Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Patents Looks-Are-Everything Dating

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the electronic-eye-of-the-beholder dept.

Microsoft 192

theodp writes "Screw that eHarmony Compatibility Matching System nonsense. 'Physical appearance is generally considered one of the most important search criteria among users of online dating services,' according to a patent granted Tuesday to five Microsoft Research Asia inventors. Its Image-Based Face Search technology not only allows people to specify the 'gender, age, ethnicity, location, height, weight, and the like' of their prey, explains Microsoft, it also allows them to 'provide a query image of a face for which they would like to search for similar faces.' So, even though you can't have the real Angelina Jolie or Natalie Portman, Microsoft will fix you up with a look-alike."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good grief. (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739204)

Come on! Patenting searching for someone who looks like someone else?

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

Re:Good grief. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739294)

Do you have the faintest idea of how patents work?

USA is broke (0)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739332)

they are trying to allow everything so they can then lobby other govts and bribe them into accepting it. FAIL..
This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

Re:Good grief. (5, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739454)

If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.

Re:Good grief. (0)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739594)

This is patentable because it is a method of doing this action, not the action itself. This is what patents deal with. Specific implementations of how to accomplish a goal. Not the goal itself. Part of the reason the patent system is broken is there is a huge misconception among people about what a patent is and isn't. The headlines don't help because they sum what is being patented into a goal rather than the means.

Re:Good grief. (4, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739718)

Part of the reason the patent system is broken is there is a huge misconception among people about what a patent is and isn't.

I disagree, the patent system is broken because the patent evaluators have no clue about prior art and far too lax criteria for what counts as a specific implementation. That's why there are ridiculous yet valid patents for things like using windows as GUI elements or electronically serving structured documents from a remote server.

every country has a motive to be lax (0)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739974)

Patents must be respected internationally due to treaties, but the granting of patents is under national control. Each country wants to get an overly large chunk of the pie.

This is slightly mitigated by allowing foreigners to get patents. I expect that foreigners are less likely to apply and less likely to succeed.

Re:Good grief. (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739800)

I do have to wonder about their method for selecting matching faces. Thumbs+ (Cerious) has had an image 'matching' method for quite a while now so my question is this prior art?" True, the method (algorithm) in Thumbs+ is a general pattern matching versus Microsoft's pure facial.

Re:Good grief. (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739474)

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

Re:Good grief. (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739654)

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

That reminds me of a really good quote:

No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
-- P. J. O'Rourke

I'd say those four things provide a coherent explanation of the current patent system.

Re:Good grief. (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739580)

They get paid to assign patent numbers.

How many bureaucrats would be out of work if the office was reduced to a reasonable level, for example, a single clerk with a "DENIED" stamp?

Re:Good grief. (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739688)

They get paid to assign patent numbers.

Actually, they get paid to reject applications. They just have to come up with a good reason to do so.

Re:Good grief. (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739764)

I bet they're on salary to be honest, so they don't care either way, but by it being known that you can patent basically anything, they make sure that people try to patent EVERYTHING, meaning more work for them, meaning less chance of the office downsizing and letting any of them go... plus it's easier to stamp "approved" than to actually do research needed to reject something. and government bureaucrats are not known to put in more effort than the minimum they can get away with...

Re:Good grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739682)

"I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested."

Corruption tested, more like.

Finally, Microsoft comes out with something useful (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739734)

... where do I sign up?

Only the face? Not good enough. (3, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739208)

n/t

Very buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739222)

Everyone gets fixed up with a member of the Blue Man Group.

Website name (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739226)

And they'll probably call it iShallow.com.

Re:Website name (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739260)

Shallow, yes; but also refreshingly honest about it. Arguably giving such people an efficient clearinghouse in which to practice their assortative mating is a net win for everybody: If they have a clearly superior option, they will flock to it, and the people who aren't don't have to worry about the possibility of dealing with one of them who is emulating an interest in nonvisual qualities. Everybody wins.

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739710)

And entirely non-workable.

Ohhh... so you're looking for someone who looks like Claudia Schiffer, back when she was really hot...or...Natalie Portman, or Scarlett Johansson, or etc....

Come on. The problem with dating sites ISN'T THE SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY. It's your poor, broke, fat ass.

Time machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739750)

There's nothing more satisfying than running into the hot chick that you had a wicked crush on 20 years later and finding her to be a fat pig and her 6' 2" hunk she married is an obese couch potato.

I felt so happy that I dodged that bullet.

Now, I have to go and shave my head - us short bald guys have to do that.

Re:Website name (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739810)

Well that's the advantage of online dating in general. Have a monacle fetish? Tired of your friends setting you up on dates with people who don't have monacles because you haven't told them about this. No problem, online dating will help. You can be brutally honest about what you want, and don't want. The downside I can see with online dating is that there's a difference between wanting a fantasy (wanting a woman who looks like angelina jolie), and wanting something you learned from experience (someone who is both willing, and financially able to go on at least 2 weeks of overseas vacations a year). I think the younger generation, teenagers, early 20 somethings, who don't yet know or fully appreciate what they do, or don't want are going to be handed a lot of tools to find a fantasy. For all of it's faults what eharmony purports offer is an attempt at least, to understand what you seriously want in a partner and not just what would fulfil your immediate daydreams. Whether it succeeds or not I have no idea, having never tried the service.

I suppose in the parlance of computer science it's requirements specification. Online is a great way to do pattern match and some sort of combinatorial optimization to 'rank' different pairs of people, but you need to have accurate input in the first place on just what people want and are. There might be a neat machine learning problem there where you could take a dataset of people and then as it pairs them up ask them how the date went in a number of ways and then build a set of relations between some sets of have - want properties.

Re:Website name (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739288)

Truth is often the most ugly thing about life. We spend our daily lives dressing up and hiding the truth at every turn. When someone dies, we say "pass away." And when someone is defrauded or tricked in some way, we say "fucked." And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

I have been with great-looking women and many not-so-great-looking women. Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside though and the only teacher of that is experience unfortunately and I had to become "over 35" to learn that lesson and accept the truth of it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NF5XU-k2Vk -- there is a lot of truth in this song but I can't easily tell my wife that... it hurts her feelings. So instead I tell her another truth -- I am with her because she treats me very well and I appreciate it deeply) So yeah, there is something to be said about how "shallow" it all is, but the fact is, most people are shallow even when they think they are not. I know I am shallow in many ways and I accept it, because this shallowness is a part of human nature.

Re:Website name (0)

Achra (846023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739432)

Oblig. Penny-Arcade: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/12/24/ [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Website name (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739704)

I see your Penny Arcade, and raise you an XKCD: http://xkcd.com/800/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Website name (2)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739434)

You've said "Beauty is only skin deep" in much more eloquent words.

Who are they trying to kid? This new(?) site/service is only going to set people up for 1-night-stands, with a very poor ratio of GOOD relationships.

Eharmony is for people who want to be serious and have a good LIFE.

This mess is for people who want to remain as shallow as rain puddles.

Choice is good: To each their own.

Re:Website name (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739532)

Meh. It all depends on what your priorities are. Not all people who are dating are actually doing so because they're looking for a serious relationship. Maybe they just want to date and play the field a while.

Thing is, despite what Match.com, eHarmony, etc., would like you to think you can't really "buy" a good relationship. There is no such thing as "good relationship in a box, just add water!" All a dating site can do is provide a way to introduce people to you who meet your personal preferences, whatever those are. It's still up to you and some other person you meet to make a good relationship out of what the two of you have in common, etc.

Re:Website name (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739566)

Eharmony is for people who want to be serious and have a good LIFE. This mess is for people who want to remain as shallow as rain puddles.

Not at all. Let's face it, looks might not be everything, but they are important. It's only shallow if that's your only criterion.

If a dating site has a prefilter that somehow magically figures out what you find physically attractive and only shows you those matches, that's tens of thousands of profiles you wouldn't have considered anyway that you no longer have to look through.

Also, it could be set up in such a way that you only see each other if you both are likely to find the other attractive. That would be a huge win because it would save an awful lot of awkwardness when one person likes the other but not vice-versa. For people who are intimidated by such social interaction, that would be a godsend.

Combine that with something like eHarmony's matching scheme, and you could rapidly narrow down the choices to the dozen or so people that might actually work out, instead of having to manually weed out the million that wouldn't.

Re:Website name (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739728)

Not at all. Let's face it, looks might not be everything, but they are important. It's only shallow if that's your only criterion.

What looks mean to you can also be non-shallow. I'm likely to catch some flak for this but I'll give an example: obesity. That's a matter of looks, but it's also a matter of how the person got to be that way. It says something about their ability or willingness to take good care of themselves. If they do not wish to be obese but have failed to effectively do something about it, it says something about their level of discipline and commitment to goals that are important to them. If they do not accept personal responsibility for their own health, and instead have a million excuses for why their obesity is somehow not their fault, it tells you that they have a victim mentality and are unlikely to be honest about their own shortcomings within the framework of a relationship. That honesty about each other's shortcomings is the first necessary step towards accepting them and growing past them.

Anyone angry or upset by the above paragraph is failing to understand one thing: you can be objectively honest about such matters, ugly though they may be, while also having compassion for the person who struggles with them. Just because someone doesn't meet your criteria for what you want in a mate, just because there are good reasons for that, doesn't make them any less human or any less worthy of kindness and respect. The level of childishness that has infiltrated this site is the only reason I feel a need to explain that, as many of you are trigger-happy when it comes to "ZOMG, he said something that might be negative, hurry, demonize him and deny any point he made!" It's the very opposite of benevolent benefit of doubt when multiple interpretations are possible, in other words.

If a dating site has a prefilter that somehow magically figures out what you find physically attractive and only shows you those matches, that's tens of thousands of profiles you wouldn't have considered anyway that you no longer have to look through.

That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

Also, it could be set up in such a way that you only see each other if you both are likely to find the other attractive. That would be a huge win because it would save an awful lot of awkwardness when one person likes the other but not vice-versa. For people who are intimidated by such social interaction, that would be a godsend.

I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

Combine that with something like eHarmony's matching scheme, and you could rapidly narrow down the choices to the dozen or so people that might actually work out, instead of having to manually weed out the million that wouldn't.

The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

Re:Website name (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739964)

obesity is just an option. you say it is diet but if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss, the fat is there and it won't go away no diet drug is going to fix it, i never even lost my baby fat. does that mean i'm a cyborg with no ability to process fat? possibly. i got serious over water purity and my appetite went down and i found gold crystals in the water they are pumping weight gain shit in my drinking water, then there are the 'preservatives' in food, yummy more toxins plz. no thanks there is a reason not even insects eat the grain we grow here. all poisoned. sad.

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739624)

Assuming (a) a user answers the questionnaire honestly and accurately, (b) every other user answers the same questionnaire honestly and accurately, and (c) the dating service can match compatible people using that questionnaire, you are going to be given a result set of similar candidates within some error threshold which can be arguably equal to one another. When all things are equal, a user is going to use some sort of criteria not in the questionnaire to narrow and prioritize that result set. So if a user can get all other important [to them] compatibility traits addressed with the initial prescreening, it's not shallow to order the result set by attractiveness because after the initial search there are few if any other differentiators. All Microsoft is doing is giving you the option to further filter and then order the result set for you.

Re:Website name (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739864)

Let's face it, that's SOP for MS anyway. They have always valued appearances over actual suitability.

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739502)

Truth is often the most ugly thing about life. We spend our daily lives dressing up and hiding the truth at every turn. When someone dies, we say "pass away." And when someone is defrauded or tricked in some way, we say "fucked." And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

Nobody goes looking for someone with deformities or obesity? Yes we do. We're called freaks, and it's hot. Stop crying that a majority of people are shallow. A minority of people are fabulous. Who cares, about the other 6.9 billion people? They're wallowing in mediocrity. Why let it bring you down?

Re:Website name (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739540)

Exactly. My current girlfriend, we met online and I spoke with her for over a month on the phone before I ever even met her. It allowed me to become attracted to her personality before anything else, and that is why I care about her so much. And you know, they say love is blind. That doesnt mean you dont see people's faults. It means you dont let them bother you.

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739584)

This is a prejudice and self fulfilled prophecy. To say that "are rarely great people on the inside though" makes me scream: WTF!!

I have been with many great looking women too, and I don't think there is nothing special in them, they are introverted or extroverted, or have their own personality like any other person, being pretty does not make them evil, it just makes them attractive on their teenage and twenties.

TV shows, film (image industries) need young women that are pretty but they change them with new younger women when they become old fast too. Look at how many old actor they are and how many old actresses.

I'm great looking myself,and two meters height, but I'm a man, so it is different. I have been lucky and there is nothing to be proud for it, BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED EITHER. It seems like your envy or bad feelings are projecting and reflecting on other people.

It has nothing to do with being swallow in human nature. I could be very "deep" in my feelings to other people and also not want my kids to be ugly, or fat, or unhealthy and that makes sense. Good looking means "healthy" too, and as you became older good looking means healthy habits.

This is hard wired into the brain, you could have friends female or male that are ugly, but fucking with them(for having kids) is another story.

Racist (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739592)

Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside though and the only teacher of that is experience

The act of classifying people by their appearance has a special name, it's called "racism".

According to my experience, looks have no correlation to character, however the plural of anecdote is not data, so YMMV.

It could well be that it's not that great-looking women are no good, it's you that don't treat them right.Perhaps you went after a number of great-looking women with just the intention of having sex with them and they treated you accordingly.

Re:Racist (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739620)

Actually its called Prejudice....
But I love how you follow up with a stereotype.

Good game sir.

idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739792)

Physical appearance is as arbitrary of a basis for selection as personality. Do you really need a woman to be funny and witty to make babies? Physical fitness is probably a better criteria.

Re:Racist (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740038)

People will take more guff from charismatic persons. The attractive are indirectly taught that they don't have to be as nice to other people, to be liked, as less attractive folk. So there tends to be a (inverse) correlation between looks and what I'll call sustained pleasantness and graciousness. (Which besides attraction is also crucial to a long-lasting love relationship.)

So character as in honesty and integrity may very well be orthogonal to looks, but sweetness of disposition and generosity (beyond merely the ability to excel at initially exuding such, that everyone with highly-developed social skills has learned to do) is not. Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside in this regard.

Re:Website name (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739600)

And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

That's actually not true. Multiple scientific [physorg.com] studies [news-medical.net] show that most people tend to have a preference for other people of comparable levels of attractiveness and weight. People who are a little overweight tend to shoot for people a little overweight on average. People who are morbidly obese tend to shoot for people who are morbidly obese.

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739694)

I sure hope your wife can cook....

Re:Website name (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739854)

Shallow may be human nature, but depth is a natural human capacity. The real differentiator is between those who celebrate shallowness and those who seek depth.

Re:Website name (1, Funny)

kesuki (321456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739910)

the truth isn't ugly at all. what i have seen since 2006 opened my eyes for perhaps the first time. i no longer believe what i have been told. television, books, internet, my own family, so called doctors, supposed religious icons... i quit video gaming i quit reading i almost quit internet and tv, i really could live without all the lies. i couldn't type the truth here but i know it now so good luck pretending.

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34740008)

I bet your wife says the same about you...

fixed that for you (2)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739362)

And they'll probably call it iSwallow.com.

Re:Website name (2)

Smauler (915644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739384)

Meh - if finding your partner attractive is shallow, then I'm shallow. To be honest, being with someone you don't find attractive is way more shallow in my opinion.

Re:Website name (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739628)

Nah being with someone you are not attracted to is called desperate.

Re:Website name (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739826)

being with someone you are not attracted to is called desperate.

Isn't there a /. merit badge for that?

Re:Website name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739716)

Depends what you find attractive. The thing that attracted me to my wife was when we first met - I remember clearly - we sat and talked for hours so easily. I'd never met a girl I could have such an easy, intelligent conversation with - we just clicked.

Her face will never launch a thousand ships - but neither will mine.

Re:Website name (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739476)

Any more shallow than the fucks who allow animals to be raised in shitty conditions, living a life that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies so the same said fucks can eat Chicken McNuggets or a Big Mac? After all, that counts for roughly 95% of the human race.

Or how about slave child labor in China? The market for diamonds is strewn full of injustices. The number of ventures out there that are part of a cycle of all kinds of shady business that include child sex slaves and terrorism is so large that you'd likely never find the ends of it all.

People are ugly pigs but they like to think themselves better by hiding it behind pseudomorality and little sayings that make it easier to live with that ugliness.

If you think you're above this level of shallowness there is a near 100% probability that with a little inspection of your life I can prove you wrong.

Have a nice day living in a world built on the lives and deaths of the exploited.

Re:Website name (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739650)

Nope it'll be something like this [beautifulpeople.com] .

Hey guys, this is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739238)

Wasn't porn what was advancing technology? Where is the website were I can submit a photo of Angelina Jolie and get films with look-alike porn actresses/actors(it's a trap!)?

Re:Hey guys, this is wrong (0)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739274)

How much are you willing to pay for it? Porn gets less and less power as fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for it. Not even addressing the fact that the Beta/VHS porn thing is a myth anyway.

Re:Hey guys, this is wrong (0)

Smauler (915644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739492)

I really don't understand the revenue stream of porn now... it's impossible not to find free porn if you look for it, of just about all types. I was worrying about who will still produce porn when no one is willing to pay, but the plethora of home made stuff now set my mind at ease.

creepy creepy creepy... (2)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739296)

Probably more patentable than most software patents if you actualy patent the means of doing it and not the idea.

You need another patent on how to get sane people to sign up for this. I can see a first date meeting at a restarant.

"No you can't be my date, you don't look like my mom"

Not really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739460)

It's just a facial recognition software but the parameters are not stringent and some traits are given more weight than others. Not so patentable.

It is definitely creepy, but I think it would also be cool to find people who look like you or your friends. Facebook could use this...

Re:creepy creepy creepy... (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739876)

So, is this patent Hot Or Not?

What does microsoft know about dating? (1)

tp_xyzzy (1575867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739306)

I thought everyone in microsoft are just nerds, who know nothing about woman. Now they claim to know enough of it that they can patent it?

Re:What does microsoft know about dating? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739368)

No, no, no... You've got it all wrong. Microsoft employees have lots of money. They're fine with women. It's the Slashdot crowd I believe you're thinking about. ;)

Re:What does microsoft know about dating? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739914)

No, no, no... You've got it all wrong. Microsoft employees have lots of money. They're fine with women. It's the Slashdot crowd I believe you're thinking about. ;)

I know some 'softies, and a wad o' cash often isn't enough to compensate. You notice that even Gates ended up going in-house?

Re:What does microsoft know about dating? (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739478)

They are not claiming to know anything about women or dating. They are using technology, software, and algorithms to solve a task, which is in the skill set of Microsoft and Nerds.

Also this has nothing to do with knowing anything about women. If physical appearance or the facsimile of an appearance is the criteria, this is nothing but an exercise dealing with information/data. Any knowledge in regards to women as a human being is trivia in that regards.

Re:What does microsoft know about dating? (1)

tp_xyzzy (1575867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739496)

Well, they don't get it right the first time...

and i'll patent (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739312)

looks are deceiving and use a close resemblance to a microsoft logo

How long 'til people get "creative" with it? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739350)

I foresee a whole new kind of image memes soon. Imagine someone uploading a goatse pic? Or the pic of a very disgruntled baby? Or let's play "people who look like things"?

Gawd, how long 'til it gets launched?

iPhoto face matching (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739354)

So how does his compare to wha t iPhoto does? Are the techs basically the same? Does Apple have a patent on what iPhoto does.

It seems to me that this tech has reached a commodity level, and unless MS is doing something very different, this is just seems like a gimmick to sue others out of business.

What I think would be useful is to allow users to choose their favorite celebrity and match user photos that are close. I know many people who will go out with anyone that looks like Antonio Banderas.

Next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739356)

The big technical leap would be tying in their credit rating and financial assets like property and stock. Is golddiggers.com taken?

Re:Next step (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739392)

The big technical leap would be tying in their credit rating and financial assets like property and stock. Is golddiggers.com taken?

Yes, it is. Funnily enough it redirects to http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/ [sugardaddyforme.com]

I've been waiting for this (1, Funny)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739376)

Can Microsoft deliver my Ms Portman look-alike petrified with hot grits down her pants?

Thx in advance.

Re:I've been waiting for this (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739514)

Ah, both hot grits and Natalie Portman. This made my day significantly better.

Re:I've been waiting for this (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739618)

Did you perhaps mean paralyzed? Or did I miss some new internet meme where people want statues of Ms Portman?

Re:I've been waiting for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739760)

Oh, how the slashdot of my youth has fallen.

Re:I've been waiting for this (1)

Zugok (17194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740078)

Did you perhaps mean paralyzed? Or did I miss some new internet meme where people want statues of Ms Portman?

How did a six digit Slashdot user fail at recognising a petrified Natalie Portman meme?

Re:I've been waiting for this (1)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739662)

I don't get it. Could you provide a car analogy?

Image editing (2)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739468)

If this actually gets implemented, I wonder what percent of photos uploaded will be edited in some way or another.

Ballmer Signed-Off on this Remarkable Demo (1)

theodp (442580) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739508)

Steve Ballmer greeenlighted the patent application after seeing this remarkable demo [flickr.com] of the technology. :-)

Floating fatman would like to meet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739746)

Unfortunately for Ballmer, there's not many hotties looking for Baron Harkonnen lookalikes:

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/11732-5459.gif [wearysloth.com]

Useless to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739530)

I have a fetish for Japanese/asians and since they all look the same then it's pretty much useless for me. :-)

black male (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739560)

Does the patent include anything about recording the users' search history and then blackmailing them with it? If not, I need a patent lawyer ASAP!

And why not? (1)

MintOreo (1849326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739570)

Finding the type of women/men you're physically attracted to is a good place to begin in the search for personalities you're attracted to.

Only a matter of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739596)

before what ever company (Canon, Nikon I dunno)invented/perfected facial identification (as seen in most mid to high end camera's today) will sue Microsoft for infringing on their patent. Shoehornjob

Porn browser obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739610)

If the dating site doesn't work out, please create a porn browser with this feature. I've thought about it myself before too. "Click here to find more girls who look like this."

Re:Porn browser obviously (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739772)

Internet Explorer 10 plugin approved for production. Hell, someone's gotta give a reason to use IE.

Incomplete (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739666)

The search needs to include the total person, i.e. all of the body characteristics.

How about specifying girth and length ? (1)

ceCA (675081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739670)

Women would be much happier by specifying penis size and girth. Women who want small penises will get what they want as well (cough ... cough). Each to his needs.

Re:How about specifying girth and length ? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739844)

Hmm, I've heard more women complain about 'to big' then about 'to small'.

Maybe just a personal thing though.

Think of the trolls! (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739756)

You can't patent this, think of the potential trolling applications. What about a dating website that actually matches people based on how similar their pictures are?

Customer - wait you mean you're my cousin!?

*Steve Balmer and Bill Gates High Five*

Natalie Portman? (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739766)

Of today or a la Leon the Professional? Please elaborate as my interest has been peaked with curiosity.

Yeah, but can I search for my perfect chick? (1)

steelersteve13 (1372165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739774)

One with big boobies.

Helps in subjective judgments of attractiveness (1)

No Lucifer (1620685) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739788)

I've never really understood the attraction to Anna Kournikova; and Kelli Garner is the pinnacle of beauty to me. I can't speak for women, but at least for men, it has been my experience that we have varying tastes in what we find attractive in the opposite sex. While there are objective measures of beauty (i.e. Megan Fox), there are many, many women who are attractive to me, but would be considered average-looking by most other guys. This service is great for finding women who are my "type". It doesn't mean it is easier to filter out the uggos and fatties, it means I can use pictures of women who fit my subjective tastes and go from there.

The Borg (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739808)

As long as I remember all Microsoft stories have this Borg avatar, why not this time, is it to prevent Bill to find his perfect match?

Prior art (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739812)

I'm pretty sure that the FBI and CIA already do this and have been doing so for a number of years.

What about makeup? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739882)

Will the algorithm factor in push-up bras, make-up, stupid camera angles and other things women do to mask what they really like or will it still be a case of you have to wake up beside her to see what she really looks like?

Not that there is anything wrong with a natural looking woman. To be honest I'd prefer it but there is often a lot of deception put into someone's looks (especially with women) so unless they're honest it's not really going to match what you're looking for.

but the real bonus would be someone different ;) (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739888)

just go, I want someone that does NOT look like your ex, susan boyle etc :)

Dear theodp, (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739904)

You sound particularly bitter in this submission - are you taking it personally?

Did Microsoft use ImgSeek? (1)

kallenberg (1949762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739918)

Well take a look at the program imgseek. You index your photos, draw a drawing in a simple bitmap paint area, then search for what you painted. Program works well e.g. if you draw a dog... a horse surely will show up. Did microsoft use this program to make their patented image search engine?

Might also be useful for casting (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739976)

Might also be useful for casting, if you wanted to hire a performer with a certain sort of face, but didn't quite want any you had yet seen.

Well (4, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739996)

From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

2. High incomes of most American workers, and relative egalitarianism. Unlike say, 1950, many women don't need men for money. They are no longer remotely impressed by men making incomes in the bottom 99%.

3. Aging of the populance. All men, from age 13 to age 90, want women in the same age range. Women are fertile and make good mothers between ages 15 and 35. That's 17 years of (legal) breeding ability. Yet, out of the millions of men in the United States, every last one of them prefers women in this age range.

And other factors. Sexual harassment laws mean that men who ask anyone at work for a date risk their careers. The laws in general have gone from being biased towards men (prehistory-1980) towards heavily biased in favor of women.

This is why a lot of men in the U.S. would be best served dating oversees. If you're in the top 10-20% of income in the U.S., but not the top 1%, and you have average looks...you're a dud by the standards of the handful of attractive available non-obese women in the United States. You're royalty with that kind of money and prospects by equally attractive women in say, Ukraine.

Ugly people dont fuck. Its that simple (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740032)

Ugly people have no hope in this world. Just live alone and pay to watch pretty people fuck.

Slim Pickings (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740060)

A better patent would be for software that takes ugly people and makes them look beautiful. As long as they never saw the real thing, it might make for the ideal relationship, not to mention increasing demand for paper bags.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?