Offpsring trait likelihood checker patent criticized


That is some headline, what’s the sentence diagram look like for a subject like that?


Only gingers can process it in realtime.

1 Like

The world will have more gingers; you cannot stop me!

if you had said redheads i would be with you.

Hmm, so is gingerism caused by Y chromosomes or downmarket property aesthetics?


Prejudice masked as humor. Well done sir. You must be from the internet.
BTW the one on the left is just a girl with a dye job.

Only a Ginger can call someone a Ginger


I hate to break this to you, dude, but your “redhead” has a dye job.

1 Like

that is precisely the difference the picture does not denote “natural” redhead which would be a ginger correct?

Prejudice masked as humor.

don’t worry some of my best friends are gingers. /s
No I love gingers they are my preference in women in fact I believe that every ginger lass I have met was the most beautiful girl in the room. also check my responce to maggie.kbs message.

What is with people calling me sir or dude prejudging what gender I am. See? I can call out people who do it too.

1 Like

Oh, I use “dude” as a gender neutral pronoun. Sorry for the confusion. To be masculine-specific, it would have to be “dudebro”. Feminine-specific is “dudelady”.

1 Like

I called you ‘sir’ due to your use of a dye job porn model as an example of what gets your approval and a natural redheaded boy as your example of what you reject. It was the natural assumption as it smacked of misogyny. Was I wrong?
Making light of your own prejudice is something you might want to re-consider. Prejudice isn’t something is ok for some groups and not for others. It’s wrong no matter who you do it to. Your ‘humorous’ post only serves to normalize that behavior as does your unapologetic response.
As for your preference for redheaded women, examine it in another light. Imagine a white man telling everyone he prefers black or asian women. Do you see how racist and prejudicial that is? Your preference isn’t based on personality, compatibility, or any other individual personal trait. Instead, you base your preference on a genetic trait that no one has control over. It’s objectification pure and simple.


Despite that canard about redheads going extinct (which I know Maggie debunked a while ago here), I see more and more readheads every day, in real life and in the media. I don’t have Maggie or Rob’s magnificent ginger locks, but my natural color has always had a distinctly reddish cast, and my son’s little boy blond has a definite strawberry tint to it.

I will be interested to see if Althea comes out a redhead. I hope so! (BTW, my son named his lovey “Dude”.)

I will be interested to see if Althea comes out a redhead.

Us, too. Though, if she’s anything like me, it’ll be a good 12 months or so before she has much in the way of any hair at all.

The current joke: If she’s a brunette, we’ll love her just a tiiiiinnny bit less.

(And, if she’s a ginger, we’ll be raising her with a healthy wariness of people who sexually objectify her based on her hair.)


Several of my esteemed fellow commenters have issued heartfelt and well-spoken responses to your missive, but their excessive verbosity and lack of linguistic efficiency troubles me. I shall now exercise the admirable brevity and economy of word count demonstrated in the hauntingly Byzantine headline of this fine article and say, from the bottom of my heart:

Fuck off, troll.

about the image dye job porn model the image is from tumbler via google images.

Imagine a white man telling everyone he prefers black or asian women.

prejudice has to be preconceived opinion or bias that causes harm. wouldn’t the prejudice and racism be against white people in that scenario not the black people or Asians?

I didn’t say that I only date girls who are redheads.

Instead, you base your preference on a genetic trait that no one has
control over.

kind of ironic seeing as rob’s post was about dna testing for traits. Selection ie:control over the unborn heritable traits,mind you.

Your preference isn’t based on…

If you read those words again you might be able to see the choice of words was awkward but i didn’t say “I only date redheads” which is what I would have to have said to be analogous to your analogy.

“Jokes” on this vary page.
"The world will have more gingers; you cannot stop me!"
"The current joke: If she’s a brunette, we’ll love her just a tiiiiinnny bit less."

Isn’t this evidence they both would prefer or as the definition put it as they would having a choice would “tend to choose” via trait selection in robs joke for redheads?

PhasmaFelis: I am not a troll I have a differing opinion even if you think it is wrong or offensive. No need for offensive words.

That is Ariel, thank you very much. You are a naughty, naughty boy.

But for a real red head, there’s Tanya

1 Like

The thing is, it sounds like they are patenting the concept of marginal probabilities. They could go as far as a multivariate distribution of discreet probabilities, but in laymen’s terms whoopdie-fuckin-doo, it’s undergraduate level probability. It’s not even a binomial distribution because it’s only the parents, not a population.

The academic action is in working backwards from exploring prior probabilities using Bayesian analysis. Why? I honestly couldn’t tell you because I go right to sleep thinking about it.

Anyway, I’d tell any statisticians to yell at me if I got anything wrong, but they’ll yell at anyone whether they are right or wrong, so it makes no difference.

I suspect the reason you don’t ‘only date redheads’ may be more due to the uncanny ability of redheads to spot people like you from a distance.

Perhaps, but then again they didn’t seem to feel the need to objectify anyone.

plus, isn’t mendel himself some prior art in this case? (apologies if I am wantonly blending patent and copyright…)

1 Like

Mendel certainly has prior art on the genetics, and lots of people have prior art on doing DNA testing now that we know that’s what genes are made of. Business Model Patents are the classic way you can take something that’s hopelessly covered in prior art and obviousness to the skilled practitioner and turn it into something you can get a patent on anyway (though there have been patents on using the BRCA gene to predict breast cancer, and there are a bunch of genetic counseling services out there that’ll give prospective parents advice on whether their kids are at risk of well-known birth defects such as Tay-Sachs, so I’m puzzled that they even had room to patent anything.)