Slashdot Mirror


Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset

An anonymous reader writes "Apple is now removing many risque applications from its App Store so as not to 'scare off potential customers.' The removed applications, including SlideHer and Dirty Fingers, allowed people to see scantily clad women. Although they were once approved by Apple, even reaching the 'most downloaded' lists, Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women. That said, the Sports Illustrated application is still available for those who want scantily clad women on their iPhone, and developers are up in arms over the perceived inconsistency. It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there. On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible." Some are speculating that this is a ploy from Apple to drum up interest in the iPad from educators.

46 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps another Sudoku app... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset

    Shoot.

    Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.

    .

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, don't submit it to the 'Education' store. Oh, wait. There isn't one... Well, why the hell not?

      I cannot for a minute believe that the 'histrionic control freaks' at Apple can not come up with separate Adult and Education sections (Dumb and Dumber?) for the iPad. Or even an iPad only part of the store.

      Nope, too damned hard. Might take all of a week.

      Any more weird ideas, guys?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "God, schmod, I want my monkeyman^Wibewbies!"

      Why can't Apple let the market decide. Set up some sort of rating system so people can filter out stuff they don't want to see.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple isn't known for letting the market decide. They are control freaks. Their behavior in regard to the App Store is totally unreasonable, and it is going to kill the App Store. They need to learn to "Think Different". Assholes.

    4. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      iTunes U is the education section of the iTunes store.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by Duradin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an Apple app store consumer I will say that these boobie apps (along with all the "points" apps for all the mafia wars clones) are basically unwanted spam to me. They make the app store less appealing to use since they clutter the place up.

      Perhaps if the "devs" were less spammy about their 99c collections of images Apple wouldn't have brought the hammer down.

    6. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, well if YOU don't want the app then clearly no one ever would and Apple is right to remove it.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    7. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by mattsday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or apple could put in a quick checkbox "I want to see adult content" that you're presented with somewhere. Default it to off even, but give people the damned choice.

      --
      Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
    8. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by Tharsman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually am confused about this, when they added parental controls they should had been able to just flag these as "not opt for minors" and prevent them from downloading on iPhones with parental controls enabled...

    9. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      As an Apple app store consumer I will say that these business and productivity apps are basically unwanted spam to me. They make the app store less appealing to use since they clutter the place up. They make it really hard for me to find my boobie apps.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Apple is all about end-user choice?

  2. Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis by WebManWalking · · Score: 5, Informative

    A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear_seller_hit_by_apples_removal_of_sexual_apps.html

    1. Re:Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...I'm wondering why it's possible to order the bottom of the bikini w/o the top? What good's a swimsuit with no top?...

      It is for the locations that are free enough to allow topless beaches, but puritanical enough to not allow nude beaches.

  3. Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess axing ~5,000 applications is easier than building a more effective and granular per-device rating setting system...

    Lazier, though, a lot lazier.

    1. Re:Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that there was some whining about how The Children could still see the names and screenshots of the corrupting smut that threatens their young souls, even if their devices are set up to forbid them from buying and installing said smut.

      Of course, that would seem to suggest that they should just make a little change to how the app store works(i.e. don't display anything you don't have permission to install) instead of playing Taliban morality police with the developers they don't think are big enough to matter(while overlooking playboy and sports illustrated)...

      I question the sanity of anybody who downloads single-purpose porn programs on a device that comes preloaded with a general purpose porn program(these are known in polite company, of course, as "web browsers"); but that doesn't make mass-banning without warning, after months of toleration, and with the exception of big publishers, any less of a dick move.

      Worse, in a way, is that it isn't a terribly "apple-like" dick move, in the classic sense of what makes Apple interesting. Apple, under Jobs, has always been willing to throw technologies (and indirectly products and companies) under the bus if they think that it will allow them to do something cooler and better and shinier in the future. Dropping 64-bit Carbon, for instance, was classic Jobs. Who cares if Adobe and the MS MacBU will be very sad pandas, Steve has decided that carbon is old and busted and cocoa is the new hotness, everybody will just have to live with it. This, on the other hand, has 100% of the dickishness; but, by making exceptions for major publishers, is far more craven; and, since it is basically being done instead of improving the existing app ratings system, has none of the "in service of greater technical goodness" factor.

      It's just dickish and lazy. Apple is supposed to be dickish and driven.

  4. I'm tired of this "degrading toward women" crap by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Typical feminist hypocrisy on **anything** that might appeal to heterosexual male sexuality, but that doesn't involve a "by your leave, your majesty" from a woman! It's ok for a woman to masturbate, use toys and sleep around. That's "empowering." A man does anything like that and he's "degrading women."

    1. Re:I'm tired of this "degrading toward women" crap by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      heterosexual male sexuality,

      Well, it's an Apple product; I expect it to be hostile to heterosexual male sexuality.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  5. Re:unbelievable, yet very believable by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Agreed. Sony learned from their VHS vs. Betamax lessons and proved it with the success of Bluray. What was the lesson? Betamax discouraged porn on their format. The result was that VHS won because it didn't and while no one wants to be found guilty of favoring VHS for porn, that was a significant factor in buyers' purchasing decisions.

    Sony almost took the same route with Bluray and realized their mistake was being repeated early on and allowed porn.

    Apple? If you don't allow adult content for adults to use while your competitors do? Watch out.

  6. Puritanical censorship sucks. by bheer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Especially on a product that has "Designed ... in California" on its back. Here are some alternative things Apple could do that would keep the app store clean and still go after the edu market:

    1) Require app developers to keep screenshots G-rated.
    1a) If necessary, ask app developers to keep the app names "clean". This is harder to do and I'm not comfortable about this, but the general guidance is that "Playboy" and "Wobble" is okay, but "AssTits Deluxe" is not. There should be bright-line guidance for what is okay and what is not.
    2) Use content ratings to keep things at (roughtly) R or even M level. Users should have to manually change settings to see NC-17-rated content.
    3) Only allow folks with credit cards (nominally adults) to see NC-17 rated content.
    4) Extend enterprise policies (which the iPhone already supports) to allow admins to block levels of content.

    These are from the top of my head. But all of these are better than going all Taliban on app developers.

  7. Re:This Is Not Censorship At All by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.

    Apple can stock and sell whatever products it wants to choose from. Yes. It is still censorship - but we've come to terms that private companies have the right to censorship. Apple is fine with censoring, its their product. And I agree - there's nothing wrong with that. But to say it isn't censorship is like saying the Chinese government isn't censoring web searches, they are just choosing to provide what they think is best, not censorship at all.

  8. Re:Awwwwww by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

    .

    Do you know what that dot is up there? Thats a tiny animated gif playing the worlds smallest violin.

  9. Good Move by repetty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They were hardly real apps. "Big Boobs," "Large Boobs," "Young Boobs," et cetera, et cetera. Recipe: Make an image display app, throw some pictures into it, make another version with different pictures, repeat indefinitely.

    They probably really only deleted five or ten real distinct apps.

  10. Re:Ugh by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yep, Apple's got a good reason for everything that it does, and its reason is placing consumers and developers first!

    What they didn't tell you is that its a 0 indexed Array, where Apple's Revenue takes up the 0 slot.

  11. Developers? by haus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that I am a big fan of getting rid of a bunch of content because of seemingly arbitrary rules, but from the sounds of it many of this 'apps' are nothing more then a image (or a few images) of a girl/boy/goat in a bikini. It seems like a bit of a stretch to refer to those who create such content as developers.

    1. Re:Developers? by atrus · · Score: 4, Informative
      Thats the crux of it. The applications were spammy, brought nothing to the table except for a few pictures at $0.99. You could churn out 100 such applications in a day, and some people got close to that rate.

      If Apple adjusts their policy towards habitual application spammers (have you seen the Games section?), it would also solve the problem. But its easier to just target soft porn.

    2. Re:Developers? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. There are app sweatshops like this guy who has already been banned for gaming the system :

      "In less than 9 months, Khalid Shaikh and his 26-employee team (most of which are in Pakistan) have published 943 applications [...] That’s roughly 5 apps a day, every day, for 250 days"

      And they churn out crap like what Apple is now banning (emphasis mine) :

      "They include “Top Sexy Ladies: Audrina Patridge,” which (from what we gather; again, we cannot test these apps because they are not up anymore) is an app that takes 5 pictures of The Hills star from online and puts them on your phone. Yes, it costs $4.99. There are hundreds of others like this, including Top Sexy Men apps and various news update apps"

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  12. case in point by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.

    Hmmm.. "Read More..." *click*

    Aww, crap.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  13. Re:This Is Not Censorship At All by bughunter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The GP's Subject line is inaccurate, but the body of his post is correct.

    It is censorship, but it's not 'evil' censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights.

    Apple is exercising their right to control what's in their storefront. If you don't like it, you have other options for your porn^H^H^Hhone.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  14. Re:This Is Not Censorship At All by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it irksome that people have such an impoverished understanding of how censorship works.

    Yes, the sort of censorship where a government bureaucrat with a slightly sinister mustache uses the threat of state violence to control your speech is the most extreme and severe form. And, if you simply must, you are free to assert that this is the only "true censorship". You can then go on to assert that anything else isn't "real" censorship, and anything that has some link to a contractual relationship, no matter how tenuous the link or adhesive the contract, is happy and voluntary and not at all censorship. Hurray, hurray!

    However, and this part is important: Censorship is evil and dangerous in two distinct respects: The first is that it involves the illegitimate use(or threat of use) of violence for coercive ends. The second is that it distorts a society's flow of information in whatever direction is favored by the powerful and the incumbents. Since both democracies and free markets depend on informed actors, this is a major practical problem(and, of course, vibrant cultures arguably depend on the ability of individuals to express themselves without constraint).

    It is true that the various forms of "censorship lite" practiced by the private sector(and some aspects of the public sector, through subtler than armed force means) possess relatively little of the first respect(though, unless you have ample resources, private sector use of lawsuits and contracts of adhesion to secure your silence can be unpleasantly close to coercive force). However, these forms of censorship possess the second respect to an enormous degree, likely greater than that of state censorship in all but the most repressive societies. The majority of controls over access to, and expression of, information faced by the people of any moderately free society are private sector. Many of them are, at least ostensibly, voluntary to some degree. Nevertheless, they have an effect.

    Police-state censorship is evil; but dramatic and(in the more or less free world) relatively rare. The creeping death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the private sector, with its arbitration clauses, cryptographic controls, content filters, lawsuit threats, media ownership consolidation and so on and so forth is where the vast majority of information landscape distortion is happening. It is subtle, and most of it can be rationalized as "voluntary" with enough jesuitical hair-splitting about contracts; but that makes it no less dangerous.

  15. Re:No, this isn't censorship by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless of course, the App was only for the iPhone, and it was accessible at one point. Now it is not. Thus, Apple is the third party, restricting you from accessing something you once could. Yes?

  16. Burqa? by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love the quote from the CNN article:

    3. No skin (he seriously said this) (I asked if a Burqa was OK, and the Apple guy got angry)

  17. Please... by Fishbulb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.

    They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.

    1. Re:Please... by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.

      They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.

      So all the apps that were pulled for collateral damage are nothing important? (See above post for the Bikini seller that had the app pulled - and that wasn't the only one)

      Also compare this with Apples statement when questioned over why SI and Playboy didn't have their apps pulled - "Because they were established brands". So Old porn is good, but new porn is not???

      Or what about the "iWobble boobs" (or whatever it was called - and yep terrible juvenile name) which didn't supply content - you had to download and add your own content. That is like last year when the eBook reader was not approved because you could download the Karma Sutra

      I can understand why some people want to remove some lower common denominator apps from the App store, but the heavy handed manner in which Apple did this does smack of censorship, and they had to be aware of what they were doing

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Please... by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies. They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.

      First they came for the emulators, and I said nothing because I had not written an emulator.
      Then they came for the boobies and I said nothing because I was a puritanical closet pervert.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  18. Re:unbelievable, yet very believable by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    >>>Agreed. Sony learned from their VHS vs. Betamax lessons and proved it with the success of Bluray. What was the lesson? Betamax discouraged porn on their format.
    >>>

    I wish people would stop posting false stories. Sony allowed Betamax to carry porn, and have (or rather had) a whole library to prove it. Playboy, swimsuits, unmentionable stuff - it was all available on Betamax. You are quoting a false urban legend. In reality the reason Betamax failed is because it only supported 1 hour per tape (in 1975) and people felt 1 hour was not long enough to record an evening football game, or primetime programming, or afternoon soaps.

    So instead they chose VHS which supported 4 hours (in 1976). While Sony later increased the max record time to 3 hours in 1980, the damage had already been done, and VHS had already gained dominance.

    As for quality between VHS and Betamax, that is yet another urban legend. Just as Sony tried to dupe people into believing the PS2 had Toy Story-level graphics, so too did they try the same with Betamax, but in reality, there's no statistical difference:
    - Both are 3 megahertz video bandwidth (250 lines analog horizontal resolution)
    - Both have 0.6 megahertz chroma bandwidth
    - Both have AM-quality sound recording... and later Hi-Fi recording

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  19. Scientifically, you're wrong by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I decided to be scientific about it, and try to beat off to a gun, a reality TV show, Billy Graham, muscle cars and naked pictures of women. I'd say that the women win hands down.

    I'm trying to be even more scientific and do a double blind study, but so far everyone I've asked to get blindfolded and masturbate has looked at me funny and even threatened to sue. ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  20. Re:Porn is for Boys, not Men. by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Most men consume porn. Most boys should not.

    I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.

    Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.

    That is utter bullshit, I can only assume that your wife reads what you post here. Good luck with that.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  21. So why is the Playboy app still available? by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple allows Big Content to put up porn apps, just not little publishers, so your explanation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  22. seems to be working fine how it is by jDeepbeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and it is going to kill the App Store.

    You know, people keep saying that, and yet, they hit 1 billion+ downloads so far in nine months (if their numbers are to be trusted). So, in a way, I'm finding it harder and harder to agree that their formula isn't viable. It seems to be doing fine. Is that because ($JOE_END_USER.cares() == false)? Yeah probably. But I'm not worried for their success. It seems unavoidable.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  23. Re:unbelievable, yet very believable by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always been a PC at heart.

    Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.

    I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.

    Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.

    As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.

    Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.

  24. Re:This Is Not Censorship At All by Adlopa · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers. What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.

    This is just another non-issue. The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.

    Hm, I'm not so sure about that. Schiller has already intimated that Apple is now operating a cartel with certain app developers when responding to a question about why Sports Illustrated's and Playboy's apps are not banned:

    “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format”.

    I also suspect that Apple's App Store practices will lead to an antitrust investigation at some point. The iPhone is gaining dominance in the smartphone market and if its capricious App Store behaviour continues, accusations of monopolistic behaviour are bound to crop up.

  25. great story by quantumplacet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but you're wrong. when vhs and beta came out, beta supported 250 lines of resolution vs vhs' 240, and the heavy luma/chroma 'bleed' in vhs made the picture look noticeably worse. eventually vhs upped to 250 lines of resolution, and incidently beta actually downgraded to 240 lines of resolution in order to fit 2 hours onto a tape. however, the misconception about betamax picture quality is often attributed to people who've seen superbeta tapes, which weren't introduced until 1985 when the format war was already over. however, at 290 lines of resolution these tapes were/are significantly clearer than vhs. as for porn, yes there was beta porn, but it came much later than vhs porn and was significantly harder to come by, and this was because sony initially tried to block it from the platform completely. so while the common stories told about the format war aren't fully accurate, calling them 'false urban legends' is well, a false internet legend.

  26. Re:Porn is for Boys, not Men. by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All men masturbate. Some just lie about it. But playing the moral superiority, 'real men don't fantasize' card is such nineteenth century, Victorian ere crap. All the studies I've read show fantasy and masturbation as normal, healthy aspects of human sexuality.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  27. Re:This Is Not Censorship At All by computational+super · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That doesn't make it not censorship, poindexter, that just makes it not unconstitutional. You are capable of comprehending the difference, right?

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  28. Re:why dumb and dumber by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Well, its not like you can't put pr0n on your iPod touch, iPhone or even the iPad when you get it!!

    Just put your still photos on the phone via iTunes....or rip your pr0n dvd's with Handbrake..and put them on the device via iTunes. YOu don't have to use the app store for ALL your content.

    Hell, I've never actually bought anything off iTunes...I have my own audio and video content. I've only used the store for free podcasts...and the free apps for the iPhone. Other than that..who needs the store?

    Put what you want on there..nothing is stopping you.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  29. Re:Porn is for Boys, not Men. by computational+super · · Score: 4, Funny

    You may have fooled the DMV into checking the "M" box on your driver's license application, but I've looked back through your comments. You're definitely a woman.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.