Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Judging by the story so far... (Score 1) 372

Divorce is a mutual dissolution. Contract law is abundantly clear that contracts can be amended or terminated. Marriage is no different. There's even provisions for unilateral termination if the terms from the other side are deemed unconscionable. Though the other party is still made aware up front that the contract is being terminated.

With cheating you are unilaterally breaking the terms of the agreement. This is a very different matter.

Comment Re: Judging by the story so far... (Score 1) 372

Okay, word switch then. It's unethical to cheat on your spouse if you made a specific oral contract not to do so (which is to say, unless you agreed to an open marriage before hand and exclusivity was not a part of your vows before witnesses). The vast majority of marriages include an exclusivity clause. It is unethical to facilitate a breach of contract. Therefore what Ashley Madison was unethical, though not necessarily illegal.

Comment Re:Scott Adams said it best... (Score 1) 492

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but without legal status you don't get housing and income assistance. Period. Full stop. At best you qualify for food stamps, but good lord that's not much and I think we can all agree that people starving is a bad thing. But welfare, or public housing, or section 8? No. They only provide support for those with legal status. If someone is living in the house that doesn't have legal status the subsidy goes down specifically because the government won't support them.

I would really like to see your source for these "manuals" that the Mexican government has supposedly published. It sounds like a racist wet-dream more than an actual fact.

Comment Re:Yeah 22 seconds? (Score 1) 664

It kinda depends if the shot has had much time to scatter before it hits you. I would imagine minimum distance would be 10 yards to make it less than likely to be lethal, but you would still surely need medical attention and I would not sign up to test this.

Much under 10 yards though and the wad and shot are still going to be more or less a single unit dispersing a bunch of energy right into your body. The shot pellets may not penetrate deep enough to hit an internal organ, but I would imagine if you did survive the shot it would either be immediate medical attention or death.

Comment Re:I wonder if you can armor these drones (Score 1) 664

Or just fly them at 450 feet. Good luck having any stopping power on birdshot 150 yards straight up. And anything that can be destructive at that range is going to be destructive again on its way back down which would make it illegal to fire in the air. Win-win.

Comment Seems awfully fast... (Score 2) 664

22 seconds to go into the house, get your shotgun, come back out and shoot down the drone? No way. He had the shotgun ready. Which means this isn't the first time Douchey McDronePilot had buzzed this guy's backyard. Ooooh, 22 seconds *this* time. But what about the minutes and hours before that? Hmmm?

Comment Re:Ummm, kinda the opposite (Score 1) 104

Doesn't mean they were innocent, it just means there wasn't *quite* enough evidence to convict them. The standard (in the United States) for criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is something like you're 95% sure that they did it. For civil cases it's "based on the preponderance of evidence" which means you're at least 51% sure they did it. See for example OJ Simpson: not guilty criminally, found guilty civilly because of the difference in the burden of proof. So an 80% conviction rate is pretty reasonable and probably means most of those 20% were actually guilty it just wasn't totally provable.

Nonsense. Space is blue and birds fly through it. -- Heisenberg