and Dr. Venkman.

    4. Re:Blame the victim = bad by BlueBiker · · Score: 1
      Nor should anyone else be forced to know far too much information about any other given person.

      A straight person who wears a wedding ring, displays a photo of their spouse on their desk, or mentions their significant other in conversation is accepted and affirmed. But a gay person who does any of these same things is accused of forcing unwanted information on others.

      The only thing gay folks want is an end to that kind of double standard. That's not any kind of "special" treatment.

    5. Re:Blame the victim = bad by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      There is no double standard. There are people who view just about any sort of marriage with disdain. Gay, Mixed-race, BDSM, mixed-faith, civil/secular, young, old, age-different, vanilla, second marriages. You name it, you can find someone to condemn it.

      Whinging about it and making sure everyone "realizes there's a problem, goddamnit" is stupid, attention-whoring bullshit. The problem is that by insisting on pushing it to the forefront of people's minds, they draw more NEGATIVE attention, which only serves to fuel the whole persecution complex, leading to more attention-whoring, repeat ad nauseum.

    6. Re:Blame the victim = bad by BlueBiker · · Score: 1
      There is no double standard.

      I gave three examples, but there are many more. When straight people want to marry, they're being responsible citizens, but when gay people do the same, they're "destroying the institution of marriage". When straight couples have children or adopt it's to produce a loving family, but when gay couples do the same it's "using innocent children to score political points".

      by insisting on pushing it to the forefront of people's minds, they draw more NEGATIVE attention, which only serves to fuel the whole persecution complex

      How else is progress ever achieved? Without agitation and political activism, women wouldn't have the vote, blacks would still be slaves, and the US would still be a British colony.

      Lot of people are afraid of change and fight it ferociously. But here in Massachusetts we're all discovering that having married gay/lesbian neighbors does nothing to threaten our own marriages.

  73. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by dodobh · · Score: 1

    Government.

    --
    I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  74. What the hell?!?! by I_Am_One · · Score: 1

    Dammit Google, you were supposed to boost my Gmail to 5GB on April Fool's, not this!

  75. ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And right under the article, it says.... - Ads by Google - Think about it a second.

  76. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by Dante+the+Bard · · Score: 1
    It could then compare this with other people's profiles and suggest members of the opposite sex that it thinks you would most like!
    Why must it suggest members of the opposite sex? Why can't it suggest members of the same sex? I think your being a little narrow in your assumptions. If Google had sold out to the US, than yes - we are close to 1984. However, Google didn't and as individuals, its our own fault for being users of Google. Thus, we are still a bit far from 1984. Google Romance would be great for the Homosexual Intifada! Viva La Google Romance! Down with the Heterosexist Insect! LOL... Seriously, as an April Fool's Joke, this was great... and you would think the term "psychometric profile" was a dead giveaway that it was a joke.. I mean, seriously - Can you do a proper "psychological measurement" based loosely on web searches, blog entries, and email? I think not...
  77. awww by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1

    noone's going to mod parent +1 informative?

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
  78. Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

    actually, in brave new world, children were made in test tubes and people could have whoever they wanted without commitment.

  79. Victim Mentality = bad by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    I gave three examples, but there are many more. When straight people want to marry, they're being responsible citizens, but when gay people do the same, they're "destroying the institution of marriage". When straight couples have children or adopt it's to produce a loving family, but when gay couples do the same it's "using innocent children to score political points".

    Again, all of which are just as often applied to any of the other marriages I listed and you carefully ignored. The simple fact of the matter is that assholes are simply assholes. There're always going to be people who dislike what's different. This does NOT make gays special and they need to lose the idea that they are.

    How else is progress ever achieved? Without agitation and political activism, women wouldn't have the vote, blacks would still be slaves, and the US would still be a British colony.

    "Agitation and activism" is no the same thing as "bitching loudly then whining when it bites you in the ass."

    Lot of people are afraid of change and fight it ferociously. But here in Massachusetts we're all discovering that having married gay/lesbian neighbors does nothing to threaten our own marriages.

    That's all well and good for you. Really. What about other "non-standard" marriages/relationships? Are your people that accepting of them too? If not, then the whole state can kiss my ass for gross hypocracy.

  80. Victim Mentality in the eye of the victimizer by BlueBiker · · Score: 1
    Again, all of which are just as often applied to any of the other marriages I listed and you carefully ignored.

    When was the last time you heard about anybody trying to prevent Asians or Baptists from being able to marry? Gays aren't asking for anything special, they're asking -- or demanding -- that they not be denied the same freedoms everybody else has.

    "Agitation and activism" is no the same thing as "bitching loudly then whining when it bites you in the ass."

    Would you remain silent if you or those you care about were legally treated as sub-human? Me neither!

    I understand that you're disturbed by all the attention paid to gay issues, but you still haven't given any reasons to justify the notion that gays don't deserve the same rights you have.

    1. Re:Victim Mentality in the eye of the victimizer by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you heard about anybody trying to prevent Asians or Baptists from being able to marry? Gays aren't asking for anything special, they're asking -- or demanding -- that they not be denied the same freedoms everybody else has.

      When did we get into gay marriage from "hate speech?" It occurs to me that this is apparently your pet agenda and should be dismissed in favor of the original discussion, which was about "offensive" words, and to continue on this new thread would be feeding the troll. On the other hand, I can actually connect it to the original discussion in a clever and relevant way.

      I don't give a rat's ass about Gay marriage. The word "marriage" refers to a religious ceremony. It "grew" to mean the current government-managed tax break clusterfsck referred to today. By the original meaning, gays don't have the right to get married in a Catholic Church. BFD. Neither do I. So they'll except the evolution of the word "marriage" expanded to include what they want, but continue to rail about the evolution of thier pet adopted word by another group? Nuh uh.

      I understand that you're disturbed by all the attention paid to gay issues, but you still haven't given any reasons to justify the notion that gays don't deserve the same rights you have.

      A thinly veiled accusation of homophobia, and more victimization. Sloppily done. The attention doesn't disturb me. I just have no patience for "professional victims." And in the context of the original discussion before you turned it into your own little soapbox, they have MORE rights than I do, which is bullshit. As a white, educated, het male, I've got no recourse when some jackoff redneck, militant feminazi, or rabble-rousing minority mouthpeice "offends me." I've got to "suck it up, they've got Freedom of Speech," after all. You want to tell me again about "double standards?"

      If they want to be treated as equals, they need to STOP pushing for special treatment. And before you set up the "gay marriage" strawman again; no, I don't consider that "special treatment." I do, however, consider any group with "Hate speech protection" to be receiving special treatment.

      When they give that up, THEN I might be more inclined to hear them out. Until then, they can fuck off.

  81. Disappointed that Google romance is a prank by Sparkina · · Score: 1

    Being unpartnered, I was so excited when I saw the link foe Google romance. I was willing ot be bombared with advertising tif it meant finding my real-life superhero -- and not having to pay for it, to boot. My heart was beating faster than a speeding bullet at the prospect that this network was going to help me get my loving arms around Captain Manhero. I went to register, and got the message that THIS IS A PRANK! I was so cheesed off I wanted to throw things at my monitor. Oh, the disappointment. Who else thought it was genuine and then got miffed upon learning it was a spoof?

  82. Everybody wins if nobody loses by BlueBiker · · Score: 1
    and to continue on this new thread would be feeding the troll

    I'm not trolling, just trying to convince you that another group's attainment of full equality doesn't harm you. It might threaten your comfort with the status quo, but change happens and progress is a good thing!

    The word "marriage" refers to a religious ceremony. It "grew" to mean the current government-managed tax break clusterfsck referred to today.

    No. The definition of marriage has changed dramatically and historically has often had nothing at all to do with religion. In many times it was arranged by the parents as strictly a business proposition or by heads of state to form international alliances. Polygamy has been common in many societies and was practiced by major biblical figures. In some places children could be married. Interracial marriage was long forbidden in the US.

    By the original meaning, gays don't have the right to get married in a Catholic Church. BFD. Neither do I.

    Religious marriage is totally distinct from civil marriage, the latter being what federal & state legislation regulates and what activists on both sides are trying to affect. When someone's married by a justice of the peace, there's no religious authority blessing the union. Couples who have that done sometimes also have a separate church ceremony.

    I agree with you that the state has no business telling the Catholic Church whom they must marry, but no laws attempt to do that. It's up to Catholics alone to change the practices of their own church. But it's improper for religious authorities to attempt to prevent other people from participating in legal civil marriages.

    As a white, educated, het male, I've got no recourse when some jackoff redneck, militant feminazi, or rabble-rousing minority mouthpeice "offends me." I've got to "suck it up, they've got Freedom of Speech," after all. You want to tell me again about "double standards?"

    There are people out there fighting to keep their families together in the face of legal persecution which in many cases allows their children to be taken away solely because their parents are gay, and you're complaining that you're the real victim because it's okay to offend you? Do you know how bizarre that sounds?

    I do, however, consider any group with "Hate speech protection" to be receiving special treatment.

    Once again, there are people who are denied entire categories of basic human rights that you take for granted, and your main concern is that you're no longer as free to disseminate animosity against them. I agree that political correctness has a dark side that can stifle legitimate dialogue, but I wish you could look past that and agree that gay/les/bi/trans people ought to have all the same freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that everyone else has.

    As an aside, if you're ever invited to a gay/lesbian couple's wedding or civil union, go! You might be pleasantly surprised to witness a very warm, loving, pro-family event. :)

    1. Re:Everybody wins if nobody loses by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Okay, you've obviously got the single-mindedness of a fanatic, so this is pointless to continue. I'll remind you one more time, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT GAY FSCKING MARRIAGE. Jesus Tapdancing Christ, get a new song.

      Have a nice life, try not to blow up any churches.