Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Go ahead (Score 1) 446

Typical slashdot geek binary thinking. Life must be so happy in your simple world.

If you cannot bring yourself to keep your dick in your pants and it didn't involve your being raped, you have no one to blame but yourself. Like I said, it's not that hard to do for someone with a sufficient level of emotional maturity.

If you want to have sex outside of a relationship so bad, then at least be man enough to either say as much to your S/O directly, and/or end the relationship first.

This isn't one of those gray-area fuzzy moral issues where circumstances could excuse the actions... it's a very simple task: Remain faithful to the person you made the commitment to, or don't enter into a commitment until you are capable.

Comment Re:Are you one of the 37 million? (Score 1) 446

The reasons why folks marry have changed over time, but until recently, the basic principles of it has not (even if people routinely violate said principles.)

Yes, I'm fully aware of "open" marriages - few of them last very long, at least judging from folks in my social circles. Then again, why would they be embarrassed by the revelation of their names on such a website? Are you saying that even a quorum (let alone a majority) of the folks on that site practice such relationships? If so, the revelation of their names shouldn't be a problem (though actively seeking to hook up with folks from non-open marriages is rather questionable). I'm more than willing to wager that the vast majority of the users are keeping up a façade at home while cruising for some strange on the website.

All these people are going to get painted with a really bad and really large brush no matter what the truth is now.

Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas. There are most likely websites out there for folks in open marriages to meet up and do whatever they please... can't really bring myself to feel sorry for 'em.

Comment Re:Are you one of the 37 million? (Score 1) 446

There is no puritanism here, merely a respect for marital trust, and the unwillingness to violate it.

Marriage isn't a mere contract that you can seek out loopholes for, or something you do just so that you can have sex-on-demand. It's a commitment; a sacred trust between two individuals who become as one in spirit. You do this for life, and bind your lives and fortunes together.

Many things are negotiable in this world, even in marriage - but remaining faithful to someone you are married to is not something you can (or should ever) negotiate over. If you haven't the maturity to understand that, then don't get married.

Comment Re:Go ahead (Score 1) 446

The question isn't how you feel, but the level of commitment you made. If you married someone, you have made it known to one and all that you love that person (outside of countries where contractual marriage is still a thing, anyway). This carries a certain level of responsibility - unless both partners know up-front that the marriage is "open", then avoiding adultery at all costs is automatically and universally assumed to be one of those responsibilities.

Comment Re:nothing new under the sun (Score 4, Insightful) 446

I don't see any requests for money, so who is going to pay the hackers?

Individual customers certainly won't.

Dunno - one good spearphishing campaign based on the personal info gathered from the hack would probably garner quite a bit of money... and none of us would ever hear about it. The public announcements would only add to the credibility of the blackmail threats.

Comment Re:Go ahead (Score 5, Insightful) 446

This, right here.

It's not that hard to keep yourself in check, gents. You either love your S/O or you do not. If you do, you will do your level best to remain faithful. ...besides, most of you schmucks are geeks - if you found someone that actually puts up with our little quirks and habits and loves our kind in spite of ourselves, why would you screw that up?

Comment Re:Good thing I used CmdrTaco's info (Score 1) 446

Point of order: PCI compliance demands that you do *not* store customer CC data unless absolutely necessary (mind the PDF, Henry).

On the other hand, the company is based in Canada, and I'm not sure what their data retention laws may entail. Since the company is pre-IPO, they may have aligned their policies to the Canadian equivalent of SOX (if they have one), but otherwise I don't see much demand to store the CC info for any legit business purpose.

Slashdot Top Deals

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar

Working...