22, 6'4", 140lbs? Yeah, Right...
Posted by dbfriends on 29 March 2005 - 10:41 · 33 comments & 5365 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: dbfriends
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: dbfriends
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Rickie on 29 Mar 2005 - 10:51
- Lol
-
#2 Posted by Sawyer12 on 29 Mar 2005 - 10:52
- Damn, I better stop pretending to be a 30 year old body builder on the internet ha ha, joking aside I think it’s an excellent Idea and I don’t know why they didn’t think of this sooner.
-
#3 Posted by Ianmac45 on 29 Mar 2005 - 10:56
- oh darn, that was my cover
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by PayneX on 29 Mar 2005 - 10:57
- Did anybody NOT roll their eyes when reading this?
-
#4.1 Posted by krono6 on 29 Mar 2005 - 11:55
- I didn't, I was more shocked at the fact that the Title perfectly describes my Internet Dating Partner...
-
#5 Posted by R.O.A on 29 Mar 2005 - 11:55
-
damn, i was just starting to have fun
-
#6 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 29 Mar 2005 - 12:02
- Yes, as a 35 year old, 5'11", 136lbs, FBI agent I think this is a good thing.
(The internet, where men are men, women are men, and kids are FBI agents.)
-
#7 Posted by ThaCrip on 29 Mar 2005 - 12:24
- overall i think this aint a bad idea at all... it aint gonna hurt anyone is the main thing
-
(6 replies)
#8 Posted by i like chips on 29 Mar 2005 - 13:27
- 6'4'' 140lbs? kinda skinny no? I'm 5'10'' 135lbs and I'm skinny as hell.
-
#8.1 Posted by Lurchybaby on 29 Mar 2005 - 13:54
- Try anorexic....
/6' 7" 200lbs and rather slim (IMO) -
#8.4 Posted by Treefrog on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:46
- My husband is 6'4" and weighs 160, and he is very slim, yes 140 would be at least bordering on unhealthy hehe.
-
#8.5 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 30 Mar 2005 - 01:06
- I'm 5'7 at 133 lb.
very underweight -
#8.6 Posted by Gulfisland on 31 Mar 2005 - 05:47
- dude Im 6' 178 Pounds, and I am hella skinny..
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by squirrelist on 29 Mar 2005 - 14:20
- I would think that if the law passes it could hurt their business. They offer a unique service. If this law passes it would make them just like every other dating service. But perhaps they are counting on it to fail so they get cheap public exposure. I know I've never heard of them until this came up a while ago.
-
#9.1 Posted by YaddaMe on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:43
- I was thinking the exact same thing until i read the article.
The proposal doesn't require background checks... only the statement of whether they have been done or not.
If it were like David summarized, True.com loses their main selling point. As it is in reality, True.com gains a small advantage over their competitors by not only doing background checks, but having their competitors required to publicly state that they don't.
Of course... if the law were to pass & sites had to state whether they did checks or not, it would more than likely be hidden/hard to find.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by SkolVikings on 29 Mar 2005 - 14:36
- The summary of the story is wrong. This bill is being proposed by the MICHIGAN SENATE, not the American Senate. Sheesh.
-
#11 Posted by Marduk on 29 Mar 2005 - 15:30
- Wow it's great to see they're dealing with real issues that matter!
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by mircleman on 29 Mar 2005 - 16:14
- it's utter nonsense. this whole big brother way of thinking. oh yeah you wanna do this give us your papers so we can check you out. people are so lazy now a days, back in our days ( hippies ) we wouldnt have stood for this nonsense 2 minutes. now a days everyone are like sheep follow along. america is going down the toilet and noones even bothering anymore.. jeesh.
-
#12.1 Posted by scaredmogwai on 29 Mar 2005 - 16:59
- welcome to the beginning of the fourth reich.
-
#13 Posted by YaddaMe on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:39
- David Bennett... please re-read the article.
The proposal would not require dating sites to do background checks... the requirement would be for those sites to merely state whether they had done them or not.
The only thing this law would change to dating sites is a tiny little 1 word sentence: "We (have/have not) done background checks on our members".
QUOTE The Senate is considering legislation that would require an Internet dating company serving Michigan residents to disclose on its Web site whether it has conducted criminal background checks on users
Last edited by 10547 on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:44
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by Nitrate on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:48
QUOTE True.com insists there have been incidents where people have been shot, stabbed or scammed by dates they met online.
I don't know why, but that made me laugh...
-
#15 Posted by imtoomuch on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:51
- As if the government in Michigan has nothing better to do...
-
#16 Posted by XxiNickxX on 29 Mar 2005 - 18:16
- Your tax dollars hard at work.
-
#17 Posted by TheSarge on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:05
- As if Neowin had nothing better to do than report on this peice of non-news.
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by mFC_ on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:16
- i'm 6'2" 135lbs
-
#18.1 Posted by AnakinSolo2002 on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:19
- would you like some skin with them bones? lol
you've gotta be pretty damn skinny!
I'm 21, 6'4" and I weigh 218lbs, though it's all muscle so that does make a bit of difference.
but 135? damn if your a guy that could be ok but if yer a girl then ****, you are definatelly anerexic of balemic. crazy
-
#19 Posted by geeknik on 30 Mar 2005 - 07:47
- Adult Friend Finder already has this as an option through a company called ConfirmID.com. Nothing new here.
Of course, the laws aren't really intended to ensure people don't lie on their online profiles or post fake pictures. There is a more serious side - it would require sites to reveal whether they had caried out criminal screening on potential dates. True.com insists there have been incidents where people have been shot, stabbed or scammed by dates they met online. However, rivals say the law would be useless - as people could simply provide a fake name to get around the checks.
A Senate panel has voted 4-3 to pass the bill onto the full chamber for debate and it could now vote in April. For Sandie Cornillie, though, it's just a waste of time. The 46-year-old said she preferred finding dates online as it was less intimidating, more convenient and arguably safer. "It's a very safe way of getting to know someone before we meet face to face," said Cornillie, who has tried online dating for five years. "I haven't met any rapists or any crazy people. It's kind of up to you to be careful."
This second generation of Cinema Displays comes in three sizes (20-Inch, 23-Inch, and the 30-Inch model), and have extra features like dual Firewire & dual USB 2.0 ports. As you might expect, like everything else made by Apple, Cinema Displays aren’t the cheapest thing on the market ($1,299 and up). With Apple’s reputation as a quality vendor, one might reasonably expect a decent deal. Especially when you spend over $1,000 dollars, you’d expect to get an honest and fair warranty. However, with this new generation of Cinema Displays, Apple only offers a 1-year manufacturer warranty. Has Apple screwed over it’s so called valuable customers with a warranty best fitting a Gateway product?! We think so. If one was so inclined, one can purchase an extended warranty for around $199, giving you a 3-year extended warranty. But there’s a catch. In order to get the extended warranty, you must purchase either a PowerMac or PowerBook along side of your $1,299+ LCD; unless you're planning on doing just this, you'll be up a creek without the proverbial paddle.
So come on guys, we hear you cry. Be reasonable. How is this a major issue? Well, consumers shouldn’t have to spend an extra $1,200 just to get an extended warranty on a product that so far hasn't had the smoothest sailing. It becomes even more of a problem considering the other, more visible, problems.
Our second concern is the growing number of faulty Cinema Displays. Website’s across the internet have been reporting on Cinema Displays that show either a strong pink or fairly visible yellow hue. Clearly, this isn't the first time that the "pink hue" symptoms have occurred - they first occurred in Apple's PowerBook G3 link (click here). This problem had previously been noticed by graphic professionals, but the more serious pink/yellow hues can be seen by your average computer user. Apple has yet to make an official statement regarding this problem, but has replaced all Cinema Displays that are experiencing this problem. More worryingly, the company has been reported as deleting support threads on their site (click here, DreamLight.com is currently down please click here to view a cached version of the site). This, however, obviously isn't a long term fix. According to DreamLight, the pink/yellow hue comes back after only a few weeks of normal usage. DreamLight suggest from user reports that these problems could be due to unnecessary stress on the LCD.
Of course, this may not be Apple’s fault, but the LCD manufacturer LG. LG produces a wide variety of products ranging from LCD TV's, Cameras, DVD Players - even Refrigerator's. Still, in the PC world, LG products are often suggested to be anything but high quality with less than average performance. Back in 1999, Apple invested $100 million dollars into Samsung to help Samsung produce a large quantity of LCDs for Apples iBooks, PowerBooks, and Cinema Displays. As such, it’s anyone’s guess why Apple switched from Samsung to LG. Even though Apple doesn’t manufacture the LCDs, Apple has a responsibility to its customers. That responsibility is to offer a fair and honest warranty. Switching back doesn’t sound like too bad idea.