Microsoft Quickly Revises "Sexting" Ad For Kin Phone

theodp writes "Microsoft's Kin mobile phone project came under fire as Consumer Reports and others pointed out that a promotional video looked like an inappropriate endorsement of 'sexting,' prompting a quick edit and an apologetic tweet. 'The video,' observed Consumer Reports, 'includes a downright creepy sequence [beginning around 0:33] in which a young man is shown putting a Kin under his shirt and apparently snapping a picture of one of his naked breasts. The breast is then shown on the phone's screen, just before the guy apparently sends it to someone. Next we see the face of a young woman, seemingly the recipient, with an amused expression...'"

Comments

LOLwut?

[PhxBlue]

Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

Re:LOLwut?

[causality]

Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

If they think a man's bare chest is in any way a private part or constitutes nudity, then I imagine these prudes would have a heart attack if they went to any beach.

Re:LOLwut?

[MichaelSmith]

Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

Women? Gay people?

Re:LOLwut?

[lul_wat]

Hello? Also this ad is terrible. Atleast cover some of the features of the device, I can already put my current cellphone up my shirt o that's not a selling point

Re:LOLwut?

[AnonGCB]

As mentioned elsewhere, male breasts are generally not considered a private part, regardless of who they are attractive for.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weirdo QotD: In 100 years, would male nipples be considered private if we started wearing bras/tops today?

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weirdo QotD: In 100 years, would male nipples be considered private if we started wearing bras/tops today?

Probably. Ever see National Geographic shows? There are primitive tribes in very warm, tropical areas where the women frequently or always are topless. None of the males in the tribe seem to think anything of it.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned elsewhere, male breasts are generally not considered a private part, regardless of who they are attractive for.

Exactly why it's been perfectly legal for ages to photograph and have TV broadcasts of male
boxers
swimmers
weight lifters
wrestlers (!)

who normally expose chests while performing their duties for their audience. We even have advertisements and an industry set around paying them for these performances. The last two are very well sculpted, and I imagine have a small audience of females and homosexuals who only watch for the pure sexual factor... prudes have not yet complained. The United States will fall apart under its own size and weight soon --political correctness, anti-everything groups and a fragmented system of obsolete laws is not followed in Europe or Asia, who house a majority of the superpowers that compete against it. At some point we Americans need to realize that whining is going to get too loud to hear the real issues if we always try to legally listen to everyone's whims. We have a lot of PC and whining in conservative Catholic countries, but those same countries have a system that only deals with the whims of certain people, for good or evil. We should find a midpoint here.

Re:LOLwut?

[ArundelCastle]

As mentioned elsewhere, male breasts are generally not considered a private part, regardless of who they are attractive for.

Which is clearly a cultural and societal double-standard that topfree-rights advocates oppose. Of course back in my day, males didn't have breasts, they had pecs.
Lets use this example: Is a pierced male nipple somehow less sexual than a pierced female nipple, purely because a man can display his chest freely? The result and motivation for the wearer is arguably the same regardless of gender or sexual preference. Sexy is whatever gets you hot, not what a ratings board or a family advocate group says.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

Conservative Americans.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I've started wearing them ten years ago and never looked back.

Re:LOLwut?

[deniable]

It might be 'sexting' if he has text tattooed on it, otherwise it's just another photo.

Re:LOLwut?

[drsmithy]

Lets use this example: Is a pierced male nipple somehow less sexual than a pierced female nipple, purely because a man can display his chest freely?

Yes.

Re:LOLwut?

[JWSmythe]

But, the ones they show aren't usually anything to admire.

    (no offense lady, if your tribe has a computer and you read this.)

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. That woman has some wicked dreadlocks. 2. You're absolutely right, but I have seen some rather large perky breasts before. I wouldn't know how to look up a reference for that unfortunately.

Re:LOLwut?

[Devout_IPUite]

Conservative Americas aren't cautious towards change, they want to change things too. Different changes than what I want. They want to reduce federal power, diminish separation of church and state, overturn row vs wade, and go back to homosexual being a mental illness.

Re:LOLwut?

[tsa]

She looks nice. She's got a beautiful face and body. But I bet you didn't see that, focused as you were on her breasts.

Re:LOLwut?

[tsa]

The ad never even shows what that weird thing is those people are carrying. Is it a sort of PhotoPod with which you can send hpotos to other people in the neighbourhood?

Re:LOLwut?

[Guignol]

not bras, mansiers !

Re:LOLwut?

[digitalchinky]

Does it matter though? Some people talk to faces, others talk to breasts :-) Seems about right to me.

Re:LOLwut?

[jez9999]

A male breast is just a very underdeveloped female breast (the extent of underdevelopment will vary...)

Re:LOLwut?

[Nathrael]

[...] political correctness [...] not followed in Europe

You haven't been to Europe recently, have you? There may be quite a few things that aren't so great about the US, but it still is one of the few western countries that actually has free speech (and no silly hate speech laws restricting it) and has better things to spend money on than gendering the stickers in subway trains asking you to give your seat to mothers with small children (oh, apologies: *fathers* with small children) or handing out government prices to people who waste their time in a similar fashion.

Re:LOLwut?

[Jedi Alec]

Conservative Americas aren't cautious towards change, they want to change things too.

And that's because they don't want to keep things the way they are, they want to go back to how (they wish) things used to be. Which is pretty much a 50's sitcom from what I can tell. Except for the part where mommy has a job too and a nanny gets to raise the kids, because god forbid we go back to single income families. Work 5 days a week, mow the lawn on saturday, praise the lord on sunday, and bow to the corporate overlord that owns the town whenever he damn well feels like it.

You know, the good old days?

Re:LOLwut?

[thetoadwarrior]

That is just because of how some western religions have formed society. Most everyone else is fine with men and women's chests being exposed. Even in the western civilisations, some countries aren't as prudish and woman are free to go topless on the beach.

Straight men can't see it (I know I can't and find most men should cover up more than women!) but women most definitely find men's chests sexy. Not all chests but then again I don't like all women's tits. Some aren't as lucky as others.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't the breasts part of the body? (Did you specifically mean 'figure'?)

Re:LOLwut?

[Lord Bitman]

oh fuck off. Who the fuck thinks that one adult sending another adult a picture of their exposed flesh is a bad thing?

First label it, then demonize it. If anyone says "uhm, what's wrong with this legitimate use of the device?", just repeat the label as proof that it's a bad thing.

Re:LOLwut?

[thetoadwarrior]

You can pretend the US is some how leagues above everyone else in freedom but it doesn't make it true. You're less likely to see women walking on the beach topless in the US, you're more likely to get sued (in fact lawsuits the subjects of numerous TV shows), you're more likely to be attacked for holding different religious beliefs, especially if you believe in no god.

And here are some examples of Europeans freedom of speech:

Pat Condell http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Nigel Farage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

Nick Griffin http://bnp.org.uk/

Sure Europe has twats, like Nick Griffin, crying about their rights being trampled on but the mere fact he can hang out with the David Duke, hasn't been stopped for his comments on Muslims and has been allowed to even participate in politics says to me that European free speech is doing fine.

Gun laws aren't even as restrictive as some Americans make out. Very few countries ban guns out right. Even the NRA has stated that, for instance, 10% of Austrians own hand guns compared to 16% of Americans. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

I do support the freedom to own guns and don't think own even automatics should be completely out of the question (though it should be quite hard to get them) but I understand why the laws exist and in a free society if vast majority do agree with the laws then where is the issue with the law? Some people value things differently. The Japanese may think the US is odd for not having public baths but that doesn't necessarily make the US wrong (or right).

There are some limits to freedom of speech just as there are some limits in the US and every other country. Europe is by no means perfect but the US certainly isn't either and it isn't

Re:LOLwut?

[thetoadwarrior]

If you're from a country built up by protestant prudes.

Re:LOLwut?

[maxwell demon]

And that's because they don't want to keep things the way they are, they want to go back to how (they wish) things used to be. Which is pretty much a 50's sitcom from what I can tell.

So they want that the world laughs at Americans?

Re:LOLwut?

[wvmarle]

Typical Slashdot:

Link to a photo presumably showing some image with a half-naked woman from a comment, result: target site slashdotted!

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it depends on the text message. For example:

"My nipples explode with delight!" - BAD

"I am no longer infected." - GOOD

"My hovercraft is full of eels." - MOSTLY HARMLESS

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is clearly a cultural and societal double-standard that topfree-rights advocates oppose.

Those people are full of shit.

When referring to human anatomy, in the most common usage form, "breast" means "mammary gland" not "pectoral muscle with a nipple on it".
It's not the chest or the muscle, it's the "boob", and it's because it's part of the reproductive system, and for some reason anything related to reproduction is taboo.

Humans wear clothing for several reasons.
Clothing was first developed simply for protection. It's also a lot nicer to wander around in the brush or climb trees when you're not dragging your genitals through the dirt.
Most likely it was also around this time also used to enhance our carrying capabilities (pockets, etc.)
Eventually we developed hygiene, and the social taboos came from this eventually as a way to socially 'enforce' public health. To put it bluntly, it makes you keep your body soil to yourself.

After enough time passed, religion got into the mix and then people started getting unnaturally concerned about 'nudity'. There's really nothing wrong with being naked, or people seeing your "private" parts, but it's generally not a good idea to just go rubbing those bits around with everyone else on the subway.

And as for the whole 'sexting' thing, it's getting blown way out of proportion.

Re:LOLwut?

[Goaway]

IT'S NOT A BRA!

Re:LOLwut?

[DJRumpy]

I don't think it was pulled because it was a man's breast, but rather because the people involved were of questionable age, and it promotes the idea of sexting in general, which has some ugly legal connotations as well when combined with youth/teens. We all know too well that the law has been twisted to actually prosecute teenagers who sext. I can understand their reasoning for pulling it.

Re:LOLwut?

[biryokumaru]

Because everyone knows that European countries have a centuries-long history of not horribly killing people for showing any kind of deviance what-so-ever.

It's bad when the prudes leave your continent to seek more freedom.

Re:LOLwut?

[biryokumaru]

Assuming that you actually don't understand and aren't just feigning ignorance, I think it's the logical conclusion that people draw from this that is the concern, rather than the actual content.

RE: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours!"

You can't tell teenagers to take pictures of their bodies without that being the natural conclusion.

Re:LOLwut?

[SteveFoerster]

How unsurprising that this is slashdotted. I've heard the lie that "I only read it for the articles" before, but never thought it would apply here!

Re:LOLwut?

[Larryish]

Sine when does Microsoft support "sexting" your "kin"?

What is this, rural Arkansas?

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

MOAR!!!

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Link to a photo presumably showing some image with a half-naked woman from a comment, result: target site slashdotted!

Real slashdotters could find the image elsewhere. And yeah, she's got a pretty face and a nice body. And huge, saggy tits. I've seen much worse from National Geographic.

Re:LOLwut?

[biryokumaru]

Ya, I know, Hitler was totally on the ball, wasn't he?

You Eastern-Hemisphere folk and your genocide...

Re:LOLwut?

[russotto]

You can pretend the US is some how leagues above everyone else in freedom but it doesn't make it true. You're less likely to see women walking on the beach topless in the US

It's 100% legal for a woman to walk topless down the streets of New York City.

you're more likely to get sued (in fact lawsuits the subjects of numerous TV shows)

And you believe what you see on TV?

you're more likely to be attacked for holding different religious beliefs, especially if you believe in no god.

Really? You got some figures on that?

And here are some examples of Europeans freedom of speech:

Two of the three were politicians and one of those has been convicted of a crime for his writings. Hardly great examples.

Re:LOLwut?

[Hurricane78]

Especially any beach in Europe. ^^

Protip: Avoid staring, when you see two 16 year olds getting a tan on their bare breasts. After a while you’re used to it.

Re:LOLwut?

[Hurricane78]

The reason the female breast is usually so large, is that when humans started to go upright, the ass was not at the height of the eyes anymore. So women with larger breasts were considered more sexy.

This is a one-sided thing,not because of our culture, but because of nature itself.
Because in nature, one gender usually is the one who is ‘peacocking”. Either the male or the female. But not both. It depends on some natural balance.
In our case, it’s clearly the woman who is sitting there, attracting the man. No doubt about that. And also nothing bad about that.

Re:LOLwut?

[Idiomatick]

Focus on the present can we.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Female breasts function in a sexual way that male breasts don't, hence the "double-standard."

Re:LOLwut?

[biryokumaru]

If you're from a country built up by protestant prudes.

Okay...

Re:LOLwut?

[JWSmythe]

    I'd actually search Google Images for National Geographic images, but that was the only one that even resembled the ones I'd seen there. I was hoping for something more tasteless, but that was all I could find.

Re:LOLwut?

[ultranova]

I do support the freedom to own guns and don't think own even automatics should be completely out of the question (though it should be quite hard to get them)

Either automatic weapons in the hands of citizenry are okay or they are not. Which one is it?

I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.

Re:LOLwut?

[mpeskett]

The female nipple does have a boob under it. That might be the reason.

And milk ducts... sexy, sexy milk ducts.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which is clearly a cultural and societal double-standard that topfree-rights advocates oppose."

No, if they were truly opposed to the double-standard, they'd be asking for either or. Top free rights for women OR clothed tops for men. They overwhelmingly only ask for the former.

Also, it's an EVOLUTIONARY double-standard. In oversimplistic germs, we stood upright, women got 2 butts, one actual, one mimic'd up front with their breasts. Culturally and societally we asked for our butts to be covered, and women have to cover both sets of theirs.

btw, I'm a heterosexual male, so I surely wouldn't mind if you want to go around with your tops off. However, I bet more women would complain than men. When women generally have larger breasts, they are more attractive. When men have it, they aren't with their man boobs.

"Sexy is whatever gets you hot"

True, as all aspects of the human body can and have gone one's physical attributes of attraction. However, in terms of sex, breasts are instrumental in reproduction and survival of offspring, and as such as closer to the classification of sex organs than being something attracted to, like muscular yet slim toned bare legs with nice ankles.

Re:LOLwut?

[thetoadwarrior]

You're right and then a lot of them moved over to the US.

European countries are older, they're further along in development. Their empires have fallen. It'll happen to the US too. Then it will happen to China, India, etc.

Re:LOLwut?

[thetoadwarrior]

So you're saying either everyone should fly a fighter jet or no one should?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone should have access to it. In fact it can be hard and expensive already to legally own an automatic firearm in the states. Are you saying that's wrong?

Driving is legal and it's not a right. There are definitely people that shouldn't drive. If everyone has the right to do it then why test people? Just let them do it. Clearly testing doesn't work any way as there are too many people who clearly can't drive yet have a license.

Re:LOLwut?

[agbinfo]

I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.

Does that apply only to guns? How do you feel about driving a car? Don't you agree that people should pass some kind of test before they are allowed to drive a car on a public road?

I don't believe that the idea is to ban driving or guns outright. Some of these hoops are just sanity checks to limit the number of careless and unqualified drivers and gun owners.

Re:LOLwut?

[thetoadwarrior]

It's 100% legal for a woman to walk topless down the streets of New York City.

These links say different

http://naturistaction.org/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/New_York_Laws/body_new_york_laws.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/24/2009-08-24_halfnude_women_march_by_park_for_right_to_bare_breasts_ya_cant_top_this.html

And you believe what you see on TV?

As an American who has still spent most of my life in the US I am not going just by what I see on TV. That said to go onto something, like Judge Judy, and embarrass yourself shows greed. The mere fact people have been doing this since People's Court and there is now Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown and whoever else now shows there are more than a handful of greedy people happy to sue for stupid things.

Really? You got some figures on that?

It's obviously not a case of everyone being a religious nut but Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh supporters are proof of growing religious extremism. I'm not doing the research for you. It's shouldn't be news that Christians have been viewing 9/11 as an attack on their way of life and have been pushing harder to protect it.

Then there's the attacks on evolution being taught in school.

It's naive to think Christianity isn't more extreme in the US. Hell, some Christians use the fact they're more religious than Europeans as the reason Europe is apparently suffering because they've apparently forsaken God and the US is number one because it's a Christian nation.

Two of the three were politicians and one of those has been convicted of a crime for his writings. Hardly great examples.

The point being that the BNP is full of criminal thugs and neo-Nazis and he is still allowed to run for office and his party can still have European Parliament members. This is after hanging out with David Duke, praising the Waffen SS among other things.

About the only thing you can't do is go around denying the holocaust in Germany or creating games like Wolfenstien in Germany. I don't agree at all with that but I understand why a country responsible for killing so many people (even if most people didn't do it) would take some time to get over it.

Again neither regions are perfect. They're not *that* different either which is no surprise since the US was started by a load of Europeans.

But there are some differences. Europe is happy to have nudity on TV and in public view, better job protection and free healthcare. The US rather have more guns and put its money towards wars which offer no real value for its citizens.

Re:LOLwut?

[ralphdaugherty]

Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

      I applaud Microsoft for their equal opportunity sexting.

Re:LOLwut?

[russotto]

These links say different

No, they don't. Did you even read them?

As an American who has still spent most of my life in the US I am not going just by what I see on TV.

So you've been sued, or you know people who have been sued in their personal capacity, for stupid things?

It's obviously not a case of everyone being a religious nut but Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh supporters are proof of growing religious extremism.

That wasn't your original claim. Your claim was that you're more likely to be attacked for holding different religious beliefs in the US. BTW, do you even know what religion Beck is?

About the only thing you can't do is go around denying the holocaust in Germany or creating games like Wolfenstien in Germany.

Or 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in the UK.

Re:LOLwut?

[fractoid]

Protip: Avoid staring, when you see two 16 year olds getting a tan on their bare breasts. After a while you’re used to it.

It's true, I had the good fortune to arrive on Ko Phangan in Thailand, the same day as a group of Swedish backpacker girls. The next three days there were 3-4 hot topless women on the beach at any given time. Sadly, after about half an hour you stop noticing... I almost wanted them to put their tops back on so I could go back to fantasising! :P

And I totally called it when this product was announced: It was designed specifically to make it easier to find amateur prons.

Re:LOLwut?

[mjwx]

About the only thing you can't do is go around denying the holocaust in Germany or creating games like Wolfenstien in Germany.

I doubt the Wolfenstien restriction would stick in Post-Downfall Germany. That taboo has pretty much been broken, Company of Heroes was permitted to be sold in Germany despite being able to play as WWII German forces. The developers got around the restrictions by calling the German forces the "wermacht" as opposed to the Nazi's.

Re:LOLwut?

[mjwx]

Gun laws aren't even as restrictive as some Americans make out. Very few countries ban guns out right. Even the NRA has stated that, for instance, 10% of Austrians own hand guns compared to 16% of Americans. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

Indeed, some European nations have national service, such as Greece and Sweden. This means that a large majority of the society has access to arms and the knowledge of how to use them, I don't know if this is true or not but I'm told most Swede's have an SLR in their home. Of course Sweden and Greece are diametric opposites when it comes to safety and violence, which is indicative of what myself and many have said before, the biggest problem with gun violence in the US isn't the guns as much as the gun culture.

Re:LOLwut?

[mjwx]

Or 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in the UK.

Then explain why the BNP hasnt been shut down. Or the One Nation party in Australia. Like the BNP, One Nation's major policies are racist and xenophbic, in short they are:
- Asians go home.
- No handouts for Abbo's.
I have no doubts this would extend to:
- Muzzies go home.
if one nation could get their act together.

So you've completely failed to prove your point. Go and publish "inflammatory" material in England and see how long you last, the UK Police have better things to do. Next try and walk down through Times Square sans pants and see how long it is before you're charged with "public indecency".

You make a point on the letter of the law, but as we full well know the spirit of the law counts for just as much. In the US, walking around naked is considered vulgar and even a non-religious judge would still give you a fine and a Hessian sack. However in the UK you will quickly find that you can publish just about anything, at worse you'll be done for littering when your Nazi propaganda is simply dropped into the gutter by the British people.

Re:LOLwut?

[Kalriath]

It was banned outright because Activision missed ONE Swastika.

Re:LOLwut?

[blindseer]

I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.

Does that apply only to guns? How do you feel about driving a car? Don't you agree that people should pass some kind of test before they are allowed to drive a car on a public road?

I don't believe that the idea is to ban driving or guns outright. Some of these hoops are just sanity checks to limit the number of careless and unqualified drivers and gun owners.

We have the right to arms, says so right in the Constitution. We have the right to travel, it may not be listed explicitly in the Constitution but there is enough judicial precedent that few even dare to infringe on that right.

Since those rights exist and are legally protected then it follows, in my mind, that it would take a trial by jury to remove those rights. Requiring the permission of the government to exercise the right to arms or the right to travel is, again IMHO, a violation of our rights as protected under the Constitution. Any testing or licensing to travel or obtain arms is a violation of our most basic rights.

So, no, I don't believe that people should be required to obtain a license to drive a car on a public road. But driving is a privilege, not a right I might be able to agree to that but then there is still the issue of enforcement. If a person drives without a license there is no probable cause to search that person unless or until that person has violated some law. If that person is driving dangerously or has damaged property with their vehicle then they will still be accountable for the traffic violations and/or damages with or with out that license. What purpose does the license serve? It assures us that people were informed of the laws and that they can operate a vehicle safely. Does it? People are required to know the law, ignorance is no defense. Also, it would seem that driving safely is the best test of being able to do so in the future. Like so many rights and privileges we have in this country it should be assumed that a person can drive safely until proven otherwise. It should be up to the individual to decide if they are able to safely operate a car.

But machine guns are dangerous. Yes, yes they are, which is what makes them "arms". If they were not arms then the government could constitutionally restrict their trade and ownership. Since they are dangerous then they are arms and therefore the government cannot, IMHO, constitutionally restrict their ownership and trade. If you want to play the "danger to society" card then that would mean the government should have much greater restrictions on car ownership than that on firearm ownership. The most dangerous device in modern society is the automobile. There are more guns in the USA than cars and yet cars kill many times more people.

History shows that it is enforcement that maintains a free and polite society, not licenses. I advocate that people do get training before operating dangerous devices like cars, guns, chainsaws, and coffeemakers. I just don't believe it is the government's job to provide that training, provide proof of that training, and therefore dictate the terms of that training.

Re:LOLwut?

[ultranova]

So you're saying either everyone should fly a fighter jet or no one should?

Nice non-sequiter. As it happens, anyone can take flying lessons and apply to join the Air Force.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone should have access to it.

Actually... Yes, it does. That's what something being legal means.

In fact it can be hard and expensive already to legally own an automatic firearm in the states. Are you saying that's wrong?

If the difficulty and expense are caused artificially to make it harder to use your legal rights... then yes, it's wrong. Ban them or allow them, but either way, don't pretend something else.

Driving is legal and it's not a right. There are definitely people that shouldn't drive. If everyone has the right to do it then why test people?

To see if they meet the requirements of driving safely, those being knowledge of traffick laws and skill at handling the car. These tests and the driving permit system are not meant to keep anyone from driving, they're meant to force people to learn to drive safely before they go to public roads.

Just let them do it. Clearly testing doesn't work any way as there are too many people who clearly can't drive yet have a license.

Yes, most real-world tests have false positive rate above zero. What about it?

Re:LOLwut?

[RichiH]

I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.

Damn those people who require me to have a driver's licence and be sober, too!

Re:LOLwut?

[mdwh2]

Doesn't mean it makes any sense though.

Yes, getting outraged over this ad is stupid, but that should be the case regardless of gender. It only seems odd because so many people are stuck with the idea that a woman photographing herself for a man is normal, but not the other way round.

Re:LOLwut?

[Zot Quixote]

*pencils in trip to Europe w/beach time on itinerary* ...better to get used to it sooner rather than later, right?

Re:LOLwut?

[agbinfo]

I'd like to think that people could be trusted to do the right thing. For example, if a person had too much to drink, then they shouldn't drive. Similarly, if their eyesight has deteriorated passed a certain level. It just doesn't happen.

The argument that people should be held accountable if they damage someone else's property is flawed as well. It doesn't take into account that it's very likely that the person who damaged the property doesn't have the means or ability to repair that property. If they kill or severely injure someone then there's no way to make reparation.

The constitution you speak of was written by men. These men were not perfect. They might have done a pretty remarkable job but I believe they made mistakes. I also believe that your constitution has been challenged before and will be challenged again. Arguing that your constitution gives you certain rights is different from saying that this is what should be. Defending a right because it is enshrined in your constitution is valid in your courts but it doesn't mean that the right should have been granted in the first place.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd also prefer that the government doesn't interfere or that it interferes as little as possible when it comes to individual rights. I'm just trying to explain why your arguments have failed to convince me.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONE ball, yes.

Re:LOLwut?

[blindseer]

First of all rights are not "granted". Permission can be granted but rights cannot. A right can be protected or it can be infringed. I hate to be pedantic about that but it can become dangerous if people get too used to the idea of rights being "granted" by the Constitution.

The argument that people should be held accountable if they damage someone else's property is flawed as well. It doesn't take into account that it's very likely that the person who damaged the property doesn't have the means or ability to repair that property. If they kill or severely injure someone then there's no way to make reparation.

How does requiring a license ensure that the person driving that car has insurance unless enforced diligently? The law already prohibits the construction of checkpoints for the checking of licenses and for good reason.

There is nothing we can do to stop everyone from doing anything stupid. The only thing we can do is punish those that act maliciously towards others. Requiring a license, insurance, and car inspections does nothing to those that have nothing to lose and everything to gain by driving illegally. Someone living paycheck to paycheck to buy food and shelter will drive to work without insurance since the alternative is death from starvation or exposure to the elements. If caught the worst that can be done to this person is state funded food and shelter in one of our penal facilities. The best outcome is the person living under the radar long enough to avoid the crushing fines of violating the law and lift him/herself out of poverty.

I had been in that situation for a time. I drove without insurance. I had even been driving, unknowingly, for years on a revoked license for not paying fines. Since I had not been caught with any violation outside of an expired license plate for years no one knew, including myself, of the laws I was breaking. That just gives a sample of one on how licenses do next to nothing to assure drivers can be held accountable for the harm they might do.

The constitution you speak of was written by men. These men were not perfect. They might have done a pretty remarkable job but I believe they made mistakes. I also believe that your constitution has been challenged before and will be challenged again. Arguing that your constitution gives you certain rights is different from saying that this is what should be. Defending a right because it is enshrined in your constitution is valid in your courts but it doesn't mean that the right should have been granted in the first place.

Yes, the Constitution is flawed and was authored by flawed beings but it's the best we have come up with in a very long time. It's not just because I found these things in the Constitution that I advocate them. I do so because in the few years since I've awakened to the need to fight for my freedom at every turn I have seen the wisdom in that document. We have seen the need to amend that document over time, a feature that has permitted it to define this country for so long and another example of the wisdom of those flawed beings that created it.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd also prefer that the government doesn't interfere or that it interferes as little as possible when it comes to individual rights. I'm just trying to explain why your arguments have failed to convince me.

I appreciate the feedback but it will take more than the expression of doubt in my claims to convince me my thoughts are flawed. What I would need to change my mind on the freedoms protected in our Constitution is a better idea on how to address your concerns. I can understand your points and concerns but I don't have all the answers. There is much truth in the bumper sticker that reads, "If government is the answer then it must have been a stupid question." We can make all the laws we want but in the end it comes down to those that do not wish to follow the law will not. Making more laws only

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

I'm not condoning the overreaction by the consumer agency, but the fact that no one thinks that's sexual is kind of the point of the ad. Thinking this is completely and totally ridiculous without at least noting that is missing the point.

It's not that a male breast is "sexting." It's not. No one would argue that. But just because they reversed the gender roles doesn't mean they weren't overtly alluding to it. That's what makes the ad comic. They're swapping the gender roles and pretending like they didn't. It's a common trick in satire, which is really more of how the ad should be looked at.

Now, does that mean the consumer agency didn't over react? Not at all. Like I said, I think they did. But to assume the agency is totally divorced from reality because no one thinks a male breast is all that sexual? That's just missing the point.

Re:LOLwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a big gun advocate but I would not support putting an automatic weapon in anybody's hand who wants one. Why is it such a problem for someone to have to take say a gun safety class before they are allowed to carry a gun? I agree that the hoops should not be impossible to go through but it should not be so simple that I walk into Walmart and purchase an M16. More than a little common sense should be required to own a gun. Everyone should have the right but just like a drivers license we should require training first.

MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think somebody is confused about what sexting is.

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind that, what the hell is a "cell"phone? And a "video", for that matter?

And why is my typewriter not making any sound when I press the keys?

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its just a little concerning that they decided to advertise how easy it is to take pictures of your body parts and send them to people.

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Moridin42]

I.. hope you're joking.

If not, I have news for you. Every phone that has ever advertised that it is easy to take pictures is a phone that has advertised the exact same thing. Unless, of course, the process of sending those pictures has been some arcane ritual that can only take place on the third minute of the seventh hour the day after your first born takes its first breath. Which is probably not the case.

What you take pictures of and how easy it is to take them are separate issues. If it is easy to take a picture of your dog, it is also easy to take a picture of a naked person. But I don't see any outrage over the iPhone's photo taking process, which is also pretty simple. Ditto the lack of outrage over Android, Motorola, LG, Samsung ...

If it is the content of the advert in question, where is the outrage for the endless commercials (read: porn) depicting bare chested men pushing beer, beach vacation spots, travel reservations, antiperspirants, body wash, exercise or diet programs, or whatever else. The damage such lewd imagery does to the children!

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[stjobe]

Replying to undo moderation.

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[maxwell demon]

Well, a cell phone is a phone for prisoners (the name comes from the fact that it's installed in their cell).
"Video" is Latin for "I see", a video is therefore an enlightenment.
About your typewriter, maybe it would help if you take it out of the vacuum.

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No, not joking. The add promotes taking pictures of oneself under clothing and sending them to others.Its not about the functionality, its the promotion of the idea that taking pictures of oneself under clothing and sending them to others is an acceptable thing that is easily accomplished with this device. Sure there are others that have that capability ( hence texting's rampant popularity), but the phone makers do not advertise that capability nor promote it. Everyone here seems to be jumping on the non-sexuality of the male breast, rather than the slightly larger message ( you can take pictures of body parts and send them).

If one is serious about the problem of texting and does not want it promoted by phone makers in advertisements, then one has to draw a line where some picture taking in ads is okay and others is not. Two reasonable adults can disagree about where that line is, and I don't necessarily agree that this ad has crossed the line. But, I would agree that its close, and I understand the reasoning behind those that object to it. Few other slashdotters seem to understand why they are upset.

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why make a big deal about this and yet not the multi-million dollar porn industry we have in this country, which not only engages in the same practices (and worse), but actually does so for profit?

This a tempest in a teapot, where that teapot just happens to be sitting in the middle of a hurricane.

Re:MOOBS!? MOOBS!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

When you hear the word "Sexting" keep in mind that its minors ( those under the age of consent) sending pictures of themselves. No one otherwise cares about consenting adults doing it. The Kin, as microsoft has indicated is targeted towards teenagers. Those same teenagers that sext. Do I need to draw you a map?

Was it hairy!?

[Merakis]

Mother's hide your daughters. I hear 'The Nippler' is in town.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't know whether or not it was hairy. It didn't even show the man's tit. It just showed him sticking a phone under his shirt. I was more creeped out by the knowledge that Microsoft has released a cell phone (although, I'm an obsessive free software advocate).

Re:Was it hairy!?

[codepunk]

Actually it did show the mans tit.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Actually it did show the mans tit.

I didn't think the man-boob was creepy per se, but the fact that the guy had a tatoo of Steve Ballmer on it definitely was.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[Mr. Freeman]

It showed the man's tit in the same way that "the sims" shows people showering. It wasn't blurred out but there's no way in hell anyone can actually make it out. Just because you saw some flesh colors on the screen doesn't mean that "it's showing the man's tit".

Re:Was it hairy!?

[zippthorne]

KIN one actually looks pretty interesting, except for the f'ing "This is the part that's going to fail first" slide-out physical keyboard.

Phone manufacturers: the iPhone is doing just fine without a physical keyboard. It does't have to be the only one.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[Bing Tsher E]

Phone manufacturers: the iPhone is doing just fine without a physical keyboard. It does't have to be the only one.

Why the nervous rant? You aren't worried that your concern might not be heard, are you? The idea that people might WANT a physical keyboard might be reflected in the market?

I know, I know. Your sort of vigilance kept that pesky second button off the mouse.

Oh. That's right. It didn't.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Just because I do not see value in a physical keyboard, nobody else does it either. And I do not see value in a physical keyboard because iphone does not have one.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[zippthorne]

I don't care that people want a physical keyboard. I'm upset that for the people that don't want a physical keyboard, it seems like the iPhone is the only one trying to cater to us. I don't want to see *no* phones with physical keyboards, just more phones without them.

Re:Was it hairy!?

[mdwh2]

Well, apart from Nokia (5800), a range of Android and Windows phones from companies like Motorola and HTC; and in fact the vast majority of phones, yes sure, it's only Apple trying to cater for you.

(When I looked for a phone recently, I was interested in a physical keyboard, and the choice for those is far more limited than the choice of those that don't have one.)

Uptight much?

[Rog7]

Oh good lord, how uptight does our society need to be?

It's a contradiction too, because sexualized youth seems to be perfectly acceptable as long as it's from a Mickey Mouse Club alumni that promises abstinence.
 

Re:Uptight much?

[Mashiki]

Yeah but me committing mass murder with a tactical nuke in FO3 is perfectly OKAY! I'll be over here, beating my head against the door frame. Maybe when I pass out and wake up, things will make sense. Or I'll be brain damaged...I think that's win-win!

Re:Uptight much?

[LostCluster]

Let's not forget the Disney's High School Musical star Vanessa Hudgens who posed for a nude picture that she lost control of and got leaked. While this led to a scandal in 2006, she seems to have recovered her career and become a non-Disney-clean actress.

Re:Uptight much?

[gmhowell]

TPIUWP

Re:Uptight much?

[gmhowell]

No shit. Considering how often we hear about porn moving technology, how big 'The Valley' is, and so forth, can we please shed this neo-Puritanical bullshit in the US?

Guess what: normal, healthy people like to fuck. Normal, healthy people (especially men) like to look at other normal, healthy people. Just because your version of the FSM said it was all "eww, icky, gross" does not mean the rest of us should suffer.

Re:Uptight much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but the ad is for a product named 'Kin". They are probably brother and sister, making it non-sexual and silly.
</bozark>

Re:Uptight much?

[fermion]

Here is the thing. It would be nice if we in the US were not so afraid of bodies. OTOH, this is changing. There was a time not so long ago when we could not show a woman wearing a bra on TV. Now women's bodies are becoming less of a taboo, but men's bodies seem to be almost as much as taboo. With this the case, it seems as if there is some sort of objectifying going on rather than just the depiction of the natural form. It would be different if both genders were parading around in skivvies.

But in the real world there are rules. And the biggest rule is, and should be, that we are in control of our own bodies and the depictions of our own bodies. The next biggest rule is a most kids are not often making long term decisions. How many of us ditched high school to go have some fun. Such decisions are not death, and the there is nothing wrong with taking naked pictures as kids have been doing for years. These pictures have even gotten passed around. What happens now is it becomes very easy to lose control of those images and negative consequences can be long term. Therefore most parents want to limit the possibility that their kids will do such things, and if a phone seems to be centered on sending pictures, perhaps the parent won't buy it. It is not that anyone things that phones are not used to take and send such pictures, no one is that stupid, it is just, IMHO, few people would buy a phone advertised as such activity being the primary purpose, as appeared to be in the MS video. Likewise, I think most parents would not buy their kids a subscription to Adult Friend Finder, even though online dating is likely going to play a big part in any kids future. There is just no reason to emphasize casual sex at that age.

Re:Uptight much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact: The God of the neo-Puritans you quote as saying "eww, icky, gross" not only endorses sex, he commands it. "Be fruitful and reproduce."

It's a far cry between "voyeurism ain't good" and "eww, icky, gross".

Besides, even if sexting is relatively common, that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. It's the kind of thing that can come back and haunt you months or years later. Why should we be promoting it?

Sex is healthy; narcissism isn't. You seem to be confusing the two.

Re:Uptight much?

[xenobyte]

This quote seems appropriate here: "Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." - by H. L. Mencken.

Re:Uptight much?

[Kethinov]

Yeah that ad was pretty harmless. In fact, I was surprised at how generally wholesome it seemed. A bunch of kids dancing to pleasant pop'ish song. Speaking of which, does anyone know what song that is? I rather liked it.

Re:Uptight much?

[gmhowell]

He also says not to wear cotton-poly blends. Forgive me if I'll take his advice with a grain of salt.

Re:Uptight much?

[YttriumOxide]

It's the kind of thing that can come back and haunt you months or years later.

But ONLY in the puritanical society described. If it wasn't a big deal to begin with, then it also wouldn't be a big deal to be able to "come back and haunt you".

Re:Uptight much?

[hey!]

That rule is for Jews only, like the rule against eating milk with meat. A gentile can eat a cheeseburger, or wear cotton-poly blends, without being unrighteous.

The milk rule has to do with a verse in Exodus listing some religious rituals Jews were commanded to perform and others that that were forbidden. One of the forbidden rituals was boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk. Aside from considerations of cruelty, 20th Century archeology discovered that the Ugarites, one of Israel's neighbors, practiced precisely such a ritual.

The prohibition against seething a kid in its mother's milk prevented the incorporation of this foreign ritual into Jewish life. Later, when that law was no longer needed, it was reinterpreted to forbid mixing milk and meat at all, even though each was allowed separately. It was a commandment, and since there is no mechanism for repealing a divine law, the Jews had to find a way to obey it. The prohibition on mixed fibers is probably of the same nature. It probably addressed a specific threat of cultural assimilation or religious syncretism.

The function of many of the commandments of Jewish religious law seems to be maintaining a distinct Jewish cultural identity. If the Pentateuch were still open to additions today, they'd probably add a prohibition against Jews setting up live trees in their house. To us, the intent would be clear: Jews should not let Christmas holiday practices creep into their culture. Two or three thousand years from now, long after people stop setting up Christmas trees, that prohibition might seem weird and arbitrary.

In an ironic way, it is the arbitrariness of such a law that justifies it. The entire point is to prevent the Jewish people from assimilating into the cultures that surround them. Laws against killing or bearing false witness are sensible laws for anyone, but were all Jews to follow only such laws, it would be doubtful that Jews would maintain their distinct cultural identity for thousands of years more.

Re:Uptight much?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Fun fact: The God of the neo-Puritans you quote as saying "eww, icky, gross" not only endorses sex, he commands it. "Be fruitful and reproduce."

Well, it would not be the first time this mythological creature gave them two sets of contradictory commandments in that ancient book of theirs...

Re:Uptight much?

[Hurricane78]

The idea is, that it something is gross and a sin, that everybody loves, then everybody is a sinner. Now you make up a horrible fantasy about a “hell” and a “heaven”. And you are the one “talking to god”, to forgive them their “sins”. But they must beg for forgiveness, and you rule them. So it’s just another scheme to gain power.
And it works pretty well for desperate and/or dumb people.

The good thing: You can use the same techniques (mass social engineering) for your own advantage, or for the good of humanity.
Beat them with their own weapons. Because with reason and logic, you’re clearly at a loss here.

Re:Uptight much?

[Klinky]

So basically it sounds like someone bending the word of "God" to really just be a way of telling other people what to do/not to do and that the divine word isn't really divine after all.

Re:Uptight much?

[Idiomatick]

There was also a holy book all about sex that a bishop got rid of, destroying every copy; The Gospel of Eve was destroyed in 3rd century ad by Epiphanius of Salamis for encouraging various sex acts.

Re:Uptight much?

[Bing Tsher E]

You see, that's part of the problem. The people appeared to bey were having fun. Nobody was posing. Nobody seemed like they were working at seeming 'cool.' And I didn't see a single sequence where white headphone leads were swinging around in the air. It seemed a lot like a conspiracy against fashion. And that isn't 'cool' at all.

Re:Uptight much?

[E IS mC(Square)]

Oh! How can that be allowed! We have to have only hipsters in silhouettes with no face on the ads. MS needs a good bashing on trying to differ from the crowd here.

Re:Uptight much?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1622826&cid=31891322

Re:Uptight much?

[Von Helmet]

The explanation I heard for the mixed fabric rule was that the two threads will wear and shrink at different rates, so the garment will fall apart and you waste both materials. We've pretty much got around that problem these days though.

Fucking Puritans

[QuantumG]

People have bodies.. get over it.

Sexting is a "phenomena" of prudes having to face the fact that not everyone experiences the same reservations as them about nudity. No-one is forcing them to participate.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[LostCluster]

The puritans seem to have a contradiction between "Protect the kids from the Registered Sex Offenders(tm)" and the fact that religious leaders who are sex-starved by their jobs seem to have a high rate of becoming Registered Sex Offenders(tm).

The anti-child-porn laws of the Republican error er, era are now untouchable because of the "think of the children" defense, but are clearly leading to over protection that doesn't let kids grow up until they're 18... at which point all of their protections lapse and they're not ready to handle that.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[QuantumG]

This has nothing to do with children. The people in that Ad could be 40+ and these idiots would still have a problem with it.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

"at which point all of their protections lapse and they're not ready to handle that."
Dyers Eve

Re:Fucking Puritans

[LostCluster]

All cool new phones are expected to be what the teens want, working age people are told to use Blackberry or other business-aimed PDA/Phones, and grandparents are lucky if they can understand the Jitterbug.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that's fucked up about this is the criminal prosecution of minors for creating child pornography sending it to other minors. In many cases, there would have been no charges if they had just had sex, but I guess minors
sending each other nudies is far worse.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Fucking Puritans



Amusing choice of adjectives.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Jeremi]

Sexting is a "phenomena" of prudes having to face the fact that not everyone experiences the same reservations as them about nudity. No-one is forcing them to participate.

Clearly you've never received a visit from "Mr. Goatse" on your cell. I had to soak mine in bleach for an hour, and Verizon wouldn't honor the warranty after that.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

"Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." - Henry Mencken

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with children...

Ah, but it does. It has everything to do with children. You see, your average 12-14 yro doesn't have the capability to understand that emailing a picture of their privates to a friend is pretty much like standing on a street corner and handing the pictures out to strangers. Those pictures will never go away but might continue to exist practically forever on the net. Those pictures may come back to haunt them.

Kids just can't understand the consequences of their actions and need guidance until they do. That's why we have laws to protect children until they reach a certain age. Makes sense to me.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[pushing-robot]

People have bodies.. get over it.

As the spokesman for the brain-in-vat segment of the Slashdot community, I submit that you are an insensitive clod.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

"at which point all of their protections lapse and they're not ready to handle that..."

...if their parents have not adequately prepared them for life as an adult.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids just can't understand the consequences of their actions and need guidance until they do. That's why we have laws to protect children until they reach a certain age. Makes sense to me.

I hate this term, but: nanny state. Let the kid suffer his own actions. And people wonder why we have skyrocketing spending. We sue children for taking nude photographs of themselves. Does it get any more stupid?

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

If society got rid of the stupid idea that sex/nudity is shameful, no one would care that there's an image of their genitals on the internet somewhere, it won't haunt anyone

Re:Fucking Puritans

[AniVisual]

This has nothing to do with children. The people in that Ad could be 40+ and these idiots would still have a problem with it.

I, too, will have a problem if the breast were 40+ years old.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Mitchell314]

"segment"?

Re:Fucking Puritans

[coastwalker]

I think that the question is more about advertising and the nature of acceptable content in it than the limitations on the freedom of individuals to do what they want. If "sexting" was portrayed in a video labelled as art by society then I think you might have a point. Children are not adults and quite reasonably society implements rules about what advertising aimed, even if indirectly at children can contain. Suing children for taking nude photographs of themselves is a different thing altogether and reflects a broken legal system which has been hijacked by "the puritans".

Re:Fucking Puritans

[makomk]

religious leaders who are sex-starved by their jobs seem to have a high rate of becoming Registered Sex Offenders

Not really. High rate of becoming sex offenders, yes, but they're good at not getting caught...

Re:Fucking Puritans

[sourcerror]

Physical existence is overrated.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[will_die]

So the US should be more like Europe and sell push-up bras for 7 year-olds and stripping poles as toys for teenagers?

Re:Fucking Puritans

[noidentity]

Clearly you've never received a visit from "Mr. Goatse" on your cell. I had to soak mine in bleach for an hour, and Verizon wouldn't honor the warranty after that.

It wasn't because of the bleach that they wouldn't honor the warranty. There's no way to remove all traces of that image. Give up now.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. I’ve done more nasty things than Goatse. Not as “wide”, but also not nothing. So what?
Every man has a prostate. Making your sex better, by including it, does not make you gay.

Also laughing at Goatse, or seeing a guy nude in the shower does not make you gay. (Getting a boner from it, would, though. ^^)
You all just fear that if you don’t go “ewwww!!!”, that someone might thing you’re gay.
Well, get a girlfriend. Also it’s much easier to get her to take it up the ass, if you have no problem with her doing the same to you. ^^

Re:Fucking Puritans

[cbreak]

Fucking Puritans
Amusing choice of adjectives.

The first word is a verb.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[sznupi]

It would seem so, essentially. IMHO forcing people to supress their "unpure" urges has also one, important for the continuity of such communities, mechanism behind it - sexuality is a very powerfull (and normal) force in us; especially at formative years. If one has to subdue it...well, there's a lot of mental twisting with oneself involved, trying to construct internally a reason (outlines of which the community gladly provides). Somebody who passed through this has a chance of honestly valuing what happened (no other choice if wanting to remain sane), standing behind it for the remainder of life, and passing it on.

But examples of happy people who don't share such experience are mighty inconvenient...

Re:Fucking Puritans

[sznupi]

So...few badly thought out, isolated cases vs. ...for example one firmly US phenomena of sexualising, to ridiculous degrees, mainstream teen "musical" acts?

Re:Fucking Puritans

[Bing Tsher E]

Actually the frightening thing is that anybody would think that large numbers of other people would recognize an image of genitals as being theirs. Face recognition it isn't. Yet. Ahem.

Re:Fucking Puritans

[sznupi]

Well, condemning some symptoms of abnormal sexualities, those which most of them don't share anyway, might be a useful way of convincing oneself that your supressed and dysfunctional sexuality is all great.

I'd say that producing induviduals not being able to independently handle life is also useful...

Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

If she was creeped out with the picture I could see where they were coming from, but she wasn't.

The puritans strike again!

Re:Come on

[AlamedaStone]

If she was creeped out with the picture I could see where they were coming from, but she wasn't.

The puritans strike again!

EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.

T.H. White knew it. People who cannot accept pluralism will always despise that which is Other. The only cure is exposure to different cultures early and often. Exposure in an engaging way - not just the Museum of Tolerance method.

Vast portions of the population of the United States of America are huddled clumps of self-confirming societies. Anything that contradicts whatever crazy thing they decide to believe becomes criminal, and everything else is required to be part of the society. It is the source of the culture of ignorance, and unchecked it will become the impetus for the next Dark Age.

Or, you know... Asia will take the lead and drive the world forward into the 22nd century. That's where my money would be if I lived another 100 years to see.

Depends on the man-tit

[Anonymous Coward]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Gynecomastia_001.jpg

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[McGiraf]

-10 gross , i new i should not have clicked this link....

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[Anonymous Coward]

-10 gross , i new i should not have clicked this link....

Perhaps you should click on some links for junior high-school level English writing skills.

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he was still reeling and could not see the keys well enough to type.

PS: Anyone ever do what I do and squint heavily before looking at 'suspect' pictures to block most of it out? I think I learned that move from goatse...

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[PitaBred]

Junior high? I was expected to write better than that in grade school.

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[longhairedgnome]

Nice trolling!

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[longhairedgnome]

o rly?

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[Anonymous Coward]

I look away to the side so that when the picture loads it's just in my peripheral vision.

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[Ihmhi]

For the uninformed, Gynecomastia is the scientific term for abnormally large mammary glands in men, colloquially known as "moobs" or "man titties".

Save your eyes, save your soul - don't click the link.

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[mpeskett]

A native speaker wouldn't say "How do you call".

"How do you say...", or "What do you call...", are correct, but only one of those is what you meant.

Fair point though; native speakers don't learn the language formally, so a lot of grammatical errors are in common use because they match the way that people talk. At some point the rules will probably just be changed (or an exception recognised as correct usage) and so the language evolves, always has done and always will. If it didn't we'd still be using Medieval spelling and grammar.

Re:Depends on the man-tit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, how did you get one of the Kin's?

Bye bye

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody gonna get fired.

Why is this even an issue?

[Securityemo]

Seriously? Is people who think like this a large enough fraction of their market base that they actually feel like they have to appease them?

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[AlamedaStone]

Seriously? Is people who think like this a large enough fraction of their market base that they actually feel like they have to appease them?

The only reason to defend sexting is if you like child pornography. You aren't a ... pedophile... are you?

I mean, think of the children.

The children know that Freedom is what we believe in our hearts to be morally right! And we here in America love our freedom, no matter what some experts would like us to believe! After all, 9/11 happened because they hated our Freedom, so anyone that can't think of the children might as well be terrorists. It's about Family Values.

Family, Faith and Freedom are what separate us and make us the greatest nation in the world!

God Bless America.

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[deniable]

I mean, think of the children.

The Thought Police would like a word with you. Come along please.

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[OrwellianLurker]

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. " ~ Poe

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[clarkkent09]

It would be easier to tell it's a parody if it actually contained some humor instead of mean spirited ranting.

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to upvote you into sarcastic oblivion.

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[russotto]

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. " ~ Poe

There's a corollary which states that "at least one of those someones will be a Fundamentalist who believes in the positions set forth in the parody".

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[AlamedaStone]

It would be easier to tell it's a parody if it actually contained some humor instead of mean spirited ranting.

It would be harder to do a parody if it weren't for humorous mean-spirited ranting.

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you write for FOX News?

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Microsoft. They are idiots. Does Microsoft have another audience?

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Is people who think like this a large enough fraction of their market base that they actually feel like they have to appease them?

The only reason to defend sexting is if you like child pornography. You aren't a ... pedophile... are you?

I mean, think of the children.

The children know that Freedom is what we believe in our hearts to be morally right! And we here in America love our freedom, no matter what some experts would like us to believe! After all, 9/11 happened because they hated our Freedom, so anyone that can't think of the children might as well be terrorists. It's about Family Values.

Family, Faith and Freedom are what separate us and make us the greatest nation in the world!

God Bless America.

My name is Nick.

Are you seriously regurgitating fox news and other AP affiliates with a close minded, ignorant comment like "they didn't like our freedoms so that's why 9/11 happened". ? How f$cking dare you even joke about calling a fellow American a terrorist? That is just as sick as being a pedophile in my book. We are the most greedy, wasteful, self-centered, and politically ignorant group of humans in the world. We waste more food daily than some countries have in a six month period. Stop being so goddamn self rightious! That's goes for eveyone.

Sexting

[MichaelSmith]

Clearly I was a teenager in the wrong millennium.

Re:Sexting

[codepunk]

Why do you dream of being a teen again and your friends sending pictures of man boobies to you?

Re:Sexting

[MichaelSmith]

Why do you dream of being a teen again and your friends sending pictures of man boobies to you?

Well I prefer female boobies, but I doubt I would have been invited anyway.

Re:Sexting

[codepunk]

I had it pretty good in class back in the day, the chicks in class just flat out showed me their junk. Who in the hell wants a picture when you can
see it live.

Re:Sexting

[madpansy]

pics or it didn't happen

Re:Sexting

[feepness]

I dunno. If you're chicks had junk I'm not sure I'm all that envious.

Re:Sexting

[Anonymous Coward]

That is impossible, if you are on /. you can not have possibly seen said "junk" unless it was viewed via a CRT or LCD.. or perhaps some sort of telescopic device.

Re:Sexting

[Anonymous Coward]

I had it pretty good in class back in the day, the chicks in class just flat out showed me their junk. Who in the hell wants a picture when you can see it live.

Who in the hell cares about seeing a flat chest? Live or otherwise.

Re:Sexting

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in the hell cares about seeing a flat chest? Live or otherwise.

Paedophiles?

Re:Sexting

[Philip_the_physicist]

You're on /., there's no right millennium for those like us. :)

Re:Sexting

[Anonymous Coward]

you're = you are.
"If you are chicks had junk..."
You should go back to school too.

Re:Sexting

[MichaelSmith]

I think I am entitled to ask you for your geek card back.

Re:Sexting

[mjwx]

I dunno. If you're chicks had junk I'm not sure I'm all that envious.

There are places in the world where it is not all that uncommon.

It could have been worse

[$RANDOMLUSER]

They could have shown the Blue Balls Of Death.

Re:It could have been worse

[Jedi Alec]

Oi, there's nothing funny about blue balls. *cringes at memory*

This commercial

[codepunk]

Never mind the MOOBS this commercial is worse than the one with Bill wiggling his ass. You can tell some 70's Microsoft Hippie Chick manager wrote and produced it, total fail.

Re:This commercial

[Dhalka226]

Why? Have you ever heard the saying "all publicity is good publicity?"

I'm not going that far, but for creating a "controversial" ad likely on the cheap they have half the Internet talking about it and their product, one way or another. My exposure to the Kin is now one TV commercial and one Internet conversation on Slashdot. One cost them a little money and one was completely free.

I don't know if it was intentional. I doubt it matters. The reality is they just got hundreds of thousands of dollars of free advertising as everybody on the Internet and half the people on conventional "news" programs mention their product's name. Free.

Total fail? No.

Re:This commercial

[enter to exit]

I actually thought the ad was decent compared to MSs usual crap. Remember the abysmally shameful win7 party ads?

A bunch of late teens - early 20s dancing to catchy carefree music...actually that sounds very familar...suddenly i want to fondle my ipod, can't think why.

Re:This commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple much?

Whats the Problem?

[drolli]

I mean it wouldnt be something I do, but both persons involved seem to be grown-ups, in a perfectly concious state, and it seems to be funny to both (for whatever reason). To me the complete scene is as cryptic as the idea why i would buy a phone from Microsoft; maybe this is just to show that the phone does not have real features going beyond an arbitrary cameraphone from 5years ago (but *with touch*). Overall the video seems to aim at people around 25 i would say.

So i dont understand if that is "sexting", i dont understand what the word exactly means (it seems diffuse), i dont see why i would complain about adults (male or female) sending pictures of breasts to other adults (as long as both sides are fine with it). But i think nodoby should complain by depicting seemingly funny things in an advertisement, even if the people in it act highly irrational.

I am actually more annoyed by advertisments still exhibiting old gender role models.

Re:Whats the Problem?

[dangitman]

Yeah, what I'm puzzled about is what the ad is supposed to mean, and why I'm supposed to want the phone because of it, not because of some exposed nipples.

Re:Whats the Problem?

[Midnight Thunder]

The other problem with sexting, is that it is somehow a sex crime to send a photo of yourself to someone who may already have seen you naked. To get labelled a sex offender is rediculous. It almost as bad attempted suicide being warrant for being charged with attempted murder!? Is there no sense of perpective or context in the justice system?

Re:Whats the Problem?

[RazorSharp]

I am actually more annoyed by advertisments still exhibiting old gender role models.

I'm more annoyed by commercials which exhibit NEW gender role models. You know, the ones also on display in practically ever sitcom, where the man plays the role of the adorable puppy dog -- always outwitted and outsmarted by his female counterpart (owner) who is so gracious enough to take care of him because they find his bumbling machoism somehow endearing.

What's worse is race roles on television. Notice how in a commercial/show with a white guy and black guy the dumb comments are always reserved for the white guy and the black guy always has an "edgy" way to reiterate.

I hate most PC-values because they're so detached from reality. If you were to learn about America by watching our commercials you'd think that we are 50% black and that women are the dominant gender.

With this Kin add I kind of understand why people are upset. This thing was codenamed "Pink" b/c it was designed for tween girls, so the implication in the advertisement is pretty obvious. As dumb as commercials are, these little nit-picky details (just like the race and sex roles) are thought out extensively by the marketing companies who produce them. I don't think it's unlikely that they were intentionally trying to appeal to teenagers who are into the "sexting" crap. The whole reason the guy taking that picture is supposed to be funny is because it's reversing the gender roles. But it doesn't seem to be funny for funny's sake. It's clearly saying "this phone is great for taking pictures of boobs and then sending them to all the contacts in your phone." They're marketing to teenagers so that's a problem in my book.

Re:Whats the Problem?

[drolli]

I am not exactly sure whats your problem; but there seem to be a lot of feelings of inferiority involved.

Easy share, easy go...

[LostCluster]

The Kin series of phone seems to be all about easy sharing with a green button dedicated to that called the "Kin Spot"... but well, that can be taken the wrong way, can't it?

Re:Easy share, easy go...

[gmhowell]

The "Kin Spot" is a myth, an urban legend.

Re:Easy share, easy go...

[gmhowell]

The "Kin Spot" is a myth, an urban legend. (And again with the Slashbugs)

Re:Easy share, easy go...

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of T-mobile's "T-zones" which is where you go when you want to buy software for your phone. Loosely construed it sounds like a portion of the anatomy.

"Oh yeah, that's my T-zone, baby. mmm... lower."

Sexting with kin?

[bipbop]

Sexting with kin? Now your incest can have more manboobular visuals? What?

Re:Sexting with kin?

[codepunk]

Mod this one up that is some funny shit.

Re:Sexting with kin?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

This could explain a lot of things about Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer.

Re:Sexting with kin?

[deniable]

They're going to have to upgrade the cell service in some rural areas.

Turnabout is fair play

[hessian]

Send pictures of your dong to Microsoft now!

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[deniable]

Careful, they might send back some of my responses to their 'Customer Satisfaction Surveys.'

Who $#%ing cares?

[IrritableBeing]

Seriously? Who here would have even thought twice about the commercial if this was not pointed out?

Have these knit pickers not seen Victoria's Secret commercials lately? Sexy broads strutting around in bras and thongs. You would think THOSE commercials, which are actually boner inducing, would get some kind of flack. Nah, but a fat Asian's nipple.. now that's crossing the line.

Kin Mobile

[codepunk]

With Kin Mobile you can share pictures with your Kin of your Moobs using the new iMoob app.

Re:Kin Mobile

[shutdown -p now]

You misspelled "Moob Live". ~

This keeps happening

[Gadget_Guy]

I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.

I am sure that if nobody complained then the ad executives would plant their own complaints in the news just to get people to talk about it. How many times do you hear news reports about people being outraged without ever saying who those people are. I imagine that it is rare to need to resort to doing their own complaints, because the people who get offended by this are so predictably vocal. And who cares if you piss them off, because the target market are young people who think sexting is OK and who would be quite happy to rebel against the prudes.

Re:This keeps happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah hah, Fox News... "CRITICS claim that bla bla bla..."

Re:This keeps happening

[clarkkent09]

I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.

That's exactly what I thought. As far as I can tell it was ONE blogger who only said that there was something a bit creepy about the ad. Nobody would have noticed or cared until MS publicly withdrew the ad and apologized, at which point every single news outlet picked up the story in a way that's mostly sympathetic to MS and its new phone. Whether it was accidental or deliberate it worked out pretty well for Microsoft.

Re:This keeps happening

[je ne sais quoi]

Whether it was accidental or deliberate it worked out pretty well for Microsoft.

Did it? When I thought when I read the summary was -- how insipid, MS is trying to be cool again but its efforts just make it seem weird or even creepy. But then again I'm an "old geezer" who remembers when the command line was all you had. Most of the market seems to agree with me though, with the exception of a dip here and there, MS stock has been flat since about 2000. We shall see if the "sexting with your kin" will be any cooler "squirting with your zune". I'm guessing not. (See other comments in this thread about the obvious jokes sexting with your kin brings up.)

Re:This keeps happening

[Deliveranc3]

Yea, who cares about a specific model. What's up with Android?

Thanks a lot Consumer Reports

[mswhippingboy]

Had they not raised the issue of sexting in this commercial, I probably would never even have noticed it.
Maybe it's just me, the only value I see in commercials like that is that it gives me a minute to walk to the fridge for another beer.

It's a teen phone.

[symbolset]

Guppies.

Re:It's a teen phone.

[shutdown -p now]

Where in the article does it say that it is about teens? So far, all marketing materials I've seen have actors who look early-20ish or so.

Re:It's a teen phone.

[symbolset]

Generation upload is what a group of corporations is trying to brand the youth generation of today. It's a take on the user-generated content of Web 2.0. Link. It's a kid phone. Just look at the Kin 1. Does it look like a grown-up's phone?

Re:It's a teen phone.

[sznupi]

Well, you know what teens want to do? That's right, things which early-20ish people do.

Advertising

[raving griff]

This product's entire line of advertising has rubbed me the wrong way. When I first saw an ad for a Kin online, I didn't yet know what it was. All I saw was your typical dating-site ad woman accompanied by a caption saying "Could you be friends with someone you don't even know?" So my first impressions? That it was a dating site. I don't see future advertisements getting much better.

Way to go, OP

[Improv]

That phrasing made a relatively dull topic seem awkward enough that reading it could neuter a rabbit. It's a good thing rabbits can't read.

Reverse Streisand effect?

[jamesh]

I'd never even heard of the 'Kin Phone' until just now... is Slashdot being assimilated into the Microsoft marketing machine?

Re:Reverse Streisand effect?

[Some.Net(Guy)]

The funniest part about the KIN phone is that their website was built in Flash! http://www.kin.com/

Re:Reverse Streisand effect?

[jamesh]

Hehehe... i'm still not looking at it though :p

Hmm...

[Some.Net(Guy)]

If this is sexting, what do you call what Tiger was doing?

"our society"?

[NotQuiteReal]

If you are trying to point out how fucked up the USA is about this kind of stuff, just remember there are worse prudes in the world.

Re:"our society"?

[Your.Master]

Just because society B is far more ridiculous than society A, does not mean society A is not itself ridiculous.

Re:"our society"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but those prudes aren't hypocrites who act like the only bastion of freedom in the world.

Re:"our society"?

[Anonymous Coward]

those prudes aren't hypocrites - true, they outright say, in their holy book, to kill non-believers.

Typical

[grayshirtninja]

Just another weird-ass Microsoft ad.

Amused women?

[lightspeedius]

Noooooooooooooooooeeeeessss!!!!

DOING IT WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

You send people pictures of your boobs if you are a woman... girlintraining doesn't count, BTW.

If you are a man, you stick the phone down your pants and take a picture of your package.

Depth of focus

[Animats]

I'm impressed that their phone can focus that close. The original iPhone has a minimum focusing distance of about 1 meter. Later autofocus versions get down to 10cm. Does the Kim camera have autofocus? They don't mention it.

The Kim site says "pictures are simulated". Right.

Black man and white woman kissing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Toward the end of the video (ad) there is a black man and white woman kissing.

Back when I was young that would have been the controversy, not a white dudes nipple.

So from that point of view I think we are making progress.

Re:Black man and white woman kissing...

[Nazlfrag]

One step forwards, two steps back is not progress.

Creepy?

[tomthepom]

Creepy? Really? What exactly is 'creepy' about it?
Unless you mean 'likely to make a large section of the population feel uneasy because they've been cowed into a pathetic state of guilt and self-censorship in the face of a narrow-minded and hypocritical moral hysteria of a small minority'. Yeh you're right, that is creepy.
 

MS gets human needs

[AHuxley]

Showing the pleasure you cannot have with an ipad.
The world has moved to an audio and visual level and expects it anytime, anywhere.
We have the software, hardware and bandwidth, so lets have fun.
Why wait for a US telco or "Jobs" to understand that people like to reach out and relate in both the visual and emotional?.
MS could have done it in a more nudge nudge way, but when has MS ever really understood marketing beyond a tool of market control.
But for buzz and a way better than Apple hardware offereing - a real win :)

Apple and MS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is showing us a new way to get WORK done and increase productivity...MS is showing us how to make asses out of ourselves.

Give me a f*cking break

[hyades1]

A young guy's bare titty! Oh, my god, save me from Satan's hordes! Will somebody please tell fundamentalcase Americans and all the castrated, ass-kissing business drones who are afraid of them to go fuck themselves? Nobody seems to have much of a problem with 29 miners who died because of corporate greed, but some nimrod who sticks his cellphone camera under his shirt causes squeals and apologies from the corporate community? A lot of people are badly in need of a pimp-slap, and most of them are wearing suits.

Re:Give me a f*cking break

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a pretty young guy then, since there was no hair anywhere in that pic...

Poe's Law

[jeko]

Sheesh, gimme a smilie or something. I'm lost in Poe's Law on this post.

At first glance

[Anonymous Coward]

I though it said "Microsoft Quickly Releases "Sexting" Ap For Kin Phone"

Dumb ad

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb ad, but nothing worth crying over. I don't view this as some crisis regarding our values in a society - I view this as an ad pointing out you can take pictures...of your man tits if you really wish to. Because of course - THAT is what I'm going to take pictures of. Who cares about man chest? It's perfectly legal to jog down the street shirtless if you're male - so why be ashamed, appalled, or offended?

self pedophiling

[NicknamesAreStupid]

In some states doing something like this could be construed as "sexual relations with a minor" (i.e., yourself). Theoretically, that could land you in jail for 5-10 years and forever be labeled a pedophile.

'Sex' once meant intercourse whereby the female could be impregnated. Now it can mean anything, including petting, phone sex, Internet sex, and sexting using SMS. Someday, it might mean alluding to sex through indirect references such as these. Eventually, it might even mean any arousal of the autonomic nervous system. You may someday get busted for having a wet dream. I am sure that will never happen until, of course, it does happen.

Re:self pedophiling

[Urza9814]

In some states doing something like this could be construed as "sexual relations with a minor" (i.e., yourself). Theoretically, that could land you in jail for 5-10 years and forever be labeled a pedophile.

Yea....except the people in this commercial appear to be in their mid-20s....

Re:Microsoft Reminds Me Of ... Wait for it! ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot troll: Are you one of the niggers?

Ethanol-fueled: Sad, so sad. A host of bad karma...and you are one of them. Like you, I too am filled with bad karma. This world is one of bad karma. Slurs invite trolling. Trolling brings bad karma. The participants...may not see them. Trolls' posts...may fall upon blind eyes. But make no mistake - the trolls are not silent. Now you will know the bad karma of the discussions you have destroyed.

Quick edit?

[Stan Vassilev]

prompting a quick edit and an apologetic tweet.

How quick was it? Was it so quick, that you'd think they had the edit prepared in advance, just waiting for the "outrage"?
Come on guys, those are old, old tricks.

So, anyway, Microsoft have a new mobile device again with a hip ad again, awkward name again, that's trying to compete with a similar device from Apple again. Best of luck to them.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Re:Quick edit?

[jmac_the_man]

So, anyway, Microsoft have a new mobile device again with a hip ad again, awkward name again, that's trying to compete with a similar device from Apple again. Best of luck to them.

Kin is a word in the English language. I'm not sure that counts as awkward. The phone in question is a feature (i.e. non-smart) phone. It's connected to Twitter, Facebook, and a few other similar social networks all the time. Other than that, there's no apps. This isn't a phone for nerds, its a phone for teenagers to send Facebook pictures to their "BFF." Apple does not make a device in this space. This phone is competing with the free phone your carrier will give you.

And the ad is about a guy taking pictures of his chest. Does that sound hip to you?

Re:Quick edit?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the ad is about a guy taking pictures of his chest. Does that sound hip to you?

Guess he should've taken a photo of his hip.

Re:Quick edit?

[east coast]

Yeah, because Apple lead the charge in mobile devices long before MS.

Oh... wait!

Re:Quick edit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think Microsoft led any sort of development in mobile devices? Maybe if you mean "led everyone off in the direction of fail"?

And perhaps you've never heard of the Apple Newton? Or RIM or Palm or any of the companies who have *actually* innovated and led the "charge" (more like slog) in mobile devices.

Re:Quick edit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah yeah. Another Anti-MS troll. Yawn. I never said they were the first but they had and have much more going on in mobile than Apple. Apple may have the sales numbers but when it comes down to a wide selection of mobile devices Apple ain't shit compared to MS.

Moral panic, or simply false advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, what Consumer Reports _should_ have been attacking is the misleading suggestion that the Kin's camera has advanced low-light capabilities that allow it to take a clear picture of a breast while shrouded by a shirt in a dark club.

Otherwise, as a firm believer in the literal honesty of all marketing, I might be horribly disappointed when my new Kin (purchased for that express purpose, based on watching the commercial) failed to snap crystal clear naked photos of my neighbor when I held it up to her darkened bedroom window in the middle of the night.

This is clearly grounds for a class action suit on behalf of peeping toms everywhere.

I'm glad they take sexting seriously

[theY4Kman]

...because no one else will.

Off to a great start

[WiiVault]

As if the lack of IM or apps didn't get it off to a bad enough start. And not I don't care, but the parents that buy these things for the kiddies likely will.

Are tits scaring?

[Tei]

I can't get over the idea of people so sexually represed that think the video is scaring.
Ok, it has some really minor sexual potential.

But people have sex.

Yes, people, some people fuck with other people. Sending some tits is just something that happends.

"OH THE HORROR!."

Is the real world. The people that get scared about this, still have a 4 years old mind.

Re:Are tits scaring?

[maxwell demon]

Ok, it has some really minor sexual potential.

It has?
I was watching it, wondering where the "sexting" happens. I couldn't find out after I've read the description. And even then, I just rationally know which scene they meant, I cannot manage to see anything sexual there.
But maybe that's because I'm not American. Probably Americans are trained from the early childhood to see something sexual in anything which involves skin, with the possible exception of face or hand skin.

Why is this an issue?

[jevring]

Why the moral panic? So what if people see some breasts? Male or female. I don't get why this is even an issue.

Microsoft's 'kin mobile phone project

[itsdapead]

Microsoft's Kin mobile phone project

Hate to be a 'kin grammar Nazi but there's a 'kin apostrophe missing there (to indicate missing letters - actually there should be one after as well, but that looks silly and the "g" is usually silent anyway).

As in: "'kin hell, some 'kin perv has sent me a 'kin picture of his 'kin moob! Ugh, its 'kin mingin'!"

They've failed to 'kin notice that, but they're worried about 'kin man tits?

(Plus, Kin Sexting sounds a bit incestuous...)

(To appease Pratchett fans, perhaps the next Android phone will be the "-ing"...)

Re:Microsoft's 'kin mobile phone project

[Anonymous Coward]

(Plus, Kin Sexting sounds a bit incestuous...)

(To appease Pratchett fans, perhaps the next Android phone will be the "-ing"...)

Hey, the REAL Pratchett fans are already happy with Kin.

No dongs please

[itsdapead]

Send pictures of your dong to Microsoft now!

Probably won't work - I'm sure that the Kin will detect those yellow dots they put on banknotes and refuse to take the picture. I expect even Vietnam have adopted them by now.

(Disclaimer: this is a joke based on the fact that us westerners think the name of the Vietnamese currency is funny. If you find yellow spots on the other sort of dong, please seek medical advice).

Which gives me a brilliant idea! Soccer moms of the world!! Get your sprogs' privates tattooed with yellow dots and no nasty pervert will ever be able to take photos or print pictures of them!!!

Hang on - I need to call the patent office...

The "Junk"-Phone - the "MJ"phone ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awkward name? You had me wondering for a while, but I did have a shiver run down my back when I first heard the name. Couldn't work it out...

And just now - brain fart !!! Excellent ! So, like when we trained in Karate years ago, I'm sure we had a kick called "kin geri". Which, IIRC, means "groin kick".

Touché, MS - you too funny for words...

No-one is forcing them to participate.

[Joce640k]

Well...nobody except Microsoft who's broadcasting stuff like this.

I wasn't bothered by the 'nudity', it just seemed stupid - some brainless advertiser having a 'giggle' but ending up looking stupid and ruining the ad (which wasn't exactly brilliant in the first place).

Re:No-one is forcing them to participate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to Apple much?

Maybe we've been going wrong about SETI

[Moraelin]

You know, though, it occurs to me that as soon as you give people some way of communicating, it will become used for sex. As soon as humans discovered how to make a mud figurine, it ended up a mis-shapen female with disproportionate breasts. And I'd suspect that one day we'll discover that writing in Mesopotamia did not evolve out of pictures of wares on inventory tags, but out of trying to draw boobs on a clay tablet.

Gives me an idea. Forget SETI and warp drives, just make a giant drawing like this somewhere:

(.Y.)

You'll have some lonely teenager Vulcan crashing into it before it's even finished.

Re:Maybe we've been going wrong about SETI

[smartr]

I guess this explains why all aliens have cow fetishes and like to do rectal probings... Just think what would happen if we sent them goatse...

sexting with your kin?

[Anonymous Coward]

sexting with your kin? That's something only Microsoft 'Research' could have thought of.

Re:sexting with your kin?

[fbjon]

Eventually it'll progress to phone-sex with your kin. And before you know it, someone's hacked it, and you'll be forking little baby processes with your kin. A rather incestuous device, it seems.

if only the guy were cute...

[Anonymous Coward]

they should have picked a good-looking model

Re:if only the guy were cute...

[maxwell demon]

they should have picked a good-looking model

You're right, the phone model they used isn't good-looking. They shouldn't have used a Kin for that. :-)

Why do they hate sexting?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:
"We take sexting very seriously, & are sorry it happened."

Well, what the hell is wrong with sexting?

I try hard

[jprupp]

I try hard to understand what's wrong with the commercial. What's the problem with Americans and sex?. Get over religion or you're going to go crazier.

The point

[wisnoskij]

While the ad only showed a mans chest, that is not the point of the controversy.
The point is that the ad was basically advocating sexting.

I am pretty sure no one was mad about the ad containing a males chest.

Re:The point

[DaveV1.0]

No, it wasn't and the fact that you and them believe it does shows your immaturity and the fact that you are uncomfortable with the human body.

Grow the fuck up, people.

Re:The point

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with sexting? It seems to be done by sombre adults in the ad.

Re:The point

[Xyrus]

I fail to see what the problem with sexting is. If consenting adults wish to send pornography to each other I could really give a rat's ass less.

"Think of the children!"

I am. I'm thinking about how idiotic selfish parents are so consumed by their own lives that they don't bother to raise their own children anymore. Instead, they repeatedly try to legislate their version of morality onto the rest of population so that it's "one less thing they have to worry about".

Worried about sexting? Don't get a phone with those capabilities for your kid.

~X~

Re:The point

[RazorSharp]

No, it wasn't and the fact that you and them believe it does shows your immaturity and the fact that you are uncomfortable with the human body.

Grow the fuck up, people.

When the phone was announced Microsoft said its target market was teenagers. Would you want your teenage daughter to be so comfortable with her body that everyone at her high school has her tits on their phone?

If this weren't a cellphone commercial with teenagers as the target market there would be no controversy, but it is. The whole point of the advertisement is to showcase the device's capabilities and about the only thing they do with it is take a picture of a guy's chest and send it out. The clear implication is that the phone is great for "sexting."

Re:The point

[mr_da3m0n]

See, I don't get this. People so far either don't get this at all, or get the idea that it represented sexting.

I didn't see an instance of sexting, or something advocating it. I saw some guy going WAIT THAT WILL BE FUNNY! and some girl on the receiving end going Oh you~ Haha!

In other words, I think the ad was meant to endorse goofing around with friends via the magical commodity that is the internet. Not e-tit-flashing for sexual porposes, at all.

However, it seems that somehow, some assholes decided it meant "you can do sexting on our device, easier" and somehow a boatload of people went "OH SO THAT'S WHAT IT MEANT!" and assumed it was offensive.

I'm not defending the ad, it's horribly cryptic with weird music, not to my liking at all. But to me it just highlighted how the device could integrate in your daily life of fun and goofing around -- that is, if the video is representative of your daily life of fun and goofing around. Not sure who the target market is.

Re:The point

[DaveV1.0]

If you raise your daughter right, you don't have to worry about it. But, apparently, you are too busy to actually be a parent so you are relying on the government and outrage groups to do it for you.

If you are too busy thinking of yourself and your life to properly raise a child, you shouldn't have children. Stop being selfish and childish and start being a parent.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you fucking kidding me?

Only in the US

[simondm]

I cannot believe there has been an outcry about this, honestly only in America could that be considered remotely innapropriate. I remember a long time ago in the UK when mobiles were just getting really popular there was an advert (I cant remember the network, sorry) for a phone where a couple kept sending each other texts that were obviously suggestive and then got home and immediately jumped on each other.

The tagline then went: "Get the flirting done before you get home" or similar.

And the UK is probably more reserved about this sort of thing on TV than the rest of Europe. It just makes me laugh when you pride yourself for beeing 'free' unlike the 'terrorists'.

Microsoft releases world's dumbest smartphone

[David Gerard]

Microsoft has unveiled its new Zune One and Zune Two mobile phones for unusually stupid social-networking enthusiasts in their late teens and early twenties with a higher income than their IQ.

Team leader Roz Ho said the company had tried to create a Microsoft gadget that people actually wanted to have, like the XBox 360, but that actually worked properly.

"Get your Friendster and your MySpace!" said Ms Ho. "We studied consumer habits and built the perfect phone for the, uh, 'social generation,'" she air-quoted, "to make it 'fab' and 'bling' — I mean, of course, 'Bing!' — for people too dumb to work an iPhone to share their lives moment to moment."

The handset is of simple design for simple people. The keyboard engages caps lock at random and interjects common "chat" acronyms like "LOL" and "OMG" and "RTFM" should too many words in a row be spelt correctly. A breathalyzer automatically switches on the video camera in the event of excessive alcohol consumption so that the skin tone detection algorithm can send the user's breasts to her entire address book. As well as the usual daily crashes, the Blue Screen of Death can be invoked by the user so as to have a suitable excuse not to answer a text. Later revisions of the phone may include making voice calls.

"We are excited to be the exclusive carrier for this exciting new Microsoft phone in the exciting US," said John Harrobin, Senior Vice President of Paperclip Filing, Morning Drunkenness and Excited Press Release Quotes at Verizon Wireless. "Because we fucking hate you people. We really do."

Roz Ho was previously leader of the Microsoft team that lost all the data on everyone's T-Mobile Sidekick phones last year when the systems team was told not to bother with backups.

TITS OR GTFO

[hpycmprok]

In case it hasn't been said yet.

Tits or GTFO.

Who cares?

[neural_jam]

I don't see why they have to pussy foot around trying not to offend people in the first place... so what if I just offended you, it's not like I've impaired your ability to continue breathing in any way, get over it..! This has always annoyed me... free speech unless I don't like what you're saying..!

SEX is BAD!

[Philip K Dickhead]

Ask the Pope.

Now, go kill us some more afghans and ay-rabs.

Education vs jail

[Midnight Thunder]

The problem with I have are some of the rediculous sentences that are given to people caught sexting. The punishments are often life damaging, since they tend to be exessive, especially at an age when the kids depend so much on their education. Sexting is usually done by teenagers socialising with each other. Their notion of social interaction may be different from their parents and the first punishment, if any should be a warning and not jail time. The problem we have is not sexting teens, but adults who are so bent on destroying lives to make a point. If anyone these are the people who should be jailed for damaging actions in society and for supporting the jail system, instead of the education system.

Re:Education vs jail

[sznupi]

Haven't it ever crossed your mind that perhaps too significant portion of adults secretly (or more preciselly even not admitting it to themselves) hates adolescents? "Oh, so you think you can have it better than we did?! And while at it you have the nerve of emanating with your youth around us, now that our has long passed?!"

File Under: Stupid

[njfuzzy]

A man's "breast" is not sexual FFS. He was being dopey, pulling a third-grade prank, with no sexual undertones.

America...

[Hurricane78]

Where clearly nobody wants so “sext”, think or talk about, watch or have sex. ;)))

Man, I wish the US media and especially the fundamentalists driving this, finally would have their coming out, and admit that they love every single second related to sex. Especially women. ^^

And MS: Way to go, removing you only selling point. ^^

Re:America...

[Hurricane78]

P.S.:
1. In before grammar Nazis, pointing out my obvious typo. :)
2. In before humanoid ice blocks, complaining about me showing and emotions at all (in emoticon form). :P

Egads, WTF...

[Just Brew It!]

Much ado about nothing. It is ridiculous that anyone -- let alone someone at a major national publication -- would over-react like this.

To the editorial staff at Consumer Reports: I cancelled my subscription a few years ago; I was actually thinking about starting it up again, but on second thought never mind. Your job is to provide unbiased reviews of consumer products, not pass prudish, Puritanical moral judgments on an innocent and harmless ad.

To Microsoft: Nice try, but it still won't convince the "cool kids" that you're actually cool. Especially when you cave to someone like Consumer Reports that easily. Better luck next time.

He was showing his HEART

[BoppreH]

Am I the only who thought he was showing his HEART, not his "boobs"?

Re:He was showing his HEART

[mr_stinky_britches]

> Am I the only who thought he was showing his HEART, not his "boobs"?

Yes, you were the only one to think that. Congratulations on being ..unique.. and special.

OMG TFT tweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft demonstrated an incredible degree of responsibility by tweeting. That truly demonstrates the company's sincerity and strength of commitment. not.

Take a trip to Bangkok, Thailand

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just surf around the net. You'll soon change your tune!

Bad Description

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clearly not just a picture of a man's breast. If you watch the video you can easily see that it is in fact a picture of the entirety of his beautiful torso, chest (both nipples), abs, and all.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLSHIT.

The only charges that were ever pressed for "sexting" were thrown out or downgraded within a few days, and those who actually bothered to counter-sue won the case against the prosecutor; the judge in one case actually declared that parents had a constitutional right to block such charges and press charges against the prosecutor if they wished to. Unsurprisingly, "sexting" charges have plummeted since then, now that they're no longer an easy way for prosecutors to raise their statistics.

'kin oath

[Flere Imsaho]

I don't 'kin see what the 'kin fuss is about.

Newsflash

[cyclomedia]

Everyone* on the planet has breasts and nipples. The two types of trouser monster are distributed half and half*. Everyone* who's undergone puberty has sex, usually for fun. One day everyone's naked pictures and sex stories will be on the internet and no one will care anymore, it might put a bunch of celebrity papparazi out of business because no one's career will be ruined because of naked videos or pictures because it wont be a big deal. Eventually.

* Approximate values.

So they acknowledge

[geekoid]

how people use the device.
If this bothers you, then grow up.

lets be honest

[jben21]

The phone will probably be used for sexting anyways. It's what people do. Why not allow the ads to show what people will be using the product for?