Slashdot Mirror


Tinder Bans Most Teens (gizmodo.com)

Tinder says it will stop allowing users aged 13 to 17 to use its app starting next week. The dating app has allowed users in the aforementioned age range to match within their age group since 2012. Gizmodo reports: The change makes sense given Tinder's status as a hookup app, its features that make it easier to find orgies, and various age-of-consent laws that could potentially land the company in hot water if anything involving a minor goes wrong. It likely won't be too hard to get around the restriction, and might just involve changing your birthday on Facebook.

132 comments

  1. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now all the 13 year olds will be on there claiming to be 19.

    1. Re:Great by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "I swear, officer, she said she was 19" will get a lot more credible now even for people who're caught with a girl that has no tits...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Great by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      "I swear, officer, she said she was 19" will get a lot more credible now even for people who're caught with a girl that has no tits...

      Clearly you have not seen a lot of nude 13 year old chicks...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HA! With all the GMOs and growth hormones in those McDonalds burgers, girls are getting tits when they're 8! By the time she's 19, she will look 35.

    4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That little who're.

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

      Dude, you wat?

      There was a girl in my class at school that had, STILL HAS, tits bigger than my mother when she was the age of 14. Several of them actually.
      My cousin was another one of those types as well, and she even used it to blackmail guys in to giving her money on threat of screaming "pedo". Yes, these people actually exist. It is incredibly prevalent now.
      She then hilariously tried to steal money from a lawyer firm and run away. She was not the brightest, and the whole family disowned her because she was stealing from us too. Legit scrub of a human.

      Yet there are some adults right up there in the 40s with incredibly small if any tits. Banned in Australia. Adults literally banned from nudity in Australia. Hilarious.
      Not even manly women either, full-on girly girl stereotypes, just no tits.

      Did you actually go to school? Or just pop in to existence one day? Jesus, is that you? When's the end coming?

    6. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay mister I'm pretty sure posts like that get you on some kind of list. Or at least I hope they do.

    7. Re:Great by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly you have not seen a lot of nude 13 year old chicks...

      And neither should you.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:Great by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

      Clearly you have not seen a lot of nude 13 year old chicks...

      I believe Chris Hanson would like a word with you...

    9. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a seat over there

    10. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it's the GMOs. Has absolutely nothing to do with improved nutrition at all. In fact, I hear proximity to GMOs is what causes it, that's why even girls on non-GMO farms that only eat their own food get them early, because there's someone in their country eating GMOs. 100% truth, I tell you.

    11. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or 20-something asian women.

    12. Re:Great by axewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's nothing wrong with nudity you brainwashed little nerd. Unlike you, not everyone is conditioned to blow their load at the sight of a nude woman, so not everyone is afraid of developing some kind of preternatural affection toward immature girls by happening to see one without clothes on.
      God I hate that people like you have kids. Neurosis may be common (and thereby justifiable to weak-minded fools like you) but it is not good.

    13. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows it's not the GMOs, it's the estrogen in BPA which is in just about everything.

    14. Re:Great by M1m3R · · Score: 1

      if/when some of these "kids" have their own 13y/o daughters, they will think differently.

      funny how we old people have clear lines about nudity and age.

      --
      m1m3r - n. - a leet speak performance artist that sometimes gets trapped in an imaginary glass box
    15. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the very high levels of estrogen in the food, not GMOs. Weirdly enough, it's actually true and not just bullshit even though it does sounds crazy.

    16. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it trolling if they have a point? GMO is an irrational boogeyman that hasn't even been seriously accused of causing early puberty. It's hormones in meat that is usually blamed for that.

    17. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even for people who're caught with a girl that has no tits...

      Ah, I see we have our Asian hating racist here already.

    18. Re:Great by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Shouldn't I take them to the sauna? I'm sure Finland will disagree. Shouldn't we go to the "natural" camping where nudity is normal and standard? Germany and large parts of the Dutch population would disagree. Why should I saddle my daughters with nudity taboos they have little use for, other than to be aware of where they are and how to respond to the neurotic ideas of the people around them?

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    19. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source?

    20. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >There was a girl in my class at school that had, STILL HAS, tits bigger than my mother when she was the age of 14. Several of them actually

      Did you go to school with a cow?

    21. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You obviously have not had the privilege of living in european area that has many north african refugees/immigrants, otherwise I don't think you'd be so cavalier about "saddling" your daughters with nudity taboos.

    22. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet there are some adults right up there in the 40s with incredibly small if any tits. Banned in Australia. Adults literally banned from nudity in Australia. Hilarious.

      Bull. Shit.

      One politician proposing a ban does not make it law, you fucking moron.

    23. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a girl that has no tits...

      That doesn't stop her having a well-rounded, adult arse, which most men notice.

      Everyone notices big breasts. To all other mammals, breasts mean "I'm not a virgin". To humans, they mean "I like fucking", where schoolgirls can't join in. Saying she's not responsible is not equal to men pretending that her child-bearing hips and breasts don't mean anything. Unfortunately, modern society tells itself the opposite.

    24. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... She then hilariously tried to steal money from a lawyer firm and run away.

      Teenagers who get too much limelight, and like your story suggests, it tends to be schoolgirls with natural, umm, talents, develop psychopathic personalities.

      People like to think that sports, pets, and sexual acts define our character. I think they reveal our character. How we handle the world is defined mostly around the ages 4-6 years. It's after that age, that children want to meet other people. The teenage years requires us to learn many social skills where success depends greatly on those toddler years plus parental support through the teenage years. We grow apart from our parents because they spend less, if any, time being supportive teachers, than being judgmental parents.

    25. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      estrogen, BPA, GMO... same difference. There's no reason to distinguish one from the other. If you all wanna grow old in 15 years and need supplements, catheters, and suppositories afterwards, go nuts.

    26. Re: Great by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Sadly, no.

    27. Re:Great by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      The better question is: Where exactly have you? Outside of Nude beaches that tends to lead to much swickly illegal things.

    28. Re:Great by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      I was with you until the banning. Are you suggesting that short petite youthful faced women with a cups are banned from nudity in australia because they might look under age? Seriously?
      I need a link to the law please.

    29. Re:Great by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Or just use Roman Polanski's excuse: she was willing and able

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    30. Re: Great by davester666 · · Score: 1

      List of politicians maybe. Or priests if you are Catholic (as a bonus, you get to see the world, going from one parish to another).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    31. Re:Great by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Unless they are a doctor?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    32. Re:Great by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Or unless the poster is a doctor...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    33. Re:Great by jandrese · · Score: 1

      There is very little intersection between medical doctors and people who call young women "chicks".

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    34. Re:Great by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You don't know a lot of doctors...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Great by danbert8 · · Score: 1
      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    36. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither should you.

      When I was 12-13 I tried hitting on teachers but struck out and had to settle for girls my own age (well OK, close to my own age, the one with a drivers license was amazing).

      But thanks for injecting your Christian self-righteousness.

    37. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMOs are absolutely a part of it, but the broader term would be "American diet." A life of eating junk food means you hit your peak in your mid to late 20s and it's all downhill from there.

    38. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo momma got no tits.

    39. Re:Great by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      No, but they are banned in porn in Australia.

    40. Re:Great by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      The only doctors that would be seeing naked 13 yr olds would be gynos.

    41. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMO.. hormones... Who the fuck cares?! It makes no difference. The food is being poisoned. None of it is necessary.

    42. Re:Great by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Really, you've never had an annual physical? I'm a man and not only does it involve nudity, it involves gloved contact with genitals. I don't know that women get a hernia check or whatever coughing reveals, but I'm betting it still involves a bodily examination.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  2. Huh? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Why was Tinder allowing 13 year olds to access their Creepy People Database anyway? I mean, Iâ(TM)ve seen some pretty hot teens that make my wiener twitch a bit, but, uh, no. Just no.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because COPPA does not apply once you turn 13. Advertising makes me sick.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was Tinder allowing 13 year olds to access their Creepy People Database anyway? I mean, Iâ(TM)ve seen some pretty hot teens that make my wiener twitch a bit, but, uh, no. Just no.

      Because Tinder isn't just used to find a one night stand?
      It's perfectly legal for 13 year olds to be in a romantic relationship, they just can't marry or have sex.

      It might be that many of Tinders users just are there to find a quick hookup. The vast majority is probably not even interested in that and only want people to tell them they are pretty.
      That doesn't mean that Tinder have an obligation to limit their service to those people.

    3. Re:Huh? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal for 13 year olds to be in a romantic relationship, they just can't marry or have sex.

      In the vast majority of the world, including most US states, it is perfectly legal for a 13 year old to have sex. There are limitations on who can have sex with them though.
      Also, with parental permission, it is legal for an underage person to get married, though I'm not sure what the age limit on that is. I know because one of the girls I went to high school with was married with a child when she was 14 or 15.

  3. Others Welcome by JustBoo · · Score: 2

    From the verbiage in the /. article, ages zero (0) to twelve (12) are, of course, more than welcome on the site.

    1. Re:Others Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the verbiage in your comment, you think Tinder is a site.

    2. Re:Others Welcome by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The verbiage also claims Tinder has special features to help find orgies. ... like what? Last I heard it was swipe left, swipe right, you matched, hook up. Is there a setting for "Find sex parties"?

    3. Re:Others Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the verbiage in your comment, you think Tinder is a site.

      Tinder Hook Up Site
      Quick way to meet single women and go on casual dates. Join for free.
      tinder.quickflirt.com

      Tinder Dating Site
      Seek romance? Take your chance, meet your match tonight!
      m.tinder.flirt.com

      That's from Tinders own advertising.

      Huh, believe that or some weak-ass wannabe's non-opinion on the InterWannabeTubes who doesn't even know what site means. Sure...

      Captha: adultery

    4. Re:Others Welcome by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      A couple friends of mine use it, and hearing the updates makes for interesting small talk.

      Apparently there are now some kind of "group" function, whereby you create temporary groups. These groups can then match against other groups to have chat room type conversations. ... so maybe that leads to orgies?

      I thought it would be so people can meet up in groups because "safety in numbers" type thing.

    5. Re:Others Welcome by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Tinder groups? That's not a Kik thing? There's all kinds of ads on Craigslist about Kik swingers groups; it became a media phenomena among the self-described tabloid news (as opposed to the self-denying tabloid news that permeates American culture) after they got bored with furries and online cybersex mucks (Wired...).

    6. Re:Others Welcome by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      Nope. Tinder is an app. https://www.gotinder.com/

    7. Re:Others Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let Tinder know that then. *eyeroll*

  4. Facebook smelled a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too little too late for them honestly. But suckerberg will just make it go away with money.

  5. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So teens who lie will now get hooked up with adults?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was only "most". The remaining teens are surely checked for hotness, willingness to engage in a relationship with a pedobear and holding a complementary lollipop at all times.

  6. moar orgies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are all da white women?

  7. Who thought it was ever a good idea by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I want to know who at Tinder thought it was a good idea to allow that age range any access at all in the first place. I know why they thought it was, but I can't imagine the idea ever ending well no matter what restrictions were placed on it (at least as far as the law's concerned anyway, I'm sure the kids thought it was a dandy idea but they don't get a say in that).

    1. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by will_die · · Score: 1

      The audience of gawker and tinder are probably the same so as long as the person was over the age of 4 that is perfectly acceptable.

    2. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why? Is it suddenly illegal when it when you replace passing a note with a swipe? Since when is a 3rd party responsible for where people stick their penises?

    3. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when is since when there was a third party.

      If you include an adult in between in the note-passing, who knows the respective ages and the content of the note, then you have yourself an analogy.

    4. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Who are these people with multiple penises? What do they do with the second penis? Is it beside or above below?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know who at Tinder thought it was a good idea to allow that age range any access at all in the first place

      Probably someone who thought it would be better for 14 year olds to hook up with 14 year olds, instead of lying about their age to get on the service and subsequently getting matched with 30 year olds.

    6. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      Who are these people with multiple penises?

      They're called Elon Musk, Richard Branson and John Carmack and they're having contest to see who can launch the most penises the highest.

      What do they do with the second penis? Is it beside or above below?

      It starts at the same level, then quickly rises, but after a while it droops again and usually ends below.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    7. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tinder isn't an adult, its a fucking computer program, surely people on Slashdot should understand that. It may be trivial for the program to know the ages of the "note passers", but to understand the content of them requires an AI beyond what we are capable of creating.

    8. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Do they know the content of the note?

    10. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Who are these people with multiple penises?

      If you have to ask then you don't watch enough porn.

    11. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tinder isn't a person. Tinder is the paper.

      Tinder's devs are the provider of the paper.
      It's not up to them who uses the paper, or how the paper is used.

      I could use a piece of paper for arson, or to send death threats - is anyone up in arms about that?

    12. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Actual human intelligence writes the code. The "content" in this case is defined by the context of the purpose of the app.

    13. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      You seriously ask that question? Obviously you haven't tried to buy some quality OTC epinephrine lately. Or some quality target/plinking tools lately.

    14. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by thunderclap · · Score: 1
    15. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually an interesting subject that has been brought up before.
      Should a programmer be responsible for what a program does in the same way he had been if he had done the task manually?
      If so, is it sufficient to just have the program ask for the users age or is that too little validation to claim working in good faith?

      This kind of thing tend to pop up every now and then. Another similar case was when Facebook started advertising products aimed at adults to pre-teens.
      Self-driving cars will also lead to a situation that will require this situation to be clarified.

      This is why we need science fiction. It gives us time to explore and consider the ethics of things before it transitions from hypothetical to real.
      Unfortunately a lot of the things that happens are to mundane to write good fiction about.

    16. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tinder isn't an adult, its a fucking computer program, surely people on Slashdot should understand that. It may be trivial for the program to know the ages of the "note passers", but to understand the content of them requires an AI beyond what we are capable of creating.

      Not being capable of stopping a bullet in mid-flight doesn't give you permission to shoot at people.
      Just because you aren't capable of writing an AI that can understand content doesn't mean that you can skip checking the content, you just have to do it manually.
      Not being able to afford to do the work manually doesn't give you a free pass.

      I am not saying that checking the content is the right thing to do, just that it being hard to automate isn't an argument for not requiring it.
      If we don't put the same requirement on automated processes as we put on manual processes then it will be legal for automated vehicles to run people over.
      There could be a discussion if the one writing the program or the one using it should be responsible but automation does not remove responsibility.

    17. Re:Who thought it was ever a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual human intelligence writes the code. The "content" in this case is defined by the context of the purpose of the app.

      By this line of reasoning, the architect and construction workers who designed and built some night club are responsible for the gang rape perpetrated on the back room billiards table. Try again.

      - T

  8. Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by axewolf · · Score: 1

    It was selected for mass popularity.

    It's part of the trend of the "tenderizing" industry: businesses that create products that compromise people emotionally and cause them to be distracted.
    It's good for the economy under the current system as a whole. But it's awful for the people.

    This is literally the same as the case of tobacco companies marketing to children.

    But the problem was never the tobacco companies themselves, just like the problem isn't Tinder now.
    It's that the leaders of our society are the kind of people who promote and see value in these things.
    The immediate harm ends up besides the point: this society is poison for 99% of everyone.

    1. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 1

      I guess you've got a lot of free time since timecube.com shut down?

    2. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It is technically impossible for something to be good for the economy as a whole but bad for the people.

      In the short term, that which is good for the economy as a whole increases consumer spending power and creates jobs. Jobs are necessary for production of goods, and thus are created by demand for more goods. Any sustainable practice of economy which improves this flow of consumer buying power improves the lives of the people.

      In the long term, the sustained strength of an economy as such reduces business risk. This reduction allows businesses to expend those resources, no longer spent on insuring themselves against uncertainty, in more risky endeavors. That means technical progress. Technical progress reduces the amount of jobs needed to produce a certain set of products, which reduces their cost; this eventually transfers to the consumer, and the consumer can buy more and better products, creating the demand for replacement jobs, ending with the same employment and more goods per person. This technical progress is responsible for such phenomena as the reduction in food costs (30% of the median household income in 1950, 11% today), the increase in access to healthcare (5% of income in 1950, 6% today buying more and better healthcare), and the viability of welfare in general.

      Such stabilizing actions lengthen the deployment time of labor-reducing technologies, shorten the duration of transitional unemployment from technical progress, increase the pace of technical progress in general, and even allow us to reduce per-capita working hours in trade (instead of being 20% richer, we can all work 4 days, 32 hours per week; this is also why we no longer work 10-16 hour days 6 days per week, as was the subject of political debate in 1880-1920 before the 8-hour-day gained traction).

      All business activities consume labor, producing a product or service in return. All revenue-generating business activities necessarily consume part of the income of the population, transferring part of that to consumers for later spending. That means an activity which makes the maximum amount of money may be harmful to the economy: if it consumes little labor but charges high prices, you have something called "economic rent", which leads to a reduction in employment; if it consumes large amounts of labor and produces something of little use, you have a simple reduction of wealth (we do all this work and spend all our money and we get nothing for it!).

      Evaluating what's good for an economy is hard. You've seemed to sidetrack on evaluating what's good for a society, which is even more complex, and is contexted to the current state of that society. For example: Greece has a very openly-sexual society; making America more openly-sexual would necessarily expose more teenagers and younger children to the concept of sex, and our society aims to purge the very awareness of any such thing from the minds of people under roughly 14, and then minimize the amount of sexual conduct they're aware of and exposed to thereafter. Attempting to convert either of these to the other would be necessarily harmful to that society.

      Tobacco is a more clear-cut case, although not entirely. While I dislike tobacco, and I understand alcohol has lower toxicity and is harmless in reasonable consumption, I also understand the immense cultural impact of tobacco and alcohol. The harm in smoking a half a gram of tobacco at the end of the day (or week!) is not comparable to the harm of smoking four packs of cigarettes, and *is* comparable to the harm (or lack thereof) of simply not smoking; and, in fact, second-hand smoke has been shown harmless (but highly annoying) by many scientific studies (exactly zero studies have found a link between second-hand smoke and *any* health effects). The harm of tobacco is largely cultural, in that we smoke entirely too much and in a harmful manner; at the same time, the image of a pipe or a detective with a cigarette is a long-standing cultural artifact of tobacco, and many people enjoy a tobacco hobby which does limit itself to small amounts on an infrequent basis. While tobacco is clearly harmful, it's not necessarily so to a great degree.

      Again: analysis is highly-complex and difficult.

    3. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's... not how timecube works.

    4. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by axewolf · · Score: 1

      analysis is highly-complex and difficult

      that is why you have instincts, and that is why you are conditioned to shun your instincts by society

    5. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      My instincts tell me the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth. You make the ridiculous argument that the moon orbits the earth, but the earth orbits the sun; how can that be true when they both cross the sky?

    6. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Denier! You have been educated stupid!

    7. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My instincts tell me the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth. You make the ridiculous argument that the moon orbits the earth, but the earth orbits the sun; how can that be true when they both cross the sky?

      That's no moon.

    8. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      Fod such a long analysis, you seem to have started from an iffy place.

      It is technically impossible for something to be good for the economy as a whole but bad for the people.

      Good for the economy is a term that needs defining. You eventually get into evaluating if something is good for the economy. But you never define what good for the economy would be. And that precedes evaluating potential actions.

      Let's therefore use the most common definition, the measure of the economy is the GDP. Obviously, higher GDP -> better economy. Therefore, something "good" for the economy raises GDP.

      There is no reason something cannot raise GDP and be bad for the majority of the people in a country. I mean that "technically" and "logically." There are a lot of examples involving horrible human rights abuses (e.g. slavery.) I don't want to delve into them.

      But you assumed not that they are correlated, but there is a causation between a good economy and improvement for the people. With the current state of automation, it's no longer assured that more goods means more jobs. And there's no reason to think that businesses with freed up assets (no longer needed for stabilization) will spend them on innovation, as opposed to wastefully buying fancier art for the executive suite.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Evaluating what's good for an economy is hard. You've seemed to sidetrack on evaluating what's good for a society

      I wish more people recognized the difference between "What is good for the economy" and "What is good for society."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Good for the economy is a term that needs defining. You eventually get into evaluating if something is good for the economy. But you never define what good for the economy would be. And that precedes evaluating potential actions.

      Uh, the explanation that followed did outline the increase in per-capita wealth.

      Let's therefore use the most common definition, the measure of the economy is the GDP. Obviously, higher GDP -> better economy. Therefore, something "good" for the economy raises GDP.

      Raising per-capita GDP (not just flat GDP) necessarily means individuals are wealthier and the standard-of-living of the poorest of poor is better. Food is more plentiful and luxuries come down from the rich to the hands of the poor.

      There is no reason something cannot raise GDP and be bad for the majority of the people in a country. I mean that "technically" and "logically." There are a lot of examples involving horrible human rights abuses (e.g. slavery.) I don't want to delve into them.

      Slavery tends to expend a large amount of labor resources for minimal gain in developed economies, often reducing wealth. Slaves must be fed and cared for, because replacing a slave is expensive (you have to raise a child first off, which is difficult due the amount of food and care consumed by non-productive birthing women and their children; and raising a strong, healthy child is more productive than raising a weak slave, so you're looking at about a quarter million dollar replacement cost between maintaining the pregnant mother and raising the child to maybe 8-10 years old). Slaves require management techniques which produce poor results and prevent large gains; they work okay in a field with hand tools, but not in a field 15 times as productive using complex farm management techniques and large mechanical tooling--not unless you train them well enough to revolt with terrifying effectiveness.

      With the current state of automation, it's no longer assured that more goods means more jobs.

      If you make human labor more expensive, then the cost of goods increases, and the jobs decrease. If, then, you follow up by providing a lower-labor alternative (automation, or any other technology in history), you rapidly remove jobs. With human labor being more expensive, more buying power must return to the consumer base before replacement jobs are created.

      In other words: it's trivial to create an economic situation in which something like "automation" (new industrial technology) *more rapidly* replaces jobs, and those jobs come back *more slowly*.

      Policies such as the elimination of sales taxes, the replacement of payroll taxes with business income taxes, and the provision of an increase in lower-wage incomes by supplementing with a non-wage income (essentially UBI) reverses both of these. Human labor becomes more competitive with technical labor, and so paying the expense of retaining a human-labor process while the cost of new technology comes down can pay a *lot* of return; businesses will speculate and carry out staged roll-out on schedules which vary based on their risk appetite and risk tolerances. At the same time, the amount of consumer take-home increases relative to the amount an employer pays the employee, and so consumer buying power recovers more quickly, and the jobs lost in the transition are replaced with new jobs in a shorter time frame.

      By that manner, you reduce peak unemployment and shorten the duration of unemployment in technical progress. This prevents huge recessions in response to technological steps forward, such as the upcoming automation transition.

      there's no reason to think that businesses with freed up assets (no longer needed for stabilization) will spend them on innovation, as opposed to wastefully buying fancier art for the executive suite.

      It's not necessarily innovation. If I can afford a $28

    11. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of intersection. Faster per-capita GDP growth means better welfare systems, higher standard-of-living at the bottom, less homelessness and hunger, greater access to healthcare, and the like in any future time frame. Society has a lot of secondary drivers related to holding to its form.

    12. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      That's true, but you need to see how they intersect.
      IF the price of healthcare dropped (to say, $300 a year per person) then it would be cheap enough that only ideologues would care if it were paid for by the government or by individuals.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Faster per-capita GDP growth means better welfare systems, higher standard-of-living at the bottom, less homelessness and hunger, greater access to healthcare, and the like in any future time frame.

      It means the rich get richer, faster.

    14. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh, i smell bs, things can be good for the economy and bad for people, look at china and its pollution and booming economy

    15. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by lgw · · Score: 1

      But it can't - that wouldn't even pay for the power to the MRI machines, let alone the machines and the people to operate them.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how anyone who puts "wolf" in their screen name is inevitably a weenie who tries to talk big about how he knows what's wrong with society and fails completely at it?

    17. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Clearly we need to invent a tricoroder.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by axewolf · · Score: 1

      your instincts tell you no such thing.

      the multiple levels of stupid in the implication in your statement is inexcusable

      stop believing revisionist history. stop being so fucking gullible. Look up the history of the idea of the flat world, just for starters.
      Then put these things in perspective: in various civilizations, some of the very few artifacts that survived imply that the people who used them believed something.
      The truth is the vast majority of people were not invested in believing any such thing, and that there were likely other in comparable proportion that believed something contradictory.

      the phenomenon of "academic consensus" was not so widespread in ancient times as it is today in the authoritarian dogma-laden academia of today.

    19. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... something to be good for the economy as a whole but bad for the people.

      Good for the economy tends to be defined as: contains more producers, than consumers. It'd hardly be an economy if people stop producing. People like prisoners, pensioners and the terminally ill, are unlikely to produce any economic benefit directly (eg. jobs) or indirectly (eg. raising children), making them pure consumers. It would be good for them to individually consume food and services but bad for the economy when their number exceeds the number of producers.

      ... sexual conduct they're aware of ...

      Because no-one knows what those bratz dolls, naked models and celebrities are doing? That's a dumb claim to make. It doesn't take long for anyone, including teenagers and tweenies to learn what naked adults do together. Adults pretending they can magically turn-off a teenager's obsession with sex, as long as grown males aren't around to remind them; are the problem.

    20. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instinct is worthless for solving complex abstract problems. And people like you who mistake instinct for wisdom are worthless for anything at all.

      You will now throw a screaming tantrum that proves me right. No other action on your part is possible.

    21. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      At one point, respiration cost a lot. The original Iron Lung was basically invented in 1670, but was impractical--too complex to build; of course they could do it on that technology, and then someone could hand-operate it 24/7, and the technology to make steel could do so with ~200 times the labor of modern steel-making techniques. They'd have to hand-hammer plate steel instead of rolling it; and blast furnaces were charcoal-driven until the 1700s. Hot-blast furnaces in the 1830s century revolutionized steelmaking: previous blast furnaces produced under 400 tonnes of iron with the same labor (cost) that a hot-blast furnace used to output 80,000 tonnes, meaning pre-hot-blast iron literally cost over 200 times as much.

      The Drinker respirator was used to treat polio in 1928; and Emerson invented a *much* less-expensive respirator in 1931. The Both respirator cost £2000 British pounds in 1936, and £1500 in 1950; Edward Both developed a device in 1950 that cost only £100 and performed the same function.

      Why do you think MRI machines can't get cheaper, when food, respirators, medicines, aluminum, cars, books, housing, and even MRI devices *have* gotten cheaper throughout the history of their existence?

    22. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I know the history of the idea of a flat earth; round earth is an extremely old concept, speculated upon in 600BC, but not really accepted as a physical fact until 300BC. Now those numbers are really interesting: Thales started investigating the mathematical basis of Geometry in 600BC; Euclid published his famous texts on the mathematics of Geometry in 300BC. Euclid's writings include the observation that a triangle's angles all add up to 180 degrees; however, the Greeks observed that you could make three turns while sailing and end up where you started, yet the angles didn't add up to 180 degrees, thus leading to the *entire* field of non-Euclidean geometry, starting with the projection of two-dimensional geometric shapes onto a sphere.

      So, yes, some 3000 years ago, people actually believed the earth was flat.

    23. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by axewolf · · Score: 1

      "the Greeks observed that you could make three turns while sailing and end up where you started, yet the angles didn't add up to 180 degrees"
      that's very interesting

      but I object to your point of view on consensus of information

      "a physical fact"
      what is that supposed to mean?

      "people actually believed the earth was flat"
      which people? every sailor? how many? how do you know?

      Just acknowledge that the records do not exist to be able to speculate on this. What's the point anyway? To say that everyone in the olden days was a dumb-dumb unlike you and me the smartest boys of all time? Honestly I think that's it. To create the illusion of progress, when in reality, people are more thoughtless unoriginal herd-following animals than they have ever been, including especially the ones who are said to be educated. What good is knowledge without the will to apply it to a good purpose?

      And people who consciously declared that the world is flat weren't wrong anyway. The earth is flat. It is also round. It is large enough to have the luxury of being both at the same time. The largest scope is not necessarily the most correct one.

    24. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, they sure will in some distant future. But by then will have new latest and greatest expensive medical tech - unless we get socialized medicine, of course, then all such progress will fade away.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      what is that supposed to mean?

      It means circa 600BC, the Greeks considered and debated the possibility of a round earth, drawing postulates in the form "IF the earth were round...". Circa 300BC, the Greeks had decided the earth is definitely round, and that the consideration of a flat earth was factually incorrect.

      Just acknowledge that the records do not exist to be able to speculate on this.

      What are you talking about? We know Pythagoreas proposed the round earth hypothesis in ancient Greece; and Aristotle provided empirical evidence arguing that the earth is indeed round based on real, groundbreaking observations in 330BC. Indian scholars still believed in the flat earth model for a few *hundred* years after that; and, oddly enough, the land-locked country of China retained a flat-earth hypothesis until after the unification of the five territories under the Chin dynasty in the 1600s AD--yes, that's about 400 years ago. Indigenous cultures in the Americas also held to a flat earth theory, right up until invasion by Europeans.

      Homer and Hesiod described the earth as a flat disc. Even Thales believed the earth was flat, and Aristotle's proposition of a round earth was based on Euclid's work which followed Thales's own explorations of mathematics--the mathematicians who made it possible to theorize and demonstrate a spherical earth without the power to circumnavigate themselves believed the earth was a flat disc. Anaximenes argued that the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon were flat discs riding on air, and explained their ability to ride on air was due to their flatness, which made them glide like leaves on the wind (a spherical body could not stay afloat as such). Hecataeus claimed the Earth was a circular disc floating in water; Herodotus claimed Hecataeus was an idiot because the ends of the earth only fall off to an infinite drop.

      The old Nordic concept of cosmology (back when Odin was King of the Gods in Asgard) maintained a vast ocean surrounding the flat plane of the earth, with Yggdrasil the World Tree in the center, and the great sneak Jormungandr swimming in the sea. They later inferred that the earth must be round by comparing the shadows cast by an apple and the climatography of the earth, creating a global climate model along with their new round earth theory.

      The Chinese described the sky and stars as an umbrella (Kai Tian theory) or an egg (Hun Tian theory) surrounding the earth, with the earth as the yolk at the center. Until after 1600AD, no Chinese scholar or philosopher had ever been recorded objecting to the idea that the earth were a *square*, geometrically flat, while the sky was round. It was simply a thing they knew about the earth, a thing that made sense: The earth is the flat ground below your feet, not a round ball that you wander half-way around and fall off.

      Do you just want to pretend inconvenient facts don't exist?

      What's the point anyway?

      The point is the obvious and instinctual is also often wrong. The entire point of a thinking society and a philosophy of engagement--of questioning and investigating, rather than accepting what you're told and what you bluntly see--is to understand what is beyond the shade of your blurred, narrow vision. A society which lives entirely by its instincts follows its state and religious leaders and generally builds itself on superstition and subservience.

      The earth is flat. It is also round. It is large enough to have the luxury of being both at the same time.

      Your instincts tell you the world is flat under your feet even if it is round 28 miles out; yet that is incorrect. The world has a large radius of curvature, and it is very much curved under your feet, and the curvature is slight such that you do not perceive it by close inspection, and such that it is overwhelmed by noise at small distances (the ground is bumpy--sometimes to an extreme).

    26. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It is unlikely all such progress would fade away, and certainly not for that.

      Your premise is that healthcare will get cheaper, and then it can get more expensive as new technology arrives. The first problem is people will then move their spending away from healthcare, and the market will no longer bear expensive treatments. The *second* problem is the general advancement of technology means the next latest-and-greatest technology is ... relatively expensive: it's as expensive as our shiny new stuff now stands in comparison to the medical industry, and will stand so in a future where the cost of medical care is much smaller.

      In short, a shiny, new, expensive thing now costs 10% of the 6% we spend on medical care (0.6%), thus is *quite* expensive; and, in the future, when the level of technology has advanced to the point that we're buying more and better medical care with only 1% of our income, the new devices would also be quite expensive, reflecting 10% of the total medical expense--or 0.1%.

      That's how it's always worked, in the long stretch. Today, we spend 6% of our income on more and better medical care, while in 1950 it was only 5%; and before that, medical care was scarce and expensive, with real medicine and surgery reserved for the wealthiest families because the middle-class simply couldn't afford to buy healthcare. Our healthcare now has increased to include wellness and preventative measures; in the future it will expand to include new drugs and machines and other treatments, and all the while our technology to research and *construct* those drugs and machines will improve, such that constructing a brand new type of machine doesn't incur a cost reflecting so much of the total income.

      Socialized medicine would tend to restrict the default payment level for healthcare (the demand market); and further expense from supplemental private insurance (which is suddenly *cheap* because the entire span of public healthcare is not on their heads!) would reflect the consumer market's demand for newer treatments. In an economic system where socialized healthcare is viable, the only likely outcome from such a structure is *more* money diverted to newer treatments, creating a demand driver for technical progress.

      Perhaps you should stick to arguments over whether socialized healthcare is or is not currently viable and cheaper than privatized healthcare. I have no immediate opinion on that analysis.

    27. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Instinct is not intuition. Intuition is what may have inclined some people to believe the world was a flat place. The distinction is extremely important.
      There is no evidence of any idea led to by instinct in any of this. Instinct is the product of long and consistent experience. Intuition is the product of consistent experience over a much shorter period of time and is much more malleable.

      Many birds' instincts must tell them on some conscious level that the world is round, otherwise how would they be able to migrate across continents accurately?

      Look at the example of humans undertaking similar journeys. The example you cited of turning three times to amount to a 180 degrees of turning yet arriving far away from where you started: why would you assume that the greeks were the first to experience this? There is no telling how many civilizations collectively realized this before them. You are not accounting for the noise of history, especially events such as "dark ages" as the one spoken of in greek history around 1000 BC or the "bronze age collapse" in general.

      You are using a few very examples and not accounting for all the ones that may have been lost. You are not accounting for how these examples survived to present day. You are not accounting for differences of opinion that may have existed. You are guilty of a lack of critical thought: just believing what you heard and assuming it is the whole picture. You are using these few examples from a tiny minority of civilizations to assert that there was a consensus across not just nations, but across the entire world. Do you see how utterly absurd that is?

    28. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by lgw · · Score: 1

      Your premise is that healthcare will get cheaper, and then it can get more expensive as new technology arrives.

      Not quite. My premise is that we as a society pay the most we can afford for good health care, rather than the least we can manage, because we like to stay alive, and not in pain if possible. That means new tech is funded by dropping prices in old tech.

      I'm not sure we disagree on this.

      The advance of technology ensures specific treatments get cheaper over time (or cheaper substitute treatments are found - scans replacing exploratory surgery and so on). The combination of our strong survival instinct and the profit motive ensure new research is capitalized, and thus a steady stream of expensive-at-first new breakthroughs.

      If you focus on cost minimization alone, the capital for new research nearly vanishes (sure, we'll still get some progress from individuals finding better ways to do what we already do, and some low-capital advancements, but those are fundamentally limited). Many countries have significantly cheaper healthcare than the US, and in turn aren't the source of amazing breakthroughs.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You used instinct in place of intuition in the above. They are often used semantically to mean the same thing, although this is technically not correct, as you say.

      By the way, spending a lot of energy taking one line of argument and then switching to semantics when you've lost is a dead giveaway that your position is intractable.

      You are using a few very examples and not accounting for all the ones that may have been lost.

      Your argument has become, "Well, that's just what we *know*! What about what we *don't* know?!" We don't know about the aliens on Seti Alpha Prime, so there must be aliens. Your position is absurd.

      You are using these few examples from a tiny minority of civilizations to assert that there was a consensus across not just nations, but across the entire world. Do you see how utterly absurd that is?

      All of Europe got their astronomy from Greece--or, more accurately, from Rome, who traded philosophy with Greece on a regular basis. That includes the Arabs. China missed the boat until Europe traded astronomy with the Chinese--that is, the Chinese unified under the Chin dynasty. The Cherokee of the United States--the second largest North American indigenous group--believed the Earth was an island in the center of an endless ocean. The Norse reasoned the Earth was flat until they did some fancy reasoning with an apple and a candle (impressive, that). The Mayans and other Central American indigenous tribes believed in a flat earth theory. The Ancient Egyptians left writings in the pyramids describing the Nun, the great circular ocean surrounding the disc which was the Earth, all a flat plane. The oldest record of any map of the Earth is from Babylon, in the region now called Iraq; it and supplemental writings portray a flat earth theory.

      These groups account for approximately the entire spread of human population across the Earth, and for all of the great ancient societies, including the Europeans, the Native Americans, the Egyptians, the Arabs, and the Asians.

      You suggest there must, somewhere, be an extreme minority of humans who, upon developing the ability to think and reason, also were bestowed with the knowledge and understanding of a round earth despite such evidence as the ground under their feet being flat and things falling downward (Aristotle's theory of gravitation was that all things moved downward toward the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE; Galileo was earliest with starting a modern theory of gravitation, followed by Hooke suggesting that objects move toward each other).

      Developing a round-earth theory has always been a matter of extreme evidence and consideration: circumnavigation of the earth, heavy application of geometry, climatological analysis and extreme lateral thinking, and other manners of high technology are required. People intuited that the moon itself was a disc rather than a sphere--never mind the face perfectly facing the earth; it looks like a circle, so it is a circle. Even reasoning the circle is visible because it is the extreme circumference of a sphere and, thus, intuiting that the earth under your feet is also a sphere raises a hell of a lot of confusing questions (you'd have to develop a cosmic model to explain why this makes sense) and, firstly, requires you to determine that the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon are similar types of things (which is silly: the sun and moon are in the sky; the Earth is on the ground!).

      You make the absurd proposition that these things are trivialities.

    30. Re:Tinder is a 'conspiracy' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Not quite. My premise is that we as a society pay the most we can afford for good health care, rather than the least we can manage, because we like to stay alive, and not in pain if possible.

      I can disprove this in one shot.

      Circa 1950, 25% of the average family's income paid for discretionary spending and entertainment; circa 2003, 44% spent on same. Health care spending raised from 5% to 6%.

      To put this clearly: the median family freed up 20% of their income and used it to buy plasma TVs and gameboys, rather than luxury-class healthcare. That's not even correct: housing dropped by about 50%, and we spent the additional 14% of our income *plus* 5% more on buying bigger houses.

      So out of 39% of our income freed up over 50 years, we directed 1% to buying more and better healthcare. The other 38% went to buying more toys and bigger houses in which to put those toys.

      The combination of our strong survival instinct and the profit motive ensure new research is capitalized, and thus a steady stream of expensive-at-first new breakthroughs.

      "Expensive-at-first" doesn't means it'll hit the market as expensive as the last breakthrough. You have both the consumer's unwillingness to spend literally half their income on medical insurance (they might buy into the medical care itself when needed; and we can get even-more-expensive treatments into any market by amortizing those unlikely costs via insurance) and the advances in technology lowering the cost of newer technologies.

      Remember I said we produced a furnace that made 80,000 tonnes of iron for the same cost as making 400 tonnes of iron prior? We now have machines to build complex machine parts, and even computers to aid engineers in designing complex machines. The cost to develop and produce a complex steel machine today--a new piece of technology--is much lower than the cost to develop and produce a similar complex steel machine in 1790. That's technical progress lowering the cost of newer technologies.

      So the next big break through in medicine, what? Gene therapy? It'll be based on synthetic genetics and retroviral treatment, which will be cheaper thanks to more effective DNA synthesis and more reliable retroviral design. Clone organs? The advances in gene therapy and underlying technology will make the new developments allowing cloned organs cheaper--the same technology, if discovered today, will be much more expensive than if we discover it some years down the line when all the basic technology of mucking about with genetics has been streamlined, even though the immediate process is no simpler. This is the pattern of technical progress.

      It actually becomes difficult to invent extremely-expensive new technology. You have to come up with completely new, alien processes built on things we can only barely do or can't do at all. Once we've gained the ability to carry out all the underlying tasks, an expensive new piece of technology is just a large amount of small labor, instead of a large amount of large labor. That means "expensive" becomes relative.

  9. I'll bet two, in fact by stomv · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was a girl in my class at school that had, STILL HAS, tits bigger than my mother when she was the age of 14. Several of them actually.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that this girl had exactly two tits, and that you have a really, really small mother.

    1. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      odd, I read that as several girls

    2. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Heh. My kids are in the first class of high school. Girls vary in height from 1.50m to 1.85m, and from completely undeveloped and very childlike to rather overdeveloped and hard to differentiate from a fullgrown woman. At that age you get every possibility in one group.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    3. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then you must be good at automatically compensating poor writing.

    4. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HEY I'M SUUUUUUUUPER GOOOD AT COMPENSATING!!!! *Goes away in a really expensive convertible* *Also adds extra words to get past caps filter, but hey I am supposed to be actually yelling this out loud*

    5. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      several references tits not girl.

    6. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      odd

      Even. Most people have an even number of tits.

    7. Re:I'll bet two, in fact by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No. The average person has just under 1 tit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: I'll bet two, in fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most is different from average.

    9. Re: I'll bet two, in fact by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Which isn't true either. Zero is not an even number, so about half the population has not an even number. Of the other half, not all members have an even number of tits. So most people do not have an even number of tits.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: I'll bet two, in fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My niece is 13 and already wears a 32D bra.

  10. In related news. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Funny

    A lot of teenagers celebrated their seventeenth and eighteenth birthday this week.

    1. Re:In related news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My daughter's Facebook age is 10 years greater than her actual age.
      I'm not sure how you go about fixing your Facebook age after you've been using Facebook for several years.

  11. Expand this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Keep kids under 40 off the internet in total.

  12. What if . . . by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    What if the kids were only using it to hook up with people in order to do homework together?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  13. Best Internet Advice Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9221257&cid=52282525

    http://i.imgur.com/QLGyQYf.jpg

    Your one stop shop to privacy. Also, Orbot on Android is very good. Use the Tutanota app for private email.

    Somebody modded this -1? Wowwwwwwwwwwwwww you are some faaaaaaaaaaaaaaags

  14. Anyone near 80211 up for an orgy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemme know. Bout time I put this barrel of lube to good use.

  15. Useless solution is useless by grimthaw · · Score: 1

    This week at the same time as the ban Tinder population of "18" year golds grew by approximate the same number of banned 13-17 year olds. This solved nothing.

  16. How? by ElectricHellKnight · · Score: 1

    Doesn't that very demographic account for 90% of their users? This is like Slashdot banning socially-awkward nerds.

  17. I wouldn't know... by Zanadou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't know. Its changelog just states

    "Improvements & fixes"

    ...like every other fucking "app" and program update since 2011.

    1. Re:I wouldn't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Microsoft tried doing that for a while... ANNOYING.

  18. 2) USE THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pls dont hide

    http://i.imgur.com/QLGyQYf.jpg

    Your one stop shop to privacy. Also, Orbot on Android is very good. Use the Tutanota app for private email.