If your sex life is dead, you can blame Steve Jobs

If your phone is too compelling, your sex life might not be. American birth rates have been declining for nearly two decades now, and researchers believe they’ve identified a potential new culprit: The iPhone. That’s right: A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper examines AT&T mobile broadband coverage from the …

[Anonymous Coward]

It’s obviously because of the lack of pirates

and the corresponding increase in global warming / cooling / indifference / aggression / stupidity / greed / selfishness *

* delete as inappropriate

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: It’s obviously because of the lack of pirates

Ramen

[probgoblin]

Built different

YOUR fertility rate declined because Steve Jobs introduced a device that gave young women unfettered access to resources about reproductive health.

MY fertility rate declined because in 1997 Steve Jobs fired a pellet gun into my groin resulting in "internal castration".

We are NOT the same (I was sterilized by Steve Jobs via pellet gun)!

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Built different

Possibly one of the oddest comments ever seen on this site.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Built different

amanfrommars: Hold my beer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Built different

And yet I'm feeling rather grateful to Steve jobs for such a civic minded act.

[Philo T Farnsworth]

Re: Built different

You say this like it's a bad thing.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Built different

Unfettered access? The whole idea is that the access is fettered - although I guess even restricted access to information on birth control allows avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

[Chairman of the Bored]

Well ...

Years ago I was in a meeting where various doomsday scenarios were discussed (Nukes, Continental-scale EMP strikes, chem/bio)...

And someone asked the briefer, "So, what do YOU perceive as the greatest threat to man?"

And the man said, "To man specifically? Independently wealthy women with battery-operated toys."

I damn near spit my coffee out!

But maybe he knew something we didn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well ...

When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

[Taliesinawen]

Re: Well ...

> When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

Q: “What is a Rampant Rabbit? ”

Gemini: “I cannot fulfill this request.”

ChatGPT: “A Rampant Rabbit is a type of rabbit vibrator. A sex toy designed to provide simultaneous stimulation of the vagina and clitoris.”

--

Posted on 00:49 BST

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Well ...

AKA your plastic pal who's fun to be with

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

The only person I know who's terrified of spiders is a man.

How few women have you interacted with if you think they jump on a chair when a mouse walks in? Tom and Jerry is not a documentary.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

In the UK, or more correctly southern England you can try https://www.londonzoo.org/plan-your-visit/zoo-experiences/friendly-spider-programme

"Do you have a spider phobia?

Millions of perfectly rational people are terrified of spiders. No matter how much they try to calm themselves, the response remains the same: sweating, nausea, panic, rapid heartbeat and worse. But spiders are harmless* and extremely beneficial invertebrates whose survival depends on avoiding such large, lumbering threats as ourselves. Join us for a session with a hynotherapist and zookeeper, and let us help you overcome your fears."

I tried this and it worked for me. The bravest thing you do is turn up, you can leave at any time, and bring a friend for emotional support. I even got my (older) sister and niece to go, and my sister considers me to be at best a useless irritant and waste of space.

* (My comment) Does not apply to Australian spiders whose bites are often deadly to humans, and in the UK there are 'false widow' spiders which can cause a bit of a problem.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

>Australian spiders whose bites are often deadly to humans

There hasn't been a death from a spider bite for 25 years, the most deadly spider in Australia isn't venomous

It's the drop bears you really have to watch out for, and the number one killer - my little pony

[Eric 9001]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

It's hard to say which animal is the most deadly in Australia, but most deaths seem to be the end result of harassing snakes; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_attacks_in_Australia?useskin=monobook

Snakes will not bite you if you leave them alone and usually snakes do not inject a significant amount of venom against a threat not perceived as severe (as producing venom has a high energy cost) - although you do need to pay attention while walking, so you don't step on or corner a snake.

Deaths from other animals don't occur commonly enough to be notable (oh wait, the biggest killers are humans, which are in fact an animal).

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

Biggest killers are normally horses / cattle / dogs, depending on how rural you are. After that it gets a bit more antipodean with kangaroos, crocodiles etc.

There is a (possibly urban myth) story that the most dangerous spider in Oz is the huntsman. It's totally harmless but is the size of a cat and likes to hide from the sun in cars, under the sun visor.

So you drive off, flip down the visor and the creature from Alien lands in your face and you crash.

[Eric 9001]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

I suspect the urban myth is how fatalities are common, rather than the occurrence (after all, if you die, you can't tell people why you crashed) and the rate of incidence being severely exaggerated.

A spider in the face will likely make many freak out and possibly crash (with injuries likely), but modern brakes, crumple zones (including guardrails), airbags and seatbelts makes it hard to die from a low to medium speed collision.

It's not exactly harmless, as it can bite and does have venom (although major effects have only been reported after severe or repeated bites).

[Eclectic Man]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

Upvoted as you are mostly but not quite correct about timing. There was a fatality in 2016, according to:

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/nature-wildlife/2012/08/australian-spiders-the-10-most-dangerous/

"Spiders tend to incite more fear than favour and even provoke phobias for some. And many a visitor to our shores has been more than a little worried about our venomous eight-legged friends.

It’s true that we have some of the most venomous spiders in the world – but Australia’s spider reputation is bigger than its bite: a death in April 2016 was the country’s first recorded spider-caused death since 1981."

I hd no idea that Australian bees are so dangerous as the article states: "Australian spiders have a fearsome reputation, but our bees typically pose more of a threat."

I am off to buy some gauntlets, mosquito netting suitable for headgear, and bicycle clips.

[Eric 9001]

Re: When they invent a Rampant Rabbit that can get spiders out of the bath.....

I heard of a few women that are terrified of spiders, but it turns out the only people I directly known that are terrified of spiders are male.

Women don't tend to be terrified of, but still don't like small animals like lizards and spiders and will generally ask men to get rid of them (via removal of the lizard, or mopping up all the spiderwebs - even though spiderwebs give charm and catch sucking insects like mosquitoes).

>Creak open the door to my home gym.

>Cobwebs on the weights.

>Bats flying around.

>Organ music on my speakers.

Yup, it's lifting time.

[Philo T Farnsworth]

Re: Well ...

As Saint Jobs said, "You're holding it wrong."

[Dwarf]

Re: Well ...

I understand that the term Bob is the correct name for a Battery Operated Boyfriend.

Apparently it works better when the ladies are discussing their appointments, as seeing Bob seems to be the sort of things that other ladies won't question.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Well ...

TIL the band "Steely Dan" are named after an oscillatory accessory in the novel Naked Lunch

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Dude, seriously? You think I'm going to pass on an opportunity to get laid because I'm playing with my phone?!?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a study of Yanks, not Canucks. Looking at the state of the US today, it's clear that many of them wouldn't notice a tech device taking over their life..

This study is old data, I suspect the effect is greater now, as every redneck in the US waits on the latest drop off ordure on Truth Social.

[werdsmith]

There is a huge difference between the approach for people who are in new relationships and those who have been together for years.

Though it does again become more tricky after the children arrive. Then opportunities must be take and the noise level kept down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Andrew Tate vs Jaako Iisalo

Lets tell the incels that the real reason women dont want anything to do with them, isnt their failures in attitude, hygiene, personality, or education - its just that they are less interesting than Angry Birds..

[Pulled Tea]

Re: Andrew Tate vs Jaako Iisalo

Pfft, Angry Birds… everyone knows the real incubus stealing our wimmins' fertility is Flappy Bird.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Andrew Tate vs Jaako Iisalo

(Flappy Bird cannot be run anymore, without a unauthorized copy, or a 10+ year old device with it installed, as it was removed from the cr…app store and google played in 2014).

[Pulled Tea]

Wait… what?

It’s pretty much undeniable that births fell faster in places with AT&T coverage

So that's a problem with AT&T coverage, not iPhones. Did they have data after the exclusivity deal that excluded AT&T coverage from the causal relationship?

Also, you know, correlation ≠ causation.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Wait… what?

I took a statistics class which caused me to believe that.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Wait… what?

Don't US highway deaths correlate well with US lemon imports?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Wait… what?

But not from scurvy

[sabroni]

Re: Also, you know, correlation ≠ causation.

from the article:

“It’s pretty much undeniable that births fell faster in places with AT&T coverage,” Myers told The Register in an email. “As a scientist, I’m loath to ever say causality is ‘proven’ … but I would say that we’ve identified a compelling natural experiment and that it strongly points to a large and causal relationship between iPhones and fertility.”

[Ken Hagan]

Re: Also, you know, correlation ≠ causation.

The natural experiment has so many uncontrolled variables that only a complete fool would regard it as compelling. If this person has a degree, can it be revoked?

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Our country does anti-support children

US of A - ians cannot afford children. Support for the unborn? Lots. Support once born? Forget it. Maternal leave? Unknown there. Kindergarden in walking distance? They have heard of it. Primary school in walking distance? Nope. Free healthcare for child and the mother? Nope. Bear the child in a hospital? >10000$ when it is perfect, can be > 100000$ easily. School safety? Even School-Cops don't seem to help. One mile radius of absolutely no gun zone (except police) around education grounds to make school safe again? That suggestion alone would start a war.

Lets blame the iPhone and AT&T !

[Pete Sdev]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

The ever rising cost of housing, particularly where there's actual jobs and infrastructure, is also a major disincentive.

I've got one child and I'm not planing on any more of my own (too old now for a start).

I'd be really up for fostering in principle, but there's no way we could afford a 3 bedroom apartment.

[My other car WAS an IAV Stryker]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

"Free healthcare for child and the mother?" Some states have a decent program (e.g.: Michigan's MI Child). Not so much for the mothers, and certainly not nation-wide.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

No-gun zones do absolutely nothing to prevent mass shooters from going into them with a gun (after all, murder is already illegal, but that doesn't stop mass shooters).

Bringing a gun to school for show and tell has long been banned, but that hasn't made any difference - some USAian children have done it anyway and in 1 or 2 cases, accidentally pulled the trigger too (an adult loaded it and left it loaded).

Think logically about it, which target is a mass shooter going to prefer?;

- A no-gun area, with maybe a guard or two that can be ambushed, with police backup 15+ minutes away.

or

- A area full of gun nuts, who have trained their whole life, waiting for a mass shooter to appear.

Regardless, guns themselves aren't the problem - guns after all, are themselves a harmless piece of metal, that don't do anything without someone loading it, aiming it and firing it.

There are other countries with similar numbers of guns per capita, that don't have the same problems.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

> No-gun zones do absolutely nothing to prevent mass shooters from going into them with a gun

> (after all, murder is already illegal, but that doesn't stop mass shooters).

That is the classical NRA propaganda talk nonsense. That one mile radius must be enforced and controlled. Anyone with a gun is to be blocked.

> Regardless, guns themselves aren't the problem

Again NRA propaganda (since somewhere around 1970, before the NRA was actually a responsible organization and even pushed better gun control).

It is the lack of regulation, control and the sheer masses. Me, being German, could get a gun in USA easily. I am "Whity Wihiteman" white, even though not blonde. I speak reasonable good English. I won't be checked, you can bet on it. I just have to choose the right state (Oklahoma and a few others).

I, probably, could even walk in there with "Oh, I never had a gun, I am proud I just got my US citizenship. Can we train a bit before selling?" and they will happily do.

Look at gun regulation in Switzerland, Finnland or Norway, for example. Lots of guns, but no gun problem.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

It is not NRA propaganda to state reality.

How exactly is a mass shooter with a bunch of guns concealed in a backpack or a duffel bag, or a gun stuffed in their pants, going to be prevented from entering such 1.6 km radius?

A circumference of over 5km is a lot of distance to install metal detectors.

It's a total waste of police time to prosecute 99.99% of gun nuts that will never be a mass shooter - it would likely rather allow more mass shootings.

After all, if resources, that would be assigned to investigating the warning signs of future mass shooters, are diverted towards investigating non-mass-shooters, then more mass shooters will be missed before they act.

Even if there's a magical no-gun zone somehow, a decent rifle can have an effective range of over 800m - criminals could even fire bullets from outside the zone!

Furthermore, most mass shooters seem to have trained little, or trained poorly - resulting in far less deaths than what could have occurred - due to their shit aim - I suspect there would be a similar amount of deaths if mass shooters were to use knives instead.

Maybe a reasonable regulation for the ability to own guns in the USA, is to require going to a shooting range and demonstrating that you can safely complete a shooting match, achieving a reasonable score on the target.

Doing brief research into the topic, Switzerland, Finnland and Norway appear to have regulations like that, rather than having no-gun zones (since those do not work).

The NRA couldn't exactly complain about a requirement to need to have basic competence in shooting a gun, to have a gun (as long as the police have to pass the same match to have a gun) - even though it'll be akin to a requirement of needing to show that you can cut vegetables competently to be able to own a knife.

An issue I can think of with that approach, is that the 0.01% that go on to be mass shooters, would actually know how to aim and clear jams.

Regardless, how is it exactly a problem if you were to get a gun or a knife or whatever in the USA, even illegally (due to not being a citizen or permanent resident) - you're not a murderer or a mass shooter right?

Basing morality and cause and effect off legality is totally illogical.

Further regulations are not going to stop many US gun nuts from selling guns - there are culture issues - which cannot be fixed by applying illogical regulations.

[Pete Sdev]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

I'll concur that at least part of the US's problem is cultural (and not just with guns...).

The UK was already pretty restrictive for gun ownership. Then in 1996 we had the Dunblane massacre, and pretty much the whole country went "fuck that, we're not risking that horror happening again" and gun laws were further tightened with widespread support, so much so that biathlon athletes often have to do half their training abroad these days.

IINM, Australia was somewhat similar with Port Arthur.

The problem with the US, that despite having experienced hundreds of the equivalent of Dunblane, it's not done much about it due to the US's mythological Individualist culture and so many yanks simply don't give a shit about other people .

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

It's quite ineffective to focus on restricting a tool further, with laws written based off emotion with the goal of restricting and punishing innocent people, rather than evidence, while ignoring the actual problem (what drives people to commit mass murder).

It's easy to tighten up laws to be more repressive, to the point that biathlon athletes cannot even train in the country, which has wide support by people who replace logical thinking with emotion, while it's hard to actually fix the problems that induce a want to mass murder, which doesn't have wide support due to a requirement for logical thinking.

I see no reason why the Dunblane massacre couldn't have been carried out with a knife instead.

As it seems no comparable effort has been put towards providing mental health services, it appears that a similar attack not happening again has been due to luck.

Port Arthur was as dodgy as hell - Martin Bryant had severe intellectual disabilities (originally tested 40 IQ, later tested 66 IQ), so he did not bother applying for a firearms licence, let alone a drivers licence (as he knew he would fail), but he still drove and a dealer illegally sold him 2 semi-automatic rifles without checking his licence (the existing laws required dealers to only sell to those with an appropriate licence).

Then, despite no firearm training (he couldn't go to a range, due to having no licence, he could have only illegally practiced out in the bush, against a stationary target), he somehow manged to pull off precision shot after precision shot, killing a dozen people in the span of 15 seconds (only trained special forces or gun nuts that have trained their entire lives could do that).

Some witnesses "didn't recognise the gunman as being Martin Bryant" (notably the shooter had acne, Martin did not) - which is quite odd - the only explanation for that is either that the acne was an induced memory in the witnesses, or there was multiple shooters.

Rather than apply common sense and crack down on enforcing the existing laws (the massacre wouldn't have happened if the existing laws were followed), the Australian government went and came up with a bunch of illogical laws and wasted billions of dollars buying back firearms (most shooters were glad to surrender old rusty junk for a good amount and buy a new toys and the many people who have never had a licence, but have firearms that originate from before the 90s were undeterred).

The Australia government has stated on numerous occasions that their goal is to have all civilians disarmed, while themselves being able to to be armed with whatever they like (why would they want that?).

Still, their actions are actually working against their goals - for example legislating *paintball* markers as firearms and therefore requiring a firearms licence and safe installation, has resulted in such individuals getting rifles as well (already have a licence, already have a safe - just need to join another club).

After the latest Islamic extremist massacre, more changes to the laws are wanted and another billion dollar buyback - in response, licence registries in every state are getting flooded with licence applications and Permit To Acquire's (a PTA is required to own a firearm).

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

> with a knife instead.

Nice that you mention it: USA leads in knife stabbing crimes and knife kills per capita too (excluding non-developed and war zones).

[werdsmith]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

I see no reason why the Dunblane massacre couldn't have been carried out with a knife instead.

Indeed it transpired to be true in the northwest of England there was a knife attack on children, but:

If you are in a school corridor would you rather be running away from a person with: A - knife or B: firearm ?

Remember, knives generally have primary purpose as a tool to do things such as prepare food. A handgun has one primary function, which is to harm other humans.

The availability of firearms escalates violence. If you are a desperate drug dependent criminal and you believe your victims will be armed then you need to be armed and shoot first.

Up close and personal is much harder to carry out than stand off popping people dozens of metres away.

In a crowded school a bullet could pass through multiple bodies before it stops.

And in US mass shootings it is rarely an armed hero who puts a stop to it. Most of the time the shooter does what he had already planned to do and takes his own life. After the damage is done.

The only argument in favour of gun ownership in the US is the stable door one. There are just two many weapons in circulation to effectively bring them under control.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

>If you are in a school corridor would you rather be running away from a person with: A - knife or B: firearm ?

I would prefer to be running away from neither - both can be equally as lethal.

I would prefer to be running away from a mass shooter down a school corridor, rather than a mass stabber, as I'd hear the gunshots from far away down the corridor.

If you can hear something from dozens of meters away, you are able to run away without any chance of them catching up to you (holding a gun slows down your running speed and you can't run and shoot and hit anything accurately - you can only walk and shoot, or run, stop, shoot, run), while a knife doesn't slow down your running speed much and is almost silent - there is not much indication some lunatic with a knife is there until they've almost stabbed you.

If for some reason I can't escape and I am cornered and the mass killer wants to get me, I'm screwed either way - your odds aren't good against a knife or a gun barehanded.

If I have a pistol too, I am confident that I'll be able to nail any non-governmental mass shooter multiple times in the chest and head before they finish aiming and a mass stabber too before they can finish stabbing me.

I'm not confident going at an attacker with a knife (you have a higher chances dropping your knife and trying to grab the attackers knife), but I would be confident with some plate armour and longsword as my knife.

>Remember, knives generally have primary purpose as a tool to do things such as prepare food. A handgun has one primary function, which is to harm other humans.

I suspect knives were originally invented to prevent another human from killing you in self-defense, although you can also use it to prepare food and any other use you can think of.

Handguns were originally not very practical and considered akin to a ceremonial sword, due to the short effective range and difficulty of shooting accurately.

Then Samuel Colt made available the first practical mass-produced revolver, which became very popular for preventing other humans from killing you via self-defense.

Despite the practical improvements made since then, handguns are still not very effective at killing multiple humans as the short effective range and difficulty of shooting accurately still remains.

Now most handguns have been manufactured for the primary function of putting holes in some paper (how hard it is to shoot accurately even at 5m is the game) and almost all of such target shooters have never shot another human.

>The availability of firearms escalates violence. If you are a desperate drug dependent criminal and you believe your victims will be armed then you need to be armed and shoot first.

That isn't the topic being discussed.

It is not difficult to prevent drug-dependent criminals from getting firearms (drug dependency tends to make you stupid) - but it is difficult to prevent them from getting a brick, which can be just as effective.

A violent drug-dependent criminal is typically a drug dealer and drug dealers tend to have the goal of shooting other violent drug dealers - which means the problem deals with itself - I'm not too concerned about drug dealers dealing killing other drug dealers, as long as there aren't any innocent victims.

>Up close and personal is much harder to carry out than stand off popping people dozens of metres away.

A knife can also be put on a stick and thrown (it's called a spear), which is easily lethal.

A pistol is not effective at dozens of meters - a pistol is only effective at 5-10m.

In a low-pressure situation, standing stationary, hitting a stationary target at all at 15m, 10 times with one hand takes most gun nuts at least 2 minutes and at 20 meters with both hands, at least 5 minutes (most gun nuts tend to be poor, slow shots - most police tend to be worse and most mass shooters are even worse at shooting).

At dozens of metres, in a short time limit, realistically you're only hitting the target with a scoped rifle, from the prone position, or maybe the sitting position.

All non-governmental mass shootings I've looked at have been up close and personal, as most mass shooters can only hit the victim at point-blank range.

>In a crowded school a bullet could pass through multiple bodies before it stops.

You seem clueless - a fired 9mm bullet doesn't have that much energy in it - although non-hollow points can pass through one body, those tend to stop by the second body.

Only rifle rounds, with their larger powder load, tend to have enough energy for it to be possible to pass through multiple bodies - still I've only read of government forces shooting 2 people with one bullet - multiple hits with one bullet doesn't seem to occur during mass shootings, due to the mass shooter seemingly missing most shots (people running away tend to be hard to hit and don't form a row).

Vehicles are much more effective at that, as during ramming attacks, the vehicle has much more energy and much larger area and crushes dozens of bodies before it stops.

It seems cases of unintentional ramming attacks with vehicles (i.e. accidental acceleration, drunk driving), has caused far more deaths than mass shootings, but not much has been done about that.

>in US mass shootings it is rarely an armed hero who puts a stop to it. Most of the time the shooter does what he had already planned to do and takes his own life. After the damage is done.

In the US mass shootings and mass stabbings I've read about, typically the mass killer has selected a target where there will be no armed response for dozens of minutes (i.e. a no-gun zone), then shoots/stabs for dozens of minutes, missing most shots/slashing but not killing, but unfortunately killing several people, then ends their life - then the police arrive after 15+ minutes.

In cases where the attacker doesn't commit suicide and the police feel like showing up (rather than hiding outside the school for example), typically the police end the shooting by shooting the attacker (but that must not be the case of an armed hero).

It seems that in cases where someone with a gun shoots an attacker before they can kill anyone, or 1-2 people, would not be counted as a mass shooting.

Historically, the only group that has been any good at mass shooting has been governmental forces and such governments want civilians to have no guns, no swords, nothing, while they want to have anything they want.

Once the biggest problem - governmental forces are all disarmed, then I would support the destruction of existing firearms and discouragement of the manufacture of new ones.

[werdsmith]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

You're a bit desperate in your arguments here. If the mass killer has the gun option, they use the gun option. They never take a knife in preference because it is less effective.

Up close and personal is close enough to touch someone, not 5-10 metres.

Who ever heard of a school shooter putting knives on the ends of sticks and throwing them around? Did you read back what you wrote? You've effectively conceded with such desperate resort.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

You can't have a mass shooting without guns; case closed, propagandist.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

Unfortunately, guns cannot be magically erased and for as long as hardware stores exist, or piles of scrap exist, it will always be possible to make a gun.

If a gun is unavailable to mass murderers, they can use a knife or any kind of blunt object to achieve the same result, or use a vehicle, which tends to be more lethal, due to how much inertial energy a vehicle has at speed and how the large area compensates for poor aim; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle-ramming_attacks?useskin=monobook

Considering that vehicles kill far more people than guns and are constantly doing so on the roads at the moment, it would make more sense to focus on vehicles first.

What you should be concerned more about is mass murder via drone, which has been demonstrated to be incredibly lethal (outside of current wars, mass murderers so far haven't been smart enough to weaponize drones).

[werdsmith]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

Considering that vehicles kill far more people than guns and are constantly doing so on the roads at the moment, it would make more sense to focus on vehicles first.

Fallacious again. What is the primary purpose of a vehicle? What is the primary function of a handgun?

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

The original purpose of a vehicle was transportation, although they've now primarily used for mostly pointless transportation (such as, traveling to an office, to do office work on a computer, just so a manager/boss can directly issue orders), causing many deaths and to the detriment of the planet.

Vehicles can be wielded wrongly to kill many people, with very little skill required;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle-ramming_attacks?useskin=monobook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack?useskin=monobook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Mishui_vehicle_attack?useskin=monobook

A vehicle is also extremely lethal if you drive it wrong; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate?useskin=monobook#List (which does not include deaths caused by pollution)

The original purpose of a handgun was for self defense against 1 person trying to kill you, but going off actual use, the primary function of handguns now is to put holes in some paper targets (some enjoy how hard it is to aim the handgun and therefore achieve a good score on the target and others have some fantasy about training to be ready for self defense against an attacker - despite such fantasy, nothing happens if they never end up being attacked).

A handgun can also be wielded wrongly to murder someone, or a few people (so can a brick in the hands of a maniac) - but due to the limited accuracy, it takes a high amount of skill to kill multiple people with a handgun - most mass shooters opt for a rifle as a primary weapon for that reason.

When it comes to all firearm homicides, the resulting deaths appear to be far lower than the deaths resulting from vehicles; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates?useskin=monobook

As for the USA, which has major violence problems and major problems with suicide, while it is true that most homicides are done with handguns (for a maniac, killing 1 person with a handgun or a brick is just too easy); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States?useskin=monobook#Homicides

and most suicides are done with firearms; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States?useskin=monobook#Suicides

The number of US deaths by firearm homicide is much less than the US motor vehicle fatality rate - the amount of deaths are only around equal once you add the number of suicides; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year?useskin=monobook

As it would not be hard to further reduce the vehicle death rate (via usable public transport, not abusing and groping people at airports so badly that many choose to drive instead and by inducing businesses to cease making employees pointlessly drive to the office), but it would be hard to reduce the firearm death rate further, it is not fallacious to point out that focusing on vehicles first would prevent far more deaths.

[werdsmith]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

What you should be concerned more about is mass murder via drone, which has been demonstrated to be incredibly lethal (outside of current wars, mass murderers so far haven't been smart enough to weaponize drones).

We've already effectively outlawed.licensed drones that can carry a weaponised payload. Same as guns.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

Sorry, but just because a law is written and then backed up with governmental violence, doesn't mean that reality magically starts confirming to the law (after all, murder has long been illegal, but that hasn't changed the murder rate in the slightest - only police work to catch murderers and reduction of lead pollution etc has lead to a reduction in murders).

Legal drones can easily carry a weaponized payload lethal enough to kill 1 person and it's not illegal to have a bunch of drones.

No fantasy text (a study determined that laws are written like magical spells, to make them seem legitimate) will stop a mass murderer from constructing an illegal drone (easy to moderately difficult), or constructing an illegal firearm (moderately difficult to hard).

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

> It is not NRA propaganda to state reality.

Live in European Union for a month or a few. Does not matter where, Portugal to Poland, Norway to Italy (i.e. West to East, North to South). Or South Korea. US has more school shooting in a week than the whole European Union has in a year (was even better in the past, somehow the US-gun violence starts to spill in?).

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

I was referring to the magical "no-gun zones" and I do not live in the land of the nonfree.

The EU doesn't appear to have more "no-gun zones" than the USA and mass shootings do in fact occur as you pointed out.

Considering that the USA population is ~340 million and the EU population is ~450 million - only the entire EU is comparable with the USA - comparing a single EU country, or a few EU countries to the whole USA is not valid.

School shootings in the USA (that is, a mass shooting at a school that targets school students) are not common and do not happen on a weekly basis; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_death_toll?useskin=monobook (although a few items in the list are acts of violence, without school students as the target)

School shootings in the EU are also not common; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_Europe?useskin=monobook (note that includes non-EU countries such as Russia and England and include acts of violence at schools, without school students as the target).

As for cases where a gun is fired at a school, or in proximity to a school (even several blocks away) - whether it's some idiot negligently discharging and shooting themselves in the leg in the car park, or some idiot bringing a loaded gun for show-and-tell and negligently discharging, shooting themselves, or other people, or some idiot negligently discharging and shooting a toilet in a bathroom and being cut by shattered porcelain, or it's some idiot negligently discharging and shooting someone with a stray bullet, or some moronic target shooter who negligently fired stray bullets into the area outside the school and hit people, or idiots firing shots into the air (not caring where those land), or gang violence, where stray bullets flew in proximity of a school, or a acts of violence near the school, or some suicidal idiots who fired bullets at a shoot, hitting nobody and then shooting themselves, or acts of violence in the school, are all counted as "school shootings", to inflate the number as much as possible, to make it seem that sickos are shooting up a school on a weekly basis;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)?useskin=monobook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)?useskin=monobook

The USA does have a violence problem, especially with gang violence, especially how it's deemed acceptable to respond to a dispute, or someone robbing you without threatening your life, with lethal violence.

If somehow guns were magically erased from existence, the violence problem would still exist - after all, acts of violence with knifes are common in the USA too; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_stabbings_in_the_United_States?useskin=monobook (I suspect that many stabbings are not reported (especially cases where some idiot cuts themselves, or someone else with a knife accidentally), or only make it to local reports - the wikipedia page also notes that many items are missing too - as well nobody cares about stabbings - while many care about shootings).

The USA also has more severe firearm handling competence problems - you do NOT have a firearm loaded when you're not shooting (none of the negligent discharge incidents would have happened if there wasn't a round in the chamber and it also gives you a chance to get it back if someone grabs your gun), you keep your finger AWAY from the trigger when you are not shooting (even if you accidentally have a round loaded, if you don't pull the trigger, it will not fire) and you do NOT fire a round when you don't know where the bullet is going to go - requiring adherence to these 3 basic rules alone, to be able to own a gun, would have prevented many of the incidents (also, inability to follow such rules, would weed out most of those who should not have firearms).

[Pete Sdev]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

The EU doesn't appear to have more "no-gun zones" than the USA

In most European countries *everywhere* outside specific areas for hunting (controlled, time-limited, regulated, etc.) or military training grounds (military only obv.) or shooting-range is a no-gun zone, unless you're a police officer.

[Eric 9001]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

Looking into it further, many states in the USA do have similar restrictions for many locations than the restrictions that most European countries have - thus the USA is similar to the EU when it comes to "no-gun zones".

I found this article; https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html which appears to point out that no gun zones have either no statistically significant effect on mass shootings OR that no gun-zones are preferentially selected for mass shootings; "One analysis of 133 mass shooting events between 2009 and 2016 found that 10 percent of incidents occurred in designated gun-free zones (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2017b). However, another analysis focused on mass public shootings between 1998 and 2018 and reported that 97.8 percent of incidents took place in gun-free zones (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2018a). Falling between these extremes, a more recent analysis of 150 active shootings—incidents in which one or two individuals intentionally and indiscriminately shoot at bystanders in a public place—found that 48 percent of such shootings occurred in gun-free zones (Reeping et al., 2024)."

If you have any studies that have correlated no-gun zones with a reduction in crime, in any country, please link them.

But such studies don't exist, as there is no correlation - criminals don't care about laws beyond not getting caught or getting off.

Statistically, at least in the EU, it seems more likely for a police officer to shoot you than a criminal, thus are you comfortable with any police officer being able to have a firearm anywhere they like?

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Our country does anti-support children

> which appears to point out that no gun zones have either no statistically significant effect on

> mass shootings OR that no gun-zones are preferentially selected for mass shootings

The problem is the non existing enforcement. And the definition of "gun free zone", which is not clear in the article. It reads like "property border", which is indeed laughable. One mile around is my suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

The bait of the clicks

And when it comes to the orthodox Linux/FOSS crowd, the fertility issue is finding people who actually want to have sex with them in the first place.

And the tosser with the Symbian handset who spends the entire date evangelizing how it’s still relevant? Not a chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The bait of the clicks

With quite a bit more effort on the delivery that could have been quite funny. Somebody somewhere will be offering comedy classes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The bait of the clicks

Maybe the dude with Sybian handset has more success with the womenfolk ...

[Paul Crawford]

Re: The bait of the clicks

Sadly I didn't need to look that up to get the joke.

Even sadder is I joke but didn't get it.

[werdsmith]

Re: The bait of the clicks

After a diversion to google I declare that every day is a school day on Register comments.

Not looking forward to the adverts I’m going to be seeing now.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Re: The bait of the clicks

The authors state they controlled for confounding factors (MRDA) but you would not necessarily want a paper titled "iPhone usage has neglible impact on birth rate. Steve Jobs off the hook."

Hardly going to be the darling of the US talk show circuit.

I don't think you can entirely control for the demographic differences between the AT&T serviced region (with iPhones) and the adjacent non·AT&T serviced region. eg AT&T might target higher income and education regions — two well known correlators with lower birth rates,

[phuzz]

Re: The bait of the clicks

My thoughts as well, but it doesn't explain why the rates didn't decline before the iphone was introduced.

[RockBurner]

Re: The bait of the clicks

If I read the article correctly.... the rate WAS declining anyway, (for various other reasons), it's just that in AT&T zones the rate declined a tad faster. (allegedly)

[Ian Johnston]

Re: The bait of the clicks

I just saw a poster for a Pokemon swap meet in Oban Waterstones and my first thought was "How nice of them to run an event for virgins".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The bait of the clicks

So sheep don't count ?

[Bebu sa Ware]

"people aren’t in physical proximity, and thus less likely to be having sex."

You think ?

I am puzzled that Meta, Google, Apple etc when virtual reality was their newest fad didn't explore more fully this aspect of telepresence and remote wanking working — the return to the office mandates ? Obviously would not have made any difference to the conception or the rate.

[ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo]

Re: "people aren’t in physical proximity, and thus less likely to be having sex."

Well, some of the Tech Bros aren't entirely human, so why bother with this stuff?

It's telling that Meta did away with the nether regions entirely. No such region, no need to support those activitities.

[Pete 2]

Re: "people aren’t in physical proximity, and thus less likely to be having sex."

> people aren’t in physical proximity, and thus less likely to be having sex

You mean, with each other?

Shrink: Do you talk to your spouse after sex?

Client: only if there's a phone near the bed

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: "people aren’t in physical proximity, and thus less likely to be having sex."

Ah, reminds me of the old "Carry On" joke:

Q (from man) "Do you smoke after sex?"

Reply (woman): "I don't know, I've never looked"

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Birthrate

Any women who want to have a child, but in need of a sperm donor, I think Elon Musk may oblige

[werdsmith]

Re: Birthrate

I’m not sure that’s the kind of DNA they will be seeking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sponsored by Google?

Content is consumed on both, so I'm not buying this conclusion. If anything, it's divided between the two main platforms.

In earlier years you would have blamed Windows CE, but that would be more because of frustration with the UI..

.. Wait a moment ..

Has anyone checked the correlation between Windows 11 and the decline?

:)

[Pete 2]

Bzzzzt

> birth rates have been declining for nearly two decades now, and researchers believe they’ve identified a potential new culprit: The iPhone.

Personally, I blame vibrate mode

[Cruachan]

A friend told me about a friend of his who's relationship ended because he DIDN'T have an iPhone. Apparently the girl he was seeing felt it was too much hassle communicating when she couldn't use iMessage.

[Simon Harris]

That's just reminded me of a date I went on about 15 years ago. The woman I was meeting was obsessed by pagers. She wanted to know if I had a pager, and why I didn't have one. Apparently every important person she knew had a pager. The date lasted about 15 minutes and we didn't even get as far as a coffee shop before we went our separate ways.

[brett_x]

15?

Do you really mean 15 years ago (2011), and not 25 (2001)? If so, you dodged a bullet there.

[Simon Harris]

Re: 15?

Yes, I think I did dodge a very large bullet there, and shortly after went on to date another woman who would scoff at the idea of a pager, and who I am now happily married to.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: 15?

15 years ago was the 90s

[Eric 9001]

He dodged a bullet there - luckily the problem dealt with itself.

But, you would think it would be obvious that a woman who has an iphone, that isn't even paid to use it (rather, is paying to use it), isn't worth your time?

[Phil O'Sophical]

I'm surprised

No one's yet suggested that it's because iPhone users are a bunch of wankers?

[OhNoooo]

Re: I'm surprised

Surely the collective noun for iPhone users would be an orchard of wankers?

[Paul Crawford]

Re: I'm surprised

And over in the business section it is a wunch of bankers.

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone wankers

A crumble? A handful?

[Anonymous Coward]

too much wanking

Porn in your hand whenever and wherever you are - waste all your jizz

Unlike the old days where you had to find the magazine in an old bush so plenty jizz left.

[Simon Harris]

Re: too much wanking

At least in the old days you got some exercise trawling bushes and railway sidings for porn.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: too much wanking

OTOH masturbation is correlated with a lower incidence of prostate cancer:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/ejaculation_frequency_and_prostate_cancer

Ahem (my emphasis):

"The scientists found no evidence that frequent ejaculations mark an increased risk of prostate cancer. In fact, the reverse was true: High ejaculation frequency was linked to a decreased risk. Compared to men who reported 4–7 ejaculations per month across their lifetimes, men who ejaculated 21 or more times a month enjoyed a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer. And the results held up to rigorous statistical evaluation even after other lifestyle factors and the frequency of PSA testing were taken into account."

(Smiley icon because, well, I am a man, so, umm occasionally, and purely for health reasons you understand, I go and have a little lie down.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: too much wanking

> men who ejaculated 21 or more times a month enjoyed a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer

Wait, it's 21 times a month ? No wonder I'm always so tired

[DukeCityDweller]

You're holding it wrong.

[TransistorRadio]

"Women aged 15-19" - I'm not sure if I'd call a 15 year old a woman. I'm pretty sure teenage pregnancy has been falling consistantly for quite a while before 2007. I would also like to know what the comparison is, all they say is fertility rates have fallen 22% since 2007. I'd like to know how much it's fallen since 2000 to 2007 to compare if there is just a random correlation.

Could you also not say that families that got iPhones first would likely be wealthier and have access to better education or maybe better access to birth control? I really have no idea how they say they've proved causation with this.

[Pete Sdev]

correlation does not imply causation

Here's another aspect:

People who could/can afford iPhones were/part of the financially better-off section of the population, and the birth-rate for this demographic is decreasing more rapidly than the whole, for social and economic reasons.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: correlation does not imply causation

But the study says that pregnancies across the whole population fell after iPhones - not just among iPhone users

[Eric 9001]

Re: correlation does not imply causation

Many broke people have had and still have iphones, despite not being able to afford them - consider that mobile plans have been available since the beginning, that comes with an iphone, with monthly installments.

In the decades previously, being broke had more to do with poor financial decisions (such as many pointless purchases, such as a new iphone every year, when a much cheaper mobile device would do the same task - often tracking devices weren't even imposed).

The concept of "not being able to afford an iphone" is ludicrous anyway - the price range of the latest "iphone-17-pro" is $1199 USD to $1999 USD; https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-17-pro

Despite how dumb you would need to be to pay $800 USD for 1.7TB of extra storage, blowing $2000 USD/year alone, won't send anyone with a McJob broke - as well on a 10 USD/hr wage, that would be 200 hours, out of ~2000 hours a year (assuming 40 hr weeks, 2 weeks off a year) - although you would have no money left after the addition of taxes, food, transportation costs and rent - meaning not being able to afford a child, despite having a iphone.

Too bad being broke now is becoming less of a choice - things are setup now so all of the money ends up with the 1%, even if few frivolous purchases are made.

[Clarecats]

When mobile phones of the dumb kind arrived and were given to teenagers, the teen smoking rate fell. Teens wanted to keep the phones active and message friends, so they had need of their pocket money for something other than cigarettes. Having something better to do - including games on smartphones - is a great way to not develop the previous generation's habit. Which would include fooling around.

[itzman]

Ahem

"I am just a millennial born

I don't do girls, I'd rather watch porn..."

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: Ahem

Reminds me of the tale of the geek who finds a talking frog.

Frog says, "Kiss me and I'll turn into a beautiful princess."

Geek stuffs frog into his pocket and continues on.

Frog repeats the offer. "So why don't you kiss me?"

Geek replies, "I don't have time for relationships. But a talking frog is cool."

[naive]

It is the ugly face of tech

Most scenario's picture erasure of humanity by Tech as brutal Terminator like scenario's.

It doesn't seem improbable that the average IQ 90-110 human data point is manipulated by IQ 130-150 algorithms to "optimize screen time" to realize more ad revenues, thereby swiping its own kind into extinction once the fertility windows starts closing.

Dating apps are a good example, they are not designed to find partners but to "optimize screen time".

When benefits are immediate, juicy campaign contributions, stays on secluded islands in the company of attractive looking co-visitors, costs are diffuse, societal push back might last decades, decades most females don't have before their DNA expires.

[Dwarf]

Android

I'm kind of worried to ask if the rates are higher or lower for those that prefer to use an android.

Yes, there is a small double entendre here.

[Eclectic Man]

Online access to ...

Third, the iPhone gave people easy access to information about contraception and abortion access

And fourth:

The iPhone gave people easy online access to information about Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Genital Herpes, HIV, oh yes, and stretch marks, the costs of raising a child, etc. not to mention all the diseases of childhood, vaccinations, anti-vaxxers, Autism, and any number of other disincentives to procreative activities.

Speaking personally, my sex life (or lack thereof) is probably more to do with my irritating personality than having an iPhone.

[Uh, Mike]

The reason I switched to Android

Since the iPhone 12 mini, it just keeps getting bigger.

I need it not to stick out of my pocket.

Your mileage may vary.

[Anonymous Prime]

8.3 BILLION

8.3 BILLION people on the planet, and people are worried about birth rates declining? Really?

(oh right, Elmo and his ilk are concerned about *white* birth rates, nvm)

[Anonymous Coward]

The demographics don't look good in many countries these days - whether people are having sex or not, births are down all over the place.

I wonder if migrants didn't contribute a significant portion of the US birth rate?

But IMHO the attention economy plus the precarious economic situation doesn't help things.

Everyone is living in their own private Idaho, to quote the B-52s song...