Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Computer Marries Texas Couple

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the robotic-minister-overlords dept.

Robotics 142

cultiv8 writes "When Miguel Hanson and his fiancee, Diana Wesley, got married on Saturday, a computer program Hanson wrote served as the minister. During the wedding, held in the Houston home of Hanson's parents, the couple stood before a 30-inch monitor in the backyard. In a robotic voice, the computer greeted the guests, and told how the couple met."

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First toast! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944048)

First toast!

Re:First toast! (0)

atari2600a (1892574) | about 3 years ago | (#36944088)

It always becomes a roast after the first toast...

I now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944054)

..pronounce this couple....BSOD

So? (4, Insightful)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about 3 years ago | (#36944068)

FTFA: "The ceremony won't be legally binding."

My wife and I are already legally married, but our ceremony isn't for a few months. We could be "married by" a parrot. Or an iPod. Or no one at all. Or, as is the case here, Dr. Sbaitso.

Re:So? (3, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 3 years ago | (#36944120)

Yes, but being able to blame Windows for your marital problems adds a wonderful degree of consistency to the topic of 'things which cause strife and misery.'

Re:So? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#36944644)

It would have been funnier if it had been an Apple, then the husband would have a reason for saying "Honey you're holding it wrong".

I just don't get why this is considered "news" as this is about as real and legally binding as the Japanese guy that "married" his love pillow. I'd say the only thing that could be considered "news" was that there was a woman willing to put up with his robo-bullshit, and even then it is only news to the guy's family (who are probably on their knees thanking whatever deity they believe in there was someone willing to marry the putz).

Re:So? (1)

dintech (998802) | about 3 years ago | (#36944904)

the only thing that could be considered "news" was that there was a woman willing to put up with his robo-bullshit

As the right honorable Reverend Lionel Preacherbot [theinfosphere.org] said:

The bride has written some vows that we will now all pretend to be interested in.

She's probably just looking forward to boring the shit out of the 'people gathered here today' with her inane vows.

WOW, you ARE a nerd (5, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 3 years ago | (#36944264)

Okay, I know it is scary for a nerd but still, you can't put the "ceremony" off forever. Sooner or later you ARE going to have to kiss the bride AND even face the wedding night. Just close your eyes and think of the GPL.

Married man walking!

Re:WOW, you ARE a nerd (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 3 years ago | (#36944330)

Sooner or later you ARE going to have to kiss the bride AND even face the wedding night. Just close your eyes and think of the GPL.

You mean... distributing those moments in source code?

Re:GPL (3, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 3 years ago | (#36944588)

No, distributing YOUR source code to your new wife!

Re:GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36945088)

We're gonna need an API key for that, if you know what I mean.

Re:WOW, you ARE a nerd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944602)

If you GPL your child, does that mean that he has to give a sample of your sperm to his employers? Or does a blood sample suffice?

Re:So? (-1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#36944512)

My wife and I are already legally married, but our ceremony isn't for a few months. We could be "married by" a parrot. Or an iPod. Or no one at all. Or, as is the case here, Dr. Sbaitso.

HOW DOES ARE ALREADY LEGALLY MARRIED BUT OUR CEREMONY ISN'T FOR CHANGE YOUR LIFE?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944678)

Um.. Wat?

Geek Insult (1)

Laz10 (708792) | about 3 years ago | (#36944798)

I always found the coolest geek insult was: "I can replace you with this (hold out thumb and index finger) much code".

I've done it a couple of times too in my career.
But I must admit that I never had the guts to say it to the face of the people I made obsolete...

Re:So? (1)

dintech (998802) | about 3 years ago | (#36944808)

I think Dr Sbaitso was the only doctor that ever actually listened to me. Sad really.

Re:So? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#36944864)

You're missing the important bit of the headline. It was in Texas. That's right, they have computers in Texas now!

Re:So? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 3 years ago | (#36945298)

Then will the next week in his parents basement be considered a real honeymoon?

Re:So? (1)

Zeikzeil (1099785) | about 3 years ago | (#36946146)

A ceremony like this should have been held in the basement in the first place.

Prompt (5, Funny)

atari2600a (1892574) | about 3 years ago | (#36944076)

Do you accept the terms & conditions of this matrimony? : _

Re:Prompt (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944090)

be sure to read the EULA before checking the box :)

Re:Prompt (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | about 3 years ago | (#36944118)

I actually formatted that w/ a Y/N but the script interpreted it as HTML or something...

Re:Prompt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944230)

Watch out for all those extra little checkboxes as you click through merrily. You never know what you'll end up having to support down the road.

Re:Prompt (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | about 3 years ago | (#36944258)

"Clause 3: We hold the right to observe and or send communications during or after the said 'honeymoon' period."

Re:Prompt (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#36944578)

Wait, is that the "free" marriage funded by voyeurtizing?

Re:Prompt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944312)

"Press any key to continue"

Re:Prompt (2)

xSander (1227106) | about 3 years ago | (#36944372)

The real question should of course have been 'Abort, Retry, Fail?'

Re:Prompt (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36944546)

Instead of "Hardware Malfunction: SYSTEM HALTED"

Re:Prompt (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | about 3 years ago | (#36944468)

[Ok]

Re:Prompt (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#36945460)

[Retry] [Fail] [Halt] [Abort] [Run] [Execute] [Cancel] [Deny] [Allow] [Quit] [Help] [Error]

Not the really big news yet (0)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about 3 years ago | (#36944086)

For a minute, just reading the title, I thought a computer had been married to a Texas couple. Given what some folks tried (and fortunately, now seem to have failed) to put creationism in their school textbooks, I thought this might be the next step. And then we'd see a couple marry their blender. :-)

Re:Not the really big news yet (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | about 3 years ago | (#36944110)

Robosexual marriage & robolygamy are wrong!

Re:Not the really big news yet (2)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 3 years ago | (#36944302)

You've got robo-fever, boy!

Re:Not the really big news yet (0)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36944122)

I can just imagine all the religious nuts reading this headline on Drudge and not going any further. "First they let them homersexuals marry, then people are gonna marry dogs and now they're marrying COMPUTARS! NOES!".

Also, the problem with actually marrying *to* a computer is that they become obsolete almost as fast as a wife does.

Re:Not the really big news yet (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | about 3 years ago | (#36944400)

Yes, but unlike the wife you can upgrade something besides the case.

Re:Not the really big news yet (1)

dolmen.fr (583400) | about 3 years ago | (#36945854)

There is a worse problem with the "wife" (applies to "husband" too) nowadays: it can choose to upgrade itself. But the result may be in fact a downgrade.

Re:Not the really big news yet (3, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | about 3 years ago | (#36944988)

What's the difference between a wife and a Microsoft product?

After five years the Microsoft product still sucks.

Re:Not the really big news yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944136)

And then we'd see a couple marry their blender. :-)

2 girls 1 blender? That's... that's disturbing.

Re:Not the really big news yet (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 3 years ago | (#36944184)

If a guy married his blender, the honeymoon will end on the first night.

Re:Not the really big news yet (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | about 3 years ago | (#36944250)

At least the blender won't be worried about the husband cheating.

Re:Not the really big news yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944374)

That's one blendtech video I don't wanna see.

Re:Not the really big news yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944576)

And then we'd see a couple marry their blender. :-)

Maybe that's what the goatse guy did.

OT: Who would get patent if a computer invents smt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944130)

This is off topic .. but who would get the patent if a computer invents something .. that is say for example a computer program is written to act as a translator.

If a German person communicates the description of a certain widget with features and functionality using a translator to convert his German into English language.. but that translation as understood by an English speaker has a completely different meaning with totally different, but totally cool and unique functionality and features (an example would be lets say the German described a single touch UI, but the translation program "screwed up" and unwittingly described multi-touch).

Does the German guy get the patent? Or would it be the guy reading it in English? It certainly can't be the programmer, because he's no more eligible than the person who designed the CPU.

So who's the inventor?

Re:OT: Who would get patent if a computer invents (0)

backslashdot (95548) | about 3 years ago | (#36944140)

ack I posted the above but forgot I wasn't logged in

Re:OT: Who would get patent if a computer invents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944164)

Mod parent offtopic.

He admitted it!

Re:OT: Who would get patent if a computer invents (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36944560)

The answer is of course whoever successfully files the patent. Since computers aren't given to going down to the patent office, filling out forms, paying the fees, etc, I would say the humans have a much better chance of getting the patents than the computers.

Re:OT: Who would get patent if a computer invents (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#36944622)

You just wait until the computers collocate their computers at the patent-office...

Stupid computers... (2)

nebaz (453974) | about 3 years ago | (#36944134)

Always taking jobs that American priests won't do.

Re:Stupid computers... (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36944216)

I was molested by my first Ultra SPARC 5 a decade ago.

Re:Stupid computers... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 3 years ago | (#36944310)

I was molested by my first Ultra SPARC 5 a decade ago.

That's a lie: SPARC CPU-s were protestant of the puritan extraction (coming up in a CISC hedonistic era).

Re:Stupid computers... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36944568)

You should see what I was forced to do with punch cards as a boy... (shudder)

Re:Stupid computers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944648)

I was molested by my first Ultra SPARC 5 a decade ago.

At least it wasn't an ARM.

He has to do this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944150)

cos his "wife" is a fucking android. (take that literally)

Computer marriage (4, Funny)

backslashdot (95548) | about 3 years ago | (#36944168)

Computer marriage is what's wrong with America and is leading to the very breakdown of social structure. Computer marriage, may appear harmless. But what happens when your kids have to see a guy walking down the street kissing his laptop? That's disgusting.

Pretty soon they'll want computers in the military ... and we all know how that movie ends.

Re:Computer marriage (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36944222)

It's Adam and Eve; not Osbourne and Steve!

Re:Computer marriage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944232)

Computer marriage is what's wrong with America and is leading to the very breakdown of social structure. Computer marriage, may appear harmless. But what happens when your kids have to see a guy walking down the street kissing his laptop? That's disgusting.

Pretty soon they'll want computers in the military ... and we all know how that movie ends.

The only winning move is not to play.

Re:Computer marriage (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 3 years ago | (#36944508)

Pretty soon they'll want computers in the military ... and we all know how that movie ends.

With World Peace! War ended when all the machines BSOD.

Re:Computer marriage (1)

StormReaver (59959) | about 3 years ago | (#36945348)

The computer only had a bit part in the movie, based on the nybble we got on YouTube. But I heard it took a huge byte of the awards later.

(let the groaning begin)

Re:Computer marriage (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36945452)

And besides, if you read Genesis (the book, not the band), you know that all the problems in the world started from a woman getting too close to an Apple.

Kissing Laptop? two words...Apple Store (1)

voss (52565) | about 3 years ago | (#36946022)

Anyone willing to spend $1700 for an Apple Laptop
has to be doing more with it than just surfing the web and playing games right???
*wink, wink, nudge nudge*

Another idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944174)

Marriage is for suckers, officiated by a computer or not. My GF has and I have no intention of getting married and we are doing just fine,

It's not necessary for children, nor happiness. Why bother?

Re:Another idiot (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about 3 years ago | (#36944238)

So I can get into the ER.

Re:Another idiot (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 years ago | (#36944328)

It's nice and easy to be smug until you get turned into a sheep and get killed in by your own nightmares...

Re:Another idiot (2)

Yaur (1069446) | about 3 years ago | (#36944340)

health insurance and taxes among other things.

Re:Another idiot (4, Insightful)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | about 3 years ago | (#36944464)

Another idiot (Score:0)
Marriage is for suckers, officiated by a computer or not.

What a peculiar generalisation. Tell me, do you and your girlfriend appreciate it when people make derogatory generalisations about your relationship? ;)

My GF has and I have no intention of getting married and we are doing just fine,

Good for you champ.

It's not necessary for children, nor happiness. Why bother?

Why not? Tax benefits of a legally binding marriage aside, some people genuinely enjoy celebrating their love for each other formally, in the presence of their friends and loved ones. I'm not sure why that's really so difficult to understand...

Re:Another idiot (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 3 years ago | (#36945148)

Also, for some people, like myself, it is necessary for us to be together, what with the immigration and all. (In this circumstance I'm talking about myself immigrating to the US. Yes, technically it is legal to go the other way [immigrate to Canada] without being married, but it's a little harder.)

Re:Another idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944596)

Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Repent!

The Logical Result (3, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | about 3 years ago | (#36944182)

This guy is either rich, or she has Asperger's. Else, how else could the conversation go?

He: "I got it! The perfect wedding! We get married by a computer!"

She: "Should we go with blue or white?"

He: "But, the computer would marry us!"

She: "Should we go with lacy, or silky?"

He: "The computer should run Linux!"

She: "I think I like lacy more than silky..."

He: "I could even have it running LISP!"

She: "You want to have a preacher with a lisp? What the HELL are you thinking!?"

Re:The Logical Result (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#36944228)

This guy is either rich, or she has Asperger's. Else, how else could the conversation go?

He: "I got it! The perfect wedding! We get married by a computer!"

She: "Should we go with blue or white?"

He: "But, the computer would marry us!"

She: "Should we go with lacy, or silky?"

He: "The computer should run Linux!"

She: "I think I like lacy more than silky..."

He: "I could even have it running LISP!"

She: "You want to have a preacher with a lisp? What the HELL are you thinking!?"

I predict that his and hers computers will be necessary.

Re:The Logical Result (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36944574)

His and hers? No, she gets all the closet space, and he gets all the RAM.

Re:The Logical Result (1)

borrel (2416350) | about 3 years ago | (#36944460)

lol

Re:The Logical Result (1)

freudigst (1778168) | about 3 years ago | (#36945048)

"Else, how else..."?!?

Is there no dignity left over for the language I used to know? Marry the robot...

mo3 up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944236)

shithea3s. *BSD Right now. I tried, is dying.Things disappearing up its And committees that comprise during play, this

Walking down the isle (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | about 3 years ago | (#36944268)

Cue the Futurama theme song!

Re:Walking down the isle (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | about 3 years ago | (#36944562)

Walking down the isle [reference.com]

1. The word is "aisle [reference.com] "
2. The main approach to the altar is, more accurately, "the nave [wikipedia.org] ", not "the aisle". Most people would know what you meant well enough though.
HTH HAND

Re:Walking down the isle (2)

krizoitz (1856864) | about 3 years ago | (#36944758)

You might want to read the article you link to before declaring so boldly that you know something. Actually the nave is the entire area of the church preceding the altar, not merely the central aisle, but also the pews and exterior aisles.

Next time you try and show off how clever you are you may want to make sure you are right first.

Re:Walking down the isle (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 3 years ago | (#36944998)

Isle be back...

Re:Walking down the isle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36945510)

My brother actually had "The Throne Room and End Title" from Star Wars IV played for the exit march at his wedding. His bride drew the line at me doing a wookie yell.

Choice is yours (1)

derblack (1076557) | about 3 years ago | (#36944286)

You are about to engage in something that is the chief cause of divorce.

[Cancel] or [Allow]

He had to program it himself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944298)

Pffft, this comes standard with emacs. You just have to type C-x 7 C-M-y and it will plan and conduct the whole ceremony for you.

feedback (1)

pauljake (2426274) | about 3 years ago | (#36944386)

Last time I visited there's just a couple of posts with very few reader feedback and now this place is just crowded! Way to go man. Nice article, btw ;) Shaw Capital Management Online [shawcapita...online.com]

I suppose they are married until... (1)

Anoraknid the Sartor (9334) | about 3 years ago | (#36944390)

I suppose they are married until blue screen of death do them part...

sadness... (1)

alexmagni (190839) | about 3 years ago | (#36944430)

I consider this as one of the saddest pieces of news this monday morning...

The terms of service (1)

EnempE (709151) | about 3 years ago | (#36944436)

The terms of service aren't all that far away from what is normal for using a computer.
Take apples terms of service, change a few nouns here and there (Itunes -> your spouse Apple -> your in-laws) and it is actually a lot more factual than wedding vows. Some key exerpts below:

Maybe there would be less complaints if you knew that by opening the package you are agreeing to:

REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF your spouse
Your spouse is available for individuals aged 13 years or older. If you are 13 or older but under the age of 18, you should review this Agreement with your parent or guardian to make sure that you and your parent or guardian understand it.

The spouse is available to you only in the United States, its territories, and possessions. You agree not to use or attempt to use the your spouse from outside these locations. Apple may use technologies to verify your compliance.

Use of the your spouse requires compatible devices, Internet access, and certain software (fees may apply); may require periodic updates (makeovers); and may be affected by the performance of these factors. High-speed Internet access is strongly recommended for regular use and is required for video. The latest version of required software is recommended to access the your spouse and may be required for certain transactions or features and to download your spouse's previously purchased from your spouse . You agree that meeting these requirements, which may change from time to time, is your responsibility. The your spouse is not part of any other product or offering, and no purchase or obtaining of any other product shall be construed to represent or guarantee you access to the your spouse .

USAGE RULES

(i) You shall be authorized to use your spouse only for personal, noncommercial use.

(v) You shall not be entitled to burn video of your spouse or ringtone your spouse.

OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL

You understand that by using the your spouse , you may encounter material that you may deem to be offensive, indecent, or objectionable, and that such content may or may not be identified as having explicit material. Nevertheless, you agree to use the your spouse at your sole risk and your inlaws shall have no liability to you for material that may be found to be offensive, indecent, or objectionable. your spouse Product types and descriptions are provided for convenience, and you agree that your inlaws do not guarantee their accuracy.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

To avoid muscle, joint, or eye strain during your use of the products offered through the your spouse , you should always take frequent breaks, and take a longer rest if you experience any soreness, fatigue, or discomfort. A very small percentage of people may experience seizures or blackouts when exposed to flashing lights or patterns, including but not limited to while playing video games or watching videos. Symptoms may include dizziness, nausea, involuntary movements, loss of awareness, altered vision, tingling, numbness, or other discomforts. Consult a doctor before using the products offered through the your spouse if you have ever suffered these or similar symptoms, and stop using such products immediately and see a doctor if they occur during your use of such products. Parents should monitor their children’s use of the products offered through your spouse for signs of symptoms

CHANGES

Your Mother in-law reserves the right at any time to modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional terms or conditions on your use of the your spouse . Such modifications and additional terms and conditions will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the your spouse will be deemed acceptance thereof.

TERMINATION

If you fail, or your mother in-law suspects that you have failed, to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, mother in-law, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may: (i) terminate this Agreement and/or your Account, and you will remain liable for all amounts due under your Account up to and including the date of termination; and/or (ii) terminate the license to the software; and/or (iii) preclude access to the your spouse (or any part thereof).

Your mother in-law reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the your spouse (or any part or content thereof) at any time with or without notice to you, and mother in-law will not be liable to you or to any third party should it exercise such rights.

So... where's the program? (1)

DryGrian (1775520) | about 3 years ago | (#36944456)

I followed the link in the article but can't find the software anywhere... Is it open source? Does it run on Linux? :)

The minister (1)

NetGyver (201322) | about 3 years ago | (#36944466)

....is a Scientologist??

Business opportunity (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#36944474)

The couple wrote the 'computer program' to marry them on their own background, I suppose it was just a document that was read by a voice generator, or something of that sort. But they did it because they couldn't find a minister to do the work, but they will still have to have 'justice of the peace' sign the papers. This brings up a good question: why not automate this type of work away and cut some spending this way? Start small, with computer program marrying and signing licenses for couples, then move on to the traffic violations and petty infractions, landlord/tenant disputes, small debts and other small claims, then misdemeanors and restraining orders, etc.

With computers presiding over cases, there will be little chance of personal influence upon the justice, bribes, etc. Efficiency must go up, as cases can be looked at over the Internet, computers can work around the clock as well and they only require maintenance.

--

Of-course if this is done money can be saved, that's without a question, the only concern must be that it can't be Diebold, who writes this. It needs to be Free and free source software and even hardware. Integrity of elections is arguably more important than integrity of any particular computer system built to perform Justice of the Peace duties, but integrity of a virtual judge is more personal to the individuals involved in the cases.

Re:Business opportunity (1)

kenh (9056) | about 3 years ago | (#36945200)

This brings up a good question: why not automate this type of work away and cut some spending this way? Start small, with computer program marrying and signing licenses for couples, then move on to the traffic violations and petty infractions, landlord/tenant disputes, small debts and other small claims, then misdemeanors and restraining orders, etc.

What do you imagine happens when you mail in your check/admit guilt to a traffic violation?

A civil marriage takes about 5 minutes, what would you gain from automation?

As for the small claims cases, I'm not sure I want to trust some Eliza-derivative to decide who was wrong in a tenant/landlord dispute, for example. Restraining orders are not trivial - they impose limits on the freedoms of a third-party typically not involved in the case, having a probability engine decide the authenticity/meaning of the supplied evidence is not something many Americans would embrace.

I think you have a jaded view of the justice system - the cases you suggest are the very ones judges have the most leeway with, as most serious crimes are already subject to sentencing guidelines that limit a judge's ability to do more than ensure the process is followed and if convicted, look up the proscribed penalty.

We have what I would call "algorithmic" judgements already - "three strikes and you're out" and Meghan's Law (which requires sex offenders to register for life) - both have serious flaws (3 strikes makes the third felony conviction a life sentence, no exception and the Sex Offender laws punish teens that are caught having sex or middle school kids who 'sext' porn pics to a lifetime stigma).

Any savings in judicial salaries you'll save would be consumed by programmers tweaking the boundary cases...

Re:Business opportunity (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#36945276)

A civil marriage takes about 5 minutes, what would you gain from automation?

- efficiency. Fewer people are required in total, because 5 minutes time means what, 12 certificates an hour with highest human efficiency? I don't think it takes 5 minutes BTW., it easily will take 20 minutes for sure. Why does it take that long? Fill out the form on line and have it done automagically in microseconds, then the certificate is printed and sent out, all automated.

The fewer humans are involved in everything that government does, the less spending is required, and even if 100 architects/developers are involved in building this stuff, how many tens of thousands of positions can be relieved of human workers? It's excellent, get rid of as many humans from government as possible, have the cases start and end on line, only the most difficult ones need to go to a human judge, and even this needs to be eliminated.

If you can't have an algorithm deciding a case, you can't have a human deciding it either.

Re:Business opportunity (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#36945636)

One of the reasons to have a person involved is to ensure that both parties are actually willing participants and reduce the likelihood that one of them is being coerced. Another problem with doing small claims online is that it would become too easy for someone to fake that the defendant in the case had "appeared" in court and admitted the debt, when in fact they were unaware that the case was even taking place. This has significant consequences for the defendant if they ever have to challenge the judgement.

Wow (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 3 years ago | (#36944626)

So Texas legalized both human-computer marriage and polygamy? Didn't see that coming.

Re:Wow (1)

kenh (9056) | about 3 years ago | (#36945244)

Wow - did you even read the heading on the story? "Computer marries couple" - no one married a computer, and if you read the article (it wasn't much longer than your comment) you would have learned that the groom actually performed the service, the computer simply read the vows - they still need a justice of the peace to sign the paperwork.

They used a computer because they couldn't convince a friend to 'officiate' over the ceremony... I wonder who they got to witness the 'blessed' non-event?

Re:Wow (1)

arielCo (995647) | about 3 years ago | (#36945430)

I think he meant a joke by choosing another sense of "marry":

1. (intransitive) To enter into the conjugal or connubial state; to take a husband or a wife

as in "Johnny married Jane, then the computer married them both and the three were happy ever after". Then again, not much of value was lost.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36946088)

Everything's bigger in Texas. Especially the hypocrisy.

Coddamit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36944840)

First they had sex with robots, then a robot marries them. Soon they will date robots and eventually marry those. Oh well, time to put collars hanging..

adairclark (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36945002)

This is a well-thought of piece that made it easy for people to understand the whole point. chech this out. http://updates.atlanticinternationalpartnershipreviews.com/

We should have listened to the Republicans! (1)

Solarhands (1279802) | about 3 years ago | (#36945134)

Clearly the Republicans were right when they pointed out that gay marriage was a slippery slope. Now we have two people married to a computer?!

Nerds ... (1)

Jaro (4361) | about 3 years ago | (#36945486)

... oh wait, this is /.

Do You... And do You...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36945610)

Then by the 110VAC power vested in me...

*yawn* Been done. (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | about 3 years ago | (#36946068)

There was a ULC minister doing this thirty years ago. Google: "ron jaenisch" "reverend apple"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>