Zuckerberg Updates Relationship Status To "Married"

theodp writes "A day after taking Facebook public, CEO Mark Zuckerberg changed his Facebook status to 'married' after wedding longtime girlfriend and recent med school grad Priscilla Chan on Saturday. No word if Zuckerberg heeded Donald Trump's prenup advice."

Comments

longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that marriage?

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[MightyYar]

No. Next question.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Nidi62]

isn't that marriage?

No. When you have a girlfriend you're still having sex.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

plus one for truth

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

The studies have shown that married people have more sex than the unmarried

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[History's Coming To]

In Scotland, yes. A couple who share a bed every night for a year and a day are common-law husband and wife. So it's not and entirely dumb question.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

With a 50+% divorce rate, it appears the married people who are having more sex are having that sex with other married people's spouses rather than their own.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The studies have shown that married people have more sex than the unmarried"

Yes, but not necessarily with each other.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. "Common law" marriages don't legally exist in the UK or Europe. They're a popular myth. Some specific laws, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, specify that people living together "as if" married are treated the same as a married couple (e.g. if your partner is "sectioned" you can demand that her case is re-examined by a panel of doctors even if you're not legally married), but most do not. If you want to be married, get married (unless you're gay, in which case, good luck but meanwhile get a Civil Partnership).

"Irregular" marriages were phased out, if you're over 85 then you might, conceivably have an irregular marriage, but most likely your spouse is dead so it doesn't matter. "By habit" marriages were abolished permanently years ago and are very hard to prove because there's no documentation.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not any more that was abolished in 2006, though irregular marriages entered into before then are upheld. Before 1940 you could even get married by correspondence in Scotland!

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS!

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[MichaelSmith]

Hence the sour look on Zuckerbergs's face.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[ArsenneLupin]

The studies have shown that married people have more sex than the unmarried

Not after they've got kids. Then they're daily schedule is so full that there is just no time for further sex.

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are daily schedule? WTF?

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[bitt3n]

In Scotland, yes. A couple who share a bed every night for a year and a day are common-law husband and wife. So it's not and entirely dumb question.

"Honey, why do you always have a business trip on new year's day? I mean, it's a holiday!"

Re:longtime girlfriend?

[EvilBudMan]

THAT is NOT FUNNY. It should have been modded insightful though.

If you're subscribed to him..

[Severus Snape]

on facebook you'll already know this. If you aren't, chances are you don't care.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[jellomizer]

I agree Facebook is too mainstream to be news for nerds. If he married a Robot or an executive from Google. That may be a little different.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Well this news should satisfy both those that wish him well, and those that wish him pain and suffering.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich guys, remember this and never forget it: if she signs a prenup, it means she really loves you and doesn't plan to divorce. If she won't sign, she loves your money and status.

If she talks about how "unromantic" a prenup is, watch out! Women resort to emotional appeal when you successfully point out they make no logical sense.

I mean marriage itself is pretty unromantic when you think about it. Marriage is "yeah we could decide just to be together, you and me, on our own... but wait! let's add a contract with the government because legal systems and licenses are soooo romantic!" A prenup is really just a variation.

Gentlemen, the time to settle everything is before you say "I do" because you are a man and family courts HATE men and want them to suffer. She gets half your stuff even if she didn't earn a dime of it, guess that's the vagina tax? She automatically gets any kids unless you can prove she's a crack dealer and even then... Don't even get me started on alimony - she has this supposed "right" to "get used to a lifestyle" you provided. Yeah well you got used to a lifestyle she provided too, but is the court going to mandate she come give you a BJ every now and then? No, they won't.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

What if he married an Android executive from Google? Would that make twice the difference?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage is nothing but a vestige of the days when the church ruled the governments of the world that has only held on as long as it has because of the tax benefits involved. Dump the tax benefits of marriage and watch the marriage rate plummet overnight.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Rich0]

Marriage...has only held on as long as it has because of the tax benefits involved. Dump the tax benefits of marriage and watch the marriage rate plummet overnight.

Not sure I can buy into this side of your argument. When you consider everything involved, do you really think that people get married primarily for tax reasons? Half the people who get married spend so much on the event that I find it hard to believe that they ever recoup that in taxes unless they make $200k/yr or something.

Tons of marriages are between people in their mid-20s who barely have jobs let alone a grasp of tax accounting.

I think the main driver for marriage is tradition and pressure by family to conform to social norms. That, and nobody in love really wants to plan for the incredibly unlikely event that something will go wrong.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[rainmouse]

If he married a Robot or an executive from Google. That may be a little different.

I dunno I found it somewhat interesting. Looking at some pictures of his new wife shows her to be rather plain looking and frequently struggling with her weight. I find myself constantly looking for reasons to hate the guy, but at least respect is due to someone who marries his pre-fame college sweetheart when he could likely take his pick from just about any of the top millionaire supermodels.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[edmicman]

So far the tax advantages of marriage seem to be only geared toward single-income families, couples where one person makes the majority of the income, or families with children. As two professionals with no kids (DINKS!) we repeatedly got screwed over on our taxes. Maybe this was partially because of the complexity of the withholding system or something, but all I know is that in the end we've ended up owing a ton almost every time.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AngryDeuce]

but at least respect is due to someone who marries his pre-fame college sweetheart when he could likely take his pick from just about any of the top millionaire supermodels.

Don't worry, I'm sure when they get divorced in a few years, he'll move on to the top millionaire supermodel.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[aurispector]

Why would you wish him either? Most people don't have any actual personal connections to him.

The thing that makes facebook (and the internet in general) kind of silly is the artificial way it bring us closer, without actually doing so.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

respect is due to someone who marries his pre-fame college sweetheart when he could likely take his pick from just about any of the top millionaire supermodels.

On the other hand, millionaire supermodels come with all kinds of headaches that a normal girl doesn't. Whose to say he won't get as much strange as he wants even now - isn't that what facebook is for anyhow?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[BasilBrush]

I think the main driver for marriage is tradition and pressure by family to conform to social norms.

For men.

For women, they've mostly been dreaming about their wedding day and married bliss since they were children. It's the fairy tale dream come true. And that's why they consider no expense is too much for the wedding day.

Yes, I generalise. That's what men do.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[BasilBrush]

I'd be surprised if you were paying more tax than if you were both single. No matter where you are in the world.

So it's hard to see how you're being screwed on taxes.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[In hydraulis]

For women, they've mostly been dreaming about their wedding day and married bliss since they were children.

And why?

Because they've had this "dream" pounded into their heads since the day of their birth by their equally-brainwashed mothers.

Same deal with the perceived need to have kids. Gotta get those buns in the oven, you know. How many times have you seen mummy's little girl pushing along a wee toy pram with a wee baby doll in it? Who brought that damned and damning prop into the kid's life?

Looks like tradition (in its worst guise) and familial pressure to me.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Sir_Sri]

There is a fairly interesting question of what legal rights she has to facebook ownership based on their relationship, whether or not they count as common law (which given that they've been living together for some time they might) and what that would imply, if the timing of the marriage specifically would include or exclude her from being able to claim a chunk of assets etc.

Not that the article addresses any of those. But those would make for an interesting /. article because they apply equally well whether your company just IPO'd at 100 billion dollars or 100 000 dollars, and happen to be topical based on current events.

The article basically says 'have a prenup because Donald Trump says so'. The interesting questions are all about what could or could not be in the prenup given their current (and past) status. Sure, he could probably have written in an exclusion that she can't make any future claims against any inheritance he has from his parents. But that's a boring pittance compared to how much money he just made.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

If he married a Robot or an executive from Google. That may be a little different.

I dunno I found it somewhat interesting. Looking at some pictures of his new wife shows her to be rather plain looking and frequently struggling with her weight. I find myself constantly looking for reasons to hate the guy, but at least respect is due to someone who marries his pre-fame college sweetheart when he could likely take his pick from just about any of the top millionaire supermodels.

Hate to break it to you, but some guys like stocky women...

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[SScorpio]

As professionals are either of you self employed? This changes how the taxes you owe will appears to you as you will see all the money getting paid and have to do quarterly estimates, etc.

But if you both work jobs where taxes are automatically deducted from a pay check, simply choosing one for the number of dependents for both of you should put you right where you need to be.

You do still get screwed over if you own a home because if you were living together but not married you could file separately and do a itemized deduction on one of your taxes, and tax a standard deduction on the other. You can't do that when you're married.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tokul]

when he could likely take his pick from just about any of the top millionaire supermodels

What are you looking for in your future wife? Long time companion or some cardboard beauty, who will be gone 5 years later with half of your estate.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Andtalath]

It's a smart move actually.
If you marry someone you started dating before they knew you had money, you know they like you and not just your wallet.

This is not a small thing.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Loosifur]

What is with Slashdotters? Plain? Stocky? "Struggling with her weight?" If you go outside twice a week you'll see that this is what most people look like. I think she's a cute girl who probably weighs what normal women weigh, for all that it's my business or even of interest to me. She wouldn't stop the music walking into a bar, but she'd definitely get a few drinks bought for her.

Struggling with her weight, please. She's wearing an H & M skirt that comes up to her nose. Aunt Flo was probably in town and she threw something baggy on to go buy groceries. If and when you con some woman into marrying you that will make sense.

God, seriously, you people and your sharp knees...

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[CaptainLard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2012_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

The US 33% tax bracket starts at $178K filing single and $217k filing jointly. So if you and your spouse both made $175k pre marriage, just getting married increases your tax rate by 5%. I'm guessing the majority of husbands and wives both work full time nowadays so most people are getting screwed. Those that aren't, have a home maker or trophy wife for a spouse.

In that case, you get those extra 5% in taxes (or $8k) off your tax bill but are also giving up $40k worth of second incomes! And half your assets in the imminent trophy wive divorce (zing!). But if being with your spouse makes you forget about shit like "tax brackets" on every day but April 15, you're good to go. Otherwise you're making a tea party stump speech, grover norquist, or shouldn't be getting married.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Andtalath]

It's a standardized contract giving you plenty of small benefits and a good legal framework for what happens if you break up.
In many countries it is also the only good way for a man to be guaranteed right to be the legal parent of his children.

Also, it's a good hallmark way to say that you have an intention to spend your life with that person.

For me, my proposal to my wife came at such a time that I could foresee no major hurdles which would break us up.

And the spending on the wedding is more along the lines that it is a very good opportunity to get together in a festive way.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

What IS with Slashdotters? Normal women? She's chubby. In some of those pictures she could stand to lose a few pounds. Yes, this is all too common, yes this isn't a big deal, but it's reality. It doesn't matter that there are guys out there who like amputees. That doesn't make amputees the normal, healthy body. All the fat apologism on this site is one step from a HAES Tumblr blog.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[blind biker]

Apart from the fact that I think she looks hot, I do agree with the spirit of your post, and actually appreciate it vehemently and furiously.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Guppy06]

at least respect is due to someone who marries his pre-fame college sweetheart

As opposed to his pre-fame college stalking victim?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh stop it. All he's saying is that he married a normal looking girl he actually likes instead of a supermodel. It's a good point.

And I guarantee you, that young lady doesn't think she's at her ideal weight. That doesn't mean we're saying there's something wrong with her, or that she isn't cute... Just that she's normal, and good for him.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hugely important for me. I have been with a gold digger before (But I knew her since I was 16 anyway).

That is why I spend all my money and make out to be poor whenever talking to potential fsck's.

If they believe you have nothing at the start I think you are more likely to find something worth having.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe if he married a robot who happens to be an executive from Google.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Kurrel]

Thank god we have Slashdot on which to repost all these important Facebook status updates.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[TheSpoom]

The reality is that most reasonable people here don't care, and are thus not commenting.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

A huge percentage of all people are fat. What's your point? She's pretty chunky in the pictures I have seen. Not obese but not healthy either. "Typical" maybe but like I said, way too many people are fat and unhealthy.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

What is with Slashdotters? Plain? Stocky? "Struggling with her weight?" If you go outside twice a week you'll see that this is what most people look like.

You must live in the US, am I right?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[rubycodez]

they've already been together for 9 years, far longer than average "marriage" (a legal term for a license). Mark already could have had any woman he wanted, and he continues to choose Priscilla.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[ToasterMonkey]

Not sure I can buy into this side of your argument. When you consider everything involved, do you really think that people get married primarily for tax reasons? Half the people who get married spend so much on the event that I find it hard to believe that they ever recoup that in taxes unless they make $200k/yr or something.

Considering the whole metric ton of financial risk involved and taxes are the only financial gain, I think it's a fairly sound argument the GP was making. You could just get married in the eyes of a church and not in the eyes of the STATE, but why isn't that common? Well, that's not all of it because you'd still have to deal with the legal ramifications of common law marriage.

I'll try to tackle wedding costs without offending too many... If you honestly think your tax dollars are subsidizing all Tons of marriages are between people in their mid-20s who barely have jobs let alone a grasp of tax accounting.

I bet they don't have a grasp on the risks and legal issues either.

I think the main driver for marriage is tradition and pressure by family to conform to social norms. That, and nobody in love really wants to plan for the incredibly unlikely event that something will go wrong

Agreed.

Whatever the reason people go into it for, I think the government's involvement in it is _crazy_.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[BasilBrush]

And the animals with the "perceived need to have kids"? And the ones that mate for life?

It's far more instinct than tradition.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[BasilBrush]

The same table shows that as a married couple you can choose to file separately. In which case you'll pay exactly the same as two singles. So again, married couples aren't being screwed compared to singles.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[DNS-and-BIND]

She's Chinese. I live in China and see Chinese women every day. She's certainly plain and obviously stocky. "This is what most people look like" - yeah, in the land of fat, they do. In normal, sane countries most people aren't fat.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Khashishi]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money? The main advantage of getting married is codifying a division of labor and responsibility. One person to bring home the money--the other to take care of the house. It's nearly impossible to make this kind of arrangement when a couple is unmarried. This is a much more real life reason to get married than for tax purposes.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

A few things from a guy who will definitely require a prenup:

1. If she won't sign it doesn't mean she loves your money and status. *Most* women will not sign a prenup and will leave you over it. Bringing it up casually and early on in the relationship will help at least get rid of the "surprise!" factor. It also helps if the prenup allows her to leave the marriage with something and also provide for any children you may have (and makes you look like a real man and not a pussy). If, like me, you have kids from a previous marriage, saying "I have to protect my kids" as a reason for the prenup can help.

Understand that you may lose her over this and absolutely be willing to lose her, but understand that just because she says no doesn't mean she's only after your money.

2. If she will sign it doesn't mean she loves you. She'll have access to your money and status. It may mean she doesn't plan to divorce. Never let a woman know your financial situation until the love is already there. Once she's already yours, finding out you have money has a powerful effect on her to your benefit.

3. Nothing in your post suggests to me that the courts in your jurisdiction hate men. There are definitely jurisdictions where that is true, but this is not one of them. A marriage is a contract and in the absence of a written document, you've essentially agreed to be bound by marriage laws and court decisions in the case of divorce. The court cares about:

1. The kids.
2. Maximizing community property.
3. Giving both spouses time to enable themselves to support themselves at the level of the marital lifestyle.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[SethJohnson]

Mark already could have had any woman he wanted who marries for money, and he continues to choose Priscilla.

Your original statement suggested that every living woman is only interested in money when selecting a partner. That's a bit of an offensive perspective on women.

Seth

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Mark already could have had any woman he wanted, "

I'm sure Angelina Jolie is home crying right now because she missed out on such a great catch.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Rich0]

Considering the whole metric ton of financial risk involved and taxes are the only financial gain, I think it's a fairly sound argument the GP was making. You could just get married in the eyes of a church and not in the eyes of the STATE, but why isn't that common? Well, that's not all of it because you'd still have to deal with the legal ramifications of common law marriage.

Seems like you're arguing both sides here, but I think the reasons that people don't just get married in church and not before the law are:

1. Most churches wouldn't allow it. In their eyes marriage is a permanent commitment so adding legal force to it is a good thing.

2. Social norms. Could you imagine trying to explain to your family that you were going to get married religiously but not legally? Parents would think you aren't taking it seriously, or that one or the other of you is up to no good.

I really doubt that tax planning really factors into the decision at all. If you charged people an extra $500/yr if they were married they'd still do it.

Whatever the reason people go into it for, I think the government's involvement in it is _crazy_.

I'm the first to agree with you here. Half of the political bickering of the day would go away if you stopped trying to regulate what amounts to tradition and religion. Churches (or whoever) could come out with standard contracts and if people want to bind themselves under one they could do so. Couples could pick whatever agreement they believed in and be governed accordingly. The rights of children are an issue whether we legislate marriage or not, since being married is not a physical pre-requisite for having children.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[davester666]

No. He just used different names for the same thing.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[jones_supa]

Why would you wish him either?

Interesting question, actually. I guess general altruism could be one explanation. Wishing well for some nice guy gives a kind of warm feeling to a person.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

The instinct is to fuck, not to have kids. Animals don't have a career or contraception.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money?

You might want to consider the possibility that both spouses enjoy their jobs and aren't necessarily doing it for the money.

The main advantage of getting married is codifying a division of labor and responsibility. One person to bring home the money--the other to take care of the house.

LOL, so your primary reason to marry is purely transactional? Nice! (you must not live in the US)
_____________________________________

CAPTCHA: struggle

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[RodBee]

You! Stop stomping their dreams! they want to see an obnoxious nerd hump as many supermodels he wants, so they can believe they have a chance too!

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Psychologically, plenty of couples have stayed together for that many years, but soon as they get the paper the relationship changes. We have no indicator on how well they'll do now.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[RodBee]

I don't understand anymore what "healthy" means.

If you have to spend two hours in a gym to keep your body "healthy", you're just overloading yourself with exercise, and that's not healthy too.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Offensive, but accurate.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Common law marriage isn't allowed / recognized in California, and was only valid in Massachusetts from 1620-1646.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[zippthorne]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money?

To be able to have more stuff.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[RodBee]

You're led to believe it today, but no. Marriage predates the church, and marriage rights and benefits, too.At least, last I checked, the ancient greeks, egyptians, assyrians, summerians etc were not Christian nor had a church.

Marriage is a pretty old thing, and yes it probably predates organized religion.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

What??? 2h?? People used to *walk* for 8+h a day searching for food!! There are still some nomadic people that run up to 4-8h a day, every day, in search for food. That's what our bodies have evolved to do. Now you are stating 2h in a gym is overloading your body? You are crazy.

If you are in any sort of a shape, you have enough glycogen reserves in your muscles and liver for about 2-3h of aerobic activity. If you are an unhealthy couch potato, you have about 1h worth of glycogen. So if you go on a bike and within 1h of moderate cycling your muscles ache and burn, you qualify for unhealthy couch potato label.

Finally, *how* you look has very little to do with your fitness level. There are overweight people that are fit. There are thin people that are completely out of shape - their fitness level being that of a 300lb couch potato.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or to be able to get out of the rat race quicker

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[LordLimecat]

I mean marriage itself is pretty unromantic when you think about it. Marriage is "yeah we could decide just to be together, you and me, on our own... but wait! let's add a contract with the government because legal systems and licenses are soooo romantic!" A prenup is really just a variation.

What people seem to completely forget is that "marriage", at least in theory, has religious implications. For Christians, its a man and woman saying "I choose only you for the rest of my life". I know its hip, modern, and PC to pretend that "marriage" is just some secular thing with no more meaning than a business contract, but not everyone views or treats it that way.

Im not saying I think Zuckerberg is a Christian or that he views it that way, but surely theres something romantic that he decided to make their relationship more permanent than simply dating. You can call it "emotional appeal that makes no logical sense", but then it sounds like you completely miss the entire point of marriage and love.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[LordLimecat]

Do you struggle to understand basic emotion, or to empathize with other humans? There are times people have emotions that are not founded on logic, and thats OK. If you love someone not for what they can do for you, or you want to have kids for more reasons than "they will support me in my old age", thats perfectly fine.

It might occur to you that some people want kids because theyve seen how much joy they can bring to a household-- but then that requires you to actually care about other humans, which concept you seem to be struggling with.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[LordLimecat]

Or else life is about more than just money and taxes.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Asic Eng]

so most people are getting screwed.

Most people don't make anywhere near enough money to get even close to these brackets.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[rubycodez]

Listen up, I'm going to teach you something about reality, vs. the oh-so-politically-correct viewpoints of our modern society.

A stereotype that is generally true in 90% or more of cases is a *useful guideline*

Women who wish to marry desire have a husband with a job and with income and with odds of a good future. This comes from an ancient primate instinct about mates. A man's perceived attractiveness increases as a function of his wealth. This is reality, you may not like it, and though feminist writers in the New York metrosexual scene may delight in stories that are exceptions, about high wage successful women and their unemployed effeminate boy-toys, this is not the norm for the human race, and will in most cases not be the reality about your success in finding a wife, should you desire one.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

she's probably the only one who loves him, not his money. Some people still think this important. You know, he isn't that good looking either. While I still think she is exceptionally beautiful compared to him.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like an honest mistake to think she's struggling with her weight. She has disproportionately large legs, so that particular outfit makes her look much heavier than she is. You can see in some other pictures -- her in tight jeans with a lightsaber, or walking in the sun dress and sunglasses -- that she's a perfectly healthy weight and has the same thick legs. I don't expect that's something most guys would pick up on. At the same time, I bet if the guys saying such things saw her in person in any of those outfits, they would think she looks great. Pictures are unforgiving (at least without touch-ups).

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[rubycodez]

actually, people in their situation/background generally stay married a very long time, and with children

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that's sexual pleasure working, or do you believe a goat actually knows the nature behind sperm, ovules and all that stuff which we ourselves were in the dark until quite recently? Mating for life can also means they are satisfied or consider the partner something to keep from others. Just as well there are promiscuous animals.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

The same table shows that as a married couple you can choose to file separately. In which case you'll pay exactly the same as two singles.

I looked at the table, and it shows different numbers in the "single" and "married filing separately" (MFS) columns. So I'd like to see your math on the two people filing separetely being equal to two single people. The two MFS are in the 33% bracket, the single person is still in the 28% bracket. From all I can see, you are 100% wrong and didn't even read the table you are referring to.

There is a big tax break for being married if you have only one income. There is a big tax penalty to being married if you have two equal incomes. There is no "marriage penalty" as tossed around by the anti-government nutters, as they incorrectly assume all families to have equal incomes for their political purposes. But, in some (many) cases, married couples pay more taxes after marriage. And rarely is MFS cheaper for a marred couple, usually only done by separated but not divorced couples with fights over deductions. MFS is designed to *always* be more expensive than joint to prevent abuse.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[antdude]

Are we sure she is not a robot? She could be a fembot! [grin]

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[CaptainLard]

The same table shows that as a married couple you can choose to file separately.

Thats true...IF...you each make under $35K. Median US income in 2004 was $44k.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

Nothing in your post suggests to me that the courts in your jurisdiction hate men.

There is a large class of men who are waging a PR campaign against the family courts because emotionally abusive men get denied access to their kids without physical proof they are abusive. Their true complaint is "I've targeted my abuse in a manner as to be undetectable to the outsider after the fact, so any outsider after the fact who holds my abuse against me when I lie about it is obviously taking someone else's word over mine, and that's unfair." When you have thousands of those go through the court, a few innocent men may get painted with the same paint brush, but when they go around claiming the problem is the courts, and that men never abuse, they leave the "I'm innocent" defense and enter the "I'm loony" defense, and "I'm looney - so give me my kids" never works out so well.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[CaptainLard]

Most people don't make anywhere near enough money to get even close to these brackets.

Thats true for the highest brackets, but my point still stands for the 25% tax bracket which starts at $35k and encompasses more than half of all workers (median salary in the US is $44k)

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[toddestan]

Or you can just file separately. I fail to see any case where a married couple would be screwed on their taxes versus singles, as the option of filing separately is always available. Worst case scenario is that getting married would net you no tax benefit versus staying single.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, she's ugly as hell.
Perfect fit for him, then.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[toddestan]

Twelve states plus the District of Columbia all have some form of common marriage, and many other states also did at some point. You're right though that California is one of the ones that doesn't recognize it.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Fallingwater]

Not sure I can buy into this side of your argument. When you consider everything involved, do you really think that people get married primarily for tax reasons?

No. They get married because they're incredibly naive.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Xest]

It's not going to be foolproof though, people fall in and out of love, especially when they're young, she could just as well have fallen out of love with him just as he was about to make his billions and decided to stick around.

But regardless, it's nice to see if it's genuine, I guess we're so used to precisely this type of bullshit in the music and movie industry that it's easy to be cynical, but I guess many tech types in general i.e. Bill Gates also have managed to at least maintain lasting relationships. I guess that's because tech types generally aren't shallow people, they did have to have some semblance of intelligence and rationality to get where they were whilst the same can't be said for actors and musicians I suppose.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[roman_mir]

Often it just happens... At least half of all kids are not planned, you know.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[rvw]

But regardless, it's nice to see if it's genuine, I guess we're so used to precisely this type of bullshit in the music and movie industry that it's easy to be cynical, but I guess many tech types in general i.e. Bill Gates also have managed to at least maintain lasting relationships. I guess that's because tech types generally aren't shallow people, they did have to have some semblance of intelligence and rationality to get where they were whilst the same can't be said for actors and musicians I suppose.

Tech types aren't shallow people? That's a big general. To do something like Zuckerberg did is proof of high intelligence, not only in the technical sense, but mostly in a social sense. You have to be a people's manager to get something like this working. You need many skills, technical, social, commercial, and you have to handle all the attention and critique you get. And for that you need a good partner at home, one that supports you and doesn't compete. Not one that gets all attention because she's so pretty, but one that can listen and give advice and doesn't judge. So intelligence on her part is a must. Reasonable good looks help, while it could attract too much attention if she is too good looking for him, and for ugly it works the same. That is competition that works against the partnership.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[stephanruby]

I dunno I found it somewhat interesting. Looking at some pictures of his new wife shows her to be rather plain looking and frequently struggling with her weight.

What the hell are you talking about? She's cute and she's fit, even if you consider her plain.

Top female super models and celebrities are also plain looking without make up on and without photoshop. And most of them are also struggling with their weight, whether it's the fact that they weight too much, or not enough (and are in denial about it).

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[schnell]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money?

I can think of a few...

• To save enough money to retire early
• To build a healthy nest egg for medical costs, emergencies or loss of income
• To save up for/pay for your children's education and future college
• To be able to afford housing where the best schools and infrastructure are
• To offer your children opportunities you didn't have growing up (say, traveling to other parts of the globe) that will help educate them and broaden their perspectives
• To just plain not have to worry about ever not having enough money for whatever comes up, because there are plenty of other things in life to worry about

...Or just maybe it turns out that both spouses are good at their careers, and enjoy doing them, and neither one feeds like staying home to vacuum and eat bonbons all day.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tknd]

The slashdot male bias is strong in this one.

There are logical and valid reasons for why women want to get married and have kids. As women age, their fertility drops and it becomes increasingly harder to have a kid with fewer complications. If they were to follow statistics of known studies they would be having kids in their early 20s.

Generally, the logic process is quite simple: if they want to have kids then they should have kids before age 35. Wanting kids also isn't necessarily a dream, I would say it is more defined by our species and evolution. I will say socially, there is a huge difference between having a couple kids and many kids. Having many kids tends to create population problems. Having a few kids stabilizes the population. Having no kids (a declining population) is a problem as nobody will replace dead members of society.

Even though I think Zuckerberg is a douch-bag, I still think he and what I barely know of his wife are much more capable at producing beneficial "kids" to society than say... Britney Spears. If we want to be logical about this process, we should have educated and more responsible members of society doing that majority of pro-creation for us. But we don't, instead we have poorer people producing the most kids either as "mistakes" or religion or because of (initially) cheap entertainment purposes.

You can blame this on the reactions you see from girl's toys to mother's behavior but there's hard evidence that that is more likely a symptom of a deeper need.

Before you snap back at me, I think it would be a good idea to have a look at female fertility before you dismiss everything.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[mc10]

Honestly? "Stocky"? What is wrong with you cowards... She looks fine in her picture with Zuckerberg.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[HungWeiLo]

There are also serious medical considerations too. For most women, they develop a sudden and serious allergic reaction to gold and diamonds thus suffer from symptoms such as bloating and irratibility.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[geminidomino]

You do realize that your own statement there is pretty much supporting the same imbalanced court system, right?

To make it clear:

I've targeted my abuse in a manner as to be undetectable to the outsider after the fact, so any outsider after the fact who holds my abuse against me when I lie about it is obviously taking someone else's word over mine, and that's unfair.

Anywhere else in the legal system, there's a much shorter word for that: "evidence." So you're complaining about other people complaining that courts ignoring a lack of evidence against them is unfair?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

The instinct is to fuck, not to have kids. Animals don't have a career or contraception.

Rearing your young is instinct you twit, just as much as wanting to fuck. If it were not so, a species with vulnerable young would die out. Get your mind out of your underpants for two seconds and you might be surprised at the complexity of the world. Despite the song life ain't all just "bitches and money"

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[turing_m]

You've never heard of the term "clucky"? There is an instinct to want to have kids, too. May not be present in all animals though, just as there are some humans with an instinct for sex but no instinct to have children.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[turing_m]

Because they've had this "dream" pounded into their heads since the day of their birth by their equally-brainwashed mothers.

Because if your daughter is going to have kids, you want her to shack up with some loser who can't make a commitment in front of all his friends and family, and her friends and family. After that loser cuts and runs, your daughter will be trying to keep her kids clothed, fed, educated and inadequately protected by herself - and doing a half ass job of all of it. Unless your daughter is an amazon and has been training martial arts since age 5, she won't stand a chance vs the average male with bad intentions.

And sure, there are people out there whose commitment isn't worth the paper it's written on. In the old days before easy travel around the country (and world), they were shunned in the community and this had some effect. Now a woman needs to learn how to gauge whether her mate will honor his commitments. It's harder for sure. But marriage as an institution is still definitely a valuable institution for women, primarily those who will be having children. Such a woman is foolish in general for forsaking it. And a parent is foolish for not inculcating a desire for marriage in his/her daughter, especially knowing how silly some young women can be and the irrevocability of decisions such as having children to a non-committal loser.

Same deal with the perceived need to have kids. Gotta get those buns in the oven, you know. How many times have you seen mummy's little girl pushing along a wee toy pram with a wee baby doll in it? Who brought that damned and damning prop into the kid's life?

Honestly, what is the big problem with having kids? If we didn't have kids our species would die off. And anyone who has had kids knows that boys and girls are different, and on average have very different drives.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

You might try leaving the country for once. You'll notice that America has a different definition of "normal" than other parts of the world. So while she's probably within the normal range in this country, she's not globally.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Bensam123]

Wow, where do you get struggling with weight out of any of that? She actually looks pretty normal and possibly under it (for US standards).

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

"struggling with her weight" is rather presumptuous. Hopefully "normal" women ( a very good thing ) are not rail thin and most importantly are happy with themselves.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Your.Master]

I'm going to come out and assert the following: fewer than 90% of women would hook up with Mark Zuckerberg just because he's insanely rich. I don't really know what percent it is, and I'm sure it's above 0%, but I'm equally sure it's not even close to 90%.

There is a difference between wanting somebody who can take care of himself and still generate surplus resources for the family; and being so boneheaded that you'll subsume your will to any hyper-rich person without a second thought.

There is no primate instinct that distinguishes a billionaire from somebody who makes a comfortable living. Primates don't even have wealth. They have something akin to income, and live equivalent to "paycheque-to-paycheque" lives. There hasn't been a lot of time to evolve recognition of anything beyond sustained provision of sufficient resources, nor is there really any selection pressure to do so.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money?

Because $178k doesn't mean the same thing in each part of the country. I'm currently looking to buy my first home and a 1BR condo in my area costs upwards of $500k. 2BR is anywhere from $700k to well over $1m. It's expensive, but as long as the housing market doesn't take a complete nose dive, it's still worth it from a tax perspective for me to buy. A couple wanting a family might want a 3BR (kids room, guest room) which would all but require both of them to earn at or near that $178k figure.

It's all well and good if you can buy a McMansion in your area for $300k, but some of us aren't that lucky. I have the misfortune of having been born in an area where I'm barely able to consider buying a home despite earning well in excess of $100k. And it's only getting worse with Facebook having just created a large group of millionaires to drive up prices.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Loosifur]

Actually, she's American, and lives in America.

You said you were from somewhere else in an earlier post. I don't know what it's like in your crappy country, but in countries people actually want to live in, most people have higher than 3% body fat. But I'll bet you think Keira Knightley is what healthy looks like, right?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big tax penalty to being married if you have two equal incomes

There is no penalty for any incomes below 70k (i.e., the vast majority of wage earners).

Also, calling an additional $7000 owed (assuming you pay your taxes fully) a "big tax penalty" on a combined income of $350,000 is a total joke. If you are making that much money and can't save $7k by combining households alone, you're doing it wrong.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for Mark, the kind of cake that causes a woman to gain the most weight by far is the wedding cake.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Rich0]

Filing separately does not use the same deductions/exemptions/brackets/etc as filing as single.

I haven't looked at the tables in a few years, but for couples where both make similar incomes marriage tends to result in a tax loss. For couples where incomes are very different marriage can lead to a tax benefit (since the higher income earner can often avoid paying full taxes on more of that income). If one person earns nothing the benefit is modest but substantial - you now have a single income but being taxed in lower brackets (the joint rates), and you can claim more exemptions against that single income, where the person if single wouldn't have any income to claim the exemption against. Then again, if somebody with no income really were single then they'd be able to claim all kinds of benefits like the EIC, but they'd need to be subsidized by somebody else to live that way.

What's your point you ask. I have no point...

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[glwtta]

So if you and your spouse both made $175k pre marriage, just getting married increases your tax rate by 5%.

Your marginal tax rate increases by 5%, the effective rate (in your example) increases by 1.9% ($6.65k) - not great, but not exactly ruinous.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[DigiShaman]

Take a look at the black community in America. How many fatherless children are there? How many of them commit crimes? You want society to fall apart don't you? Start by denigrating the family unit!

BTW, having children is expensive. There's a reason society subsidizes the cost of their development through tax benefits and public education. Though I am against the concept of complete socialism/communism in the form of carte blanche handouts. But some encouragement is healthy. Where you draw the line will always be open to debate, as it should be.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! You don't think that even well established relationships don't experience massive change when a gigantic infusion of cash comes to one of the two?

All I can say is I hope there was some massive prenup involved otherwise the gold digger of this chick should be coming out eventually.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta chime in here...
I've been married to a wonderful lady for 20 years and every year that goes by I realize how lucky I am to have found someone that is not one of those money grubbing gold diggers that you describe. It probably helped that I was broke when we got married. Things are much different now but she hasn't changed a bit. I'll say one thing, if God forbid anything happened to her there is NO WAY IN HELL that I would ever re-marry without a PreNup. Ask Paul McCartney how that worked out. If you have anything more than modest assets you simply have to take steps to protect it.

Advertising has brainwashed many Americans into thinking that money is everything and if you don't have money you're a loser. So young girls (and boys) grow up thinking that if you want an iPhone and a Gucci purse and a BMW and a big house, well, you better snag yourself some rich dude that can keep up with your needs. Don't worry you'll learn to "love" him...in time. For now just focus on a nicely feathered nest. If it doesn't work out, file for divorce and make sure and get some man-hating bitch of a lawyer that will rejoice in raking the poor sap over the coals.

Is it any wonder that half of US marriages end in divorce? There are LOT of men out there that have been financially ruined by divorce settlements. Some women too I'm sure but the vast majority of alimony is paid by men.

A word to the wise fellas....protect your assets. If your potential bride refuses to sign one run for the hills.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes indeed. If the tables were turned (she was FB CEO), she'd have dropped him in an instant for someone better. He'd be called shallow for doing that but there's all kind of pleasant adjectives when it's done by the women.

Quite honestly she doesn't deserve him.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, tell that to all the Chinese on Weibo who celebrated one of their own landing a billionaire. It was a top 10 topic.

I'm American, living in China. I have no idea who Keira Knightley is as I haven't lived in America since 2002, but I can tell you that obesity is not an epidemic here. Are you obese yourself? The Chinese diet makes a huge difference. Vegetables, rice, and a bit of meat. I lost 20 pounds after arriving purely due to changing the foods I ate. It's rare to see an overweight person, and 300+ pounders are almost unknown.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize you just said that having children is a cultural thing?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

A witness is "evidence".

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

Surprisingly, being beautiful doesn't necessarily make someone an interesting person to spend a lot of time with.

If you just want to fuck someone gorgeous there are plenty of high class escorts around.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich guys, remember this and never forget it: if she signs a prenup, it means she really loves you and doesn't plan to divorce. If she won't sign, she loves your money and status.

or maybe she is just worried what will happen to her after you made her give up her career to raise children and then dumped her?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

Offensive, but accurate.

Don't be a fucking idiot, the truth isn't offensive, it's ridiculous generalisations from anonymous misogynists that are.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

A man's perceived attractiveness increases as a function of his wealth.

That's what uncharismatic, ugly old rich men say to give some meaning to their money-obsessed empty little lives.

If you view all women as whores, you will end up marrying a whore.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

But I'll bet you think Keira Knightley is what healthy looks like, right?

I don't know about healthy, but I wouldn't chuck her out of my camp bed just to get a cup of tea. As they say.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

I have no idea who Keira Knightley is as I haven't lived in America since 2002,

Well, I've never lived in America and I know who she is.

There's this thing called the internet nowadays, you can get news and stuff and, you know, post to slashdot.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

Often it just happens... At least half of all kids are not planned, you know.

Have you never heard of abortion?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

For me, my proposal to my wife came at such a time that I could foresee no major hurdles which would break us up.

Why, you old romantic!

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

And you base these beliefs and numbers on what, exactly? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that women don't have some attraction response to wealth.

Can he have any woman he wants? No. The world isn't so black and white.
Does he have way more options than he would have had if facebook wasn't successful? Of course.

Rest assured, you don't need to be fantastically rich to have an attractive, well adjusted woman. But it can help.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money?

You might want to consider the possibility that both spouses enjoy their jobs and aren't necessarily doing it for the money.

If they aren't doing it for the money, why are they drawing a fucking £175K salary?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[roman_mir]

I am all for abortion until the 60th trimester by the way.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you marry someone you started dating before they knew you had money, you know they like you and not just your wallet.

Nope. No such thing. If she was born with a vag, she likes just your wallet. Period. End of story.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[mblase]

they've already been together for 9 years, far longer than average "marriage" (a legal term for a license). Mark already could have had any woman he wanted, and he continues to choose Priscilla.

Which reminds me: do you think he married her right after the IPO because he wanted to give all his attention to her on the honeymoon, or because he wanted to lock in his wealth before the prenup took effect?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[mblase]

Same deal with the perceived need to have kids. Gotta get those buns in the oven, you know. How many times have you seen mummy's little girl pushing along a wee toy pram with a wee baby doll in it? Who brought that damned and damning prop into the kid's life?

Looks like tradition (in its worst guise) and familial pressure to me.

Don't be silly. Little girls like to imitate their moms, and little boys like to imitate their dads. In this case, if the little girl is watching her mom raise ANOTHER little baby (gasp, parents having multiple children! In this day and age!), then she'll probably want to imitate her.

It's also learned from culture and TV, of course. But don't underestimate the simple and powerful influence of a caretaking parent.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Hognoxious]

Alex Kingston, Lucy Lawless, & Kim Clijsters are stocky.

The word you want is chubby

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

If you are both making $178K, maybe one of you should quit. What's the point of making this much money?

To be able to have more stuff.

i.e. to be able to have have more stuff you don't need and which generally brings you no increase in happiness over what you already had

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Hognoxious]

just as there are some humans with an instinct for sex but no instinct to have children.

Mac users?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

You need to earn an awful lot of money to be able to retire early. Most people do not earn enough to do this, and those that do probably have to waste twenty years of their youth in working hard.

I say, fuck that. When you're older you want to be able to look back on the exciting things you could still do, not a catalogue of nights working in your office and steadily growing savings accounts.

Deferred gratification is over-rated.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[denobug]

She's Chinese. I live in China and see Chinese women every day. She's certainly plain and obviously stocky. "This is what most people look like" - yeah, in the land of fat, they do. In normal, sane countries most people aren't fat.

Being a Chinese decent that lives here as an AMERICAN for a very long time I DO recent your statement. Clearly you are only aware of the "expected" female figures in China, but not seeing the Asians in the rest of the world, especially the DEVELOPED world.

Here in the land of Kindness and Civility we do not consider her bad looking. She is who she is and in the eyes of beholder she's just fine! Hopefully you as a Chinese decent born within China with the proper education on "Chinese Culture" would understand the beauty glowing from a person's heart that end up showing in their expressions like the old Confucius and Confucian so strongly advocated.

Or you can be more "western" and learn from the Christian culture and be more kind and generous with your words toward a particular individual, especially someone who has no skin in the tech world.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[tehcyder]

.Or just maybe it turns out that both spouses are good at their careers, and enjoy doing them, and neither one feeds like staying home to vacuum and eat bonbons all day.

Anyone who goes to work because they can't think of anything useful to do with their time otherwise is a sad excuse for a human being.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[bitt3n]

It's a smart move actually. If you marry someone you started dating before they knew you had money, you know they like you and not just your wallet.

that's a huge red flag for me. if a chick liked me before she knew I had money, she's got serious mental problems

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Metabolife]

And he makes sure to marry her right after the IPO so that she can't claim it as shared earnings. True love at its finest.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the big problem with extinction of our kind?

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[EvilBudMan]

No you don't. Things change after that license goes into affect. It doesn't really matter. Hopefully it will work out for him.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[EvilBudMan]

I agree but it's not a totally foolproof method. Avoiding the most expensive form of prostitution in the world is. Just don't get married at all.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[geminidomino]

When that "witness" also happens to be the opposing party, with a deep, vested interest in making sure that her opponent gets fucked as hard and deep as possible by the courts, granting her word more depth than his simply because she lacks external gonads is, to quote a once-great philosopher, "Bullshit!"

The fact that people think like you seem to is a huge part of the problem.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[mattack2]

Primates don't even have wealth. They have something akin to income, and live equivalent to "paycheque-to-paycheque" lives. There hasn't been a lot of time to evolve recognition of anything beyond sustained provision of sufficient resources, nor is there really any selection pressure to do so.

I sure thought there were more recent studies like this that showed up in the news, but this is the most relevant one I can find in a quick search..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe they don't use it in their natural habitat (or maybe they do, and we just haven't noticed it yet), but they understood how to deal with price changes in an item they want.

I guess you are right in that they don't have "wealth", since the study said he never noticed them deliberately saving money.. But I still think it shows they have a greater understanding of economics than what I infer you're implying.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[mattack2]

If you have to spend two hours in a gym to keep your body "healthy", you're just overloading yourself with exercise, and that's not healthy too.

[citation needed]

The vast majority of people (me definitely included) don't get exercise in going about their daily life, so they "add it in" via a gym or whatever.

Plus, I inferred you meant 2 hours daily. The government guidelines (http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/adultguide/part4.aspx) say 2.5 hours/week of moderate or 1.25 hours/week of vigorous exercise.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[zippthorne]

i.e. to be able to have have more stuff you don't need and which generally brings you no increase in happiness over what you already had

Are you speaking from experience, or sour grapes?

Even if you don't get any more stuff, just having the security of not having to worry about making ends meet - 178k/yr is more than sufficient to significantly exceed housing costs in many areas - is not something to scoff at. Having the option for one spouse to quit may be more valuable than actually quitting.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

When that "witness" also happens to be the opposing party, with a deep, vested interest in making sure that her opponent gets fucked as hard and deep as possible by the courts

That's the cop in traffic court, and I don't see nearly as many complaints about that, as the abusive men who wish they wouldn't have any sanctions against them.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[geminidomino]

Read this and go away.

Idiot.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

Circular reasoning? Are you arguing that traffic cops don't get convictions from asserting guilt with no other evidence? Or are you arguing that all the wife-beating men complained about that long before they lost their children, and objected to the evidence standards then, and didn't wait until it affected them before complaining?

Because just mentioning that abusive men would complain isn't circular reasoning. Perhaps you should read your own links before posting them.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[geminidomino]

You're saying that a man complaining about his soon-to-be-ex-wife lying about abuse should be given less credibility than the accuser, based on the fact that he's being accused of being abusive.

So not only can't you grasp the flaw in your reasoning, you clearly have no grasp of human nature or the inherent scumminess of family law.

Oh, wait. I'm criticising family law. That must make me an abuser!

Simpleton.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

You're saying that a man complaining about his soon-to-be-ex-wife lying about abuse should be given less credibility than the accuser, based on the fact that he's being accused of being abusive.

Fuck you. You are lying. You are pissed off abuser, or defender of abusers who lies in court and is lying here. I said no such thing. The original statement was that eye witness testimony wasn't "Evidence" I pointed out that was wrong. I didn't say anything about whether it was sufficient for conviction. When you whined that it shouldn't be sufficient, I pointed out that it is considered sufficient in traffic court, and there aren't large groups of pissed off men protesting that. Again, you are wrong on every point you've ever made, and to try to hide that, you are lying about what I said.

Everyone reading this can scroll up and see you are a lying sack of shit. If you wanted to discuss the issue, you'd ask questions and listen. Instead, you want to rant, so you spew non sequiturs and lies to declare victory in your rant. You are what you complain about. The lying wife attacking the non-lying innocent guy. And you have no grasp of the irony, making you not only a liar, but a lying idiot.

you clearly have no grasp of human nature or the inherent scumminess of family law.

My parents met as probation officers, and my mother and sister worked for the state in family law, and my father was a lawyer in family law. So I have an idea of family law. And I have a degree in psychology, so I have a grasp of human nature. So you are a lying idiot that has never been right in his life. But keep guessing, it makes you feel better, and guesses are at least not lies.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[geminidomino]

The original statement was that eye witness testimony wasn't "Evidence" I pointed out that was wrong. I didn't say anything about whether it was sufficient for conviction.

No, my statement was that the PROBLEM in question is that it IS considered "evidence" (in the legal sense) even when there is a clear conflict of interest. And since you bring it up, you should take a look around. In several jurisdictions, it IS grounds for convictions, or at least for extrajudicial punishment. For example, any state (such as Florida) that requires, BY LAW, a man accused of abuse to be removed from the house and a restraining order issued.

When you whined that it shouldn't be sufficient, I pointed out that it is considered sufficient in traffic court, and there aren't large groups of pissed off men protesting that.

And I ignored that because it is 1) A strawman, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. We're talking about a woman being able to drop the A-bomb for a slam dunk in court, whether or not there's any other evidence.
2) Also fucking wrong. Just look at slashdot everytime some slow news day has a "Geek fights traffic ticket with physics/gadget/portal gun". Plenty of people take issue with the inherent trust the police get, even in traffic court.

My parents met as probation officers, and my mother and sister worked for the state in family law, and my father was a lawyer in family law. So I have an idea of family law.

Then ask them if a lawyer they've had to deal with/oppose in court (since I'm sure that, like you, they are absolute paragons and would never do such a thing) has ever recommended to a woman that she should make complaints of abuse to strengthen her case.

Fuck you. You are lying. You are pissed off abuser, or defender of abusers who lies in court and is lying here.

Um.. yeah. Everyone knows slashdotters don't have girlfriends, remember?

But you're clearly illiterate. I'm not defending abusers, I'm defending those falsely accused of being abusers. I had thought I'd made that clear from the beginning. Maybe I used too many big words.

But that little quote right there pretty much gives lie to any of your claims of logic being on your side.

Re:If you're subscribed to him..

[AK Marc]

No, my statement was that the PROBLEM in question is that it IS considered "evidence" (in the legal sense) even when there is a clear conflict of interest.

And does that conflict exist when police are testifying against people they arrested/cited? It seems to me that this is a "they came for the speeders, and I didn't speak up" situation. You get what you deserve. Oh, and I did speak up when they came for the speeders. I have victories in court and letters to politicians as evidence of that. But the "men" in question don't have any issue with police being taken as infalible, unless it's used against them. That makes them part of the problem, and so I have no sympathy.

Then ask them if a lawyer they've had to deal with/oppose in court (since I'm sure that, like you, they are absolute paragons and would never do such a thing) has ever recommended to a woman that she should make complaints of abuse to strengthen her case.

As my father was abusive and my mother never mentioned such a thing in court, I think I have an insight you lack. She never mentioned it. There was no need to, he knew it would be used against him, and so he didn't oppose her custody demands (didn't hurt that the children were of age where in a contested custody the children would be asked who they'd rather go with, and the children would have not picked him). So the one case I have intimate knowledge of, he was a abuser (alcoholic) and it was never mentioned. And my mother worked for Family Court Services (the local organization that would testify in court as to which parent was most suitable in a custody dispute, as well as adoption assessments) so she'd go in assuming everyone was lying to make themselves look good. There were false claims from both sides in almost every case of a dispute, and false claims with no evidence work against the liar in court.

I'm not defending abusers, I'm defending those falsely accused of being abusers.

And how many is that. 1% of the accused? 10%? 150%?

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? Is this becoming a gossip website?

I don't care about facebook (I don't have an IQ low enough to join), and I couldn't care less about zuckerberg's private life.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean you don't have any friends, so what's the point?

Re:Who cares?

[jellomizer]

But you care enough to post a comment about it.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I meant that I don't have friends with low GPAs, read this:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1891111,00.html

Anyways, it's funny: a couple of years ago people who didn't watch reality shows were considered "anti-social", now those who don't have a facebook account. I guess that the kind of "audience" is the same. I don't "like" them, sorry.

Re:Who cares?

[Crasoose]

Are you saying you're too lazy to add spam filters in your email? Make your discontent known now with a comment and maybe in the future you won't have to browse over an article like this again.

Re:Who cares?

[moozey]

I agree with your first sentiment.

As for insulting 800+ million people because they happen to use a website that you don't like? Stop being a pretentious knob and quit worrying about things you apparently don't care for.

Re:Who cares?

[AngryDeuce]

As if 99% of the people on the average Facebook junkie's friend's list are actually "friends" in the first place.

Facebook has taken the word 'friend' and perverted it to mean anyone you've ever spoken to in your life, at any point of your life, from kindergarten to present, and the sick thing is, people actually are starting to think of those people as their friends.

GP was being a douche, I'll grant that, but let's not pretend that Facebook friends are actually friends in the true meaning of the word. People collect friends on Facebook like they're Pokemon...

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with 487 'friends' must have taken offence to this comment.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the footer of the brief article from Time Magazine which warned about correlations between Facebook use and general distraction, the first link suggests readers become "Facebook Fan[s] of TIME".
Brilliant!

Re:Who cares?

[RodBee]

Nitpicking, but important.

I don't believe Facebook came up with the "Friends" actually meaning "Acquaintances" (or even less than this) thing. That's a pretty common social network thing.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean you don't have any Friends (TM)?

There fixed that for ya.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh... Pokebook - now that's an idea. Oh damn... I'm not the first to have thought of it :-(

Okay...

[FreedomOfThought]

Why is this news? This is something you would find on entertainment tonight.

Re:Okay...

[Khashishi]

I'm only clicking on this story because I wanted to hear slashdot opinions on prenups. I don't give a damn about Zuckerburg.

Is this "stuff that matters?"

[betterunixthanunix]

Is this "news for nerds?"

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nerd gets married", how is this not news? There is hope for us all!

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[six025]

Is this "news for nerds?"

Is this "news for anyone" besides Zuckberg, his wife, family and friends? FFS :(

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[DNS-and-BIND]

Timothy. Do we really need to say any more?

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[hcs_$reboot]

Is this "stuff that matters?"

Whatever touches Facebook is dispatched worldwide instantly. /. collects what's so seemingly interesting and offers us to comment on it. Including, as you did, to wonder "should this really make the top lines?"...

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Mathew Zuikenbergers marital status has no relevancy.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[slasho81]

It's news for nerds because it implies that if Zuckerberg can get married, then so can we.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is hope! It can happen for you, too!

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is because a nerds is now getting laid.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[hort_wort]

This is educational. It's meant to show the rest of us how long we can expect to stay married if we become rich. We're supposed to set our "succubus peril" models to start running today.

(Granted, she might actually like him for not his money. Maybe he checked her facebook history first to make sure she didn't seem greedy.)

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misunderstand how marriage works.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[BasilBrush]

It is a relief he got married. A nerd with a girlfriend was an unsettling phenomenon.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Asic Eng]

Indeed there is hope for us all. Most of us nerds find the prospect of coding a website which eventually nets a billion dollars, less daunting than the idea of talking to a girl. Who knew it could be that easy?

Hmmm ... I think a new tech boom might be just around the corner.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Har har har. But seriously, this is a story not because a nerd got married but because a celebrity got married. This is a stupid article.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

They got together before he founded Facebook. Maybe they wouldn't be together any more if he was a bankrupt drunkard, but hey.

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to do is become a multi billionaire! I'll get right on it!

Re:Is this "stuff that matters?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Most successful nerd of 21st century.
Yup.

well,

[Anonymous Coward]

giveafuck level 9000.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know when it's over.

now ...

[AlanS2002]

Where's the dislike or don't care option.

Re:now ...

[tverbeek]

In most OSes it's usually an X or red dot in the upper-left/-right corner of the window. HTH.

CNN.com reckoning of time

[michaelmalak]

For a while last night, the front page of cnn.com read, "Days after his company made its stock market debut, Facebook co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg married his longtime girlfriend Priscilla Chan." The new cycle has shortened so much that even journalists now make the error of thinking several days have elapsed when only 24 hours have.

Re:CNN.com reckoning of time

[Anonymous Coward]

For a while last night, the front page of cnn.com read, "Days after his company made its stock market debut, Facebook co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg married his longtime girlfriend Priscilla Chan." The new cycle has shortened so much that even journalists now make the error of thinking several days have elapsed when only 24 hours have.

You used the words "journalist" and "think" in the same sentence.

Major mistake.

Re:CNN.com reckoning of time

[Joe Jay Bee]

Well, 1 could be considered a number of days...

Let's discuss TFA

[betterunixthanunix]

The person would not discuss the names of others who attended to protect their privacy.

Oh the irony...

Re:Let's discuss TFA

[Guppy06]

Less "irony," more "hypocrisy."

Re:Let's discuss TFA

[Capt. Skinny]

Privacyyyy, at the Zuckerberg wedding / Who would have thought... it figures

Re:Let's discuss TFA

[Capt. Skinny]

Damn, Slashdot ate my Unicode beamed eighth notes.

Dear slashdot,

[Anonymous Coward]

You are now Digg.

Good luck.

this just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

....and I updated mine to "Who gives a rat's ass?"

Re:Hahahahaha

[jellomizer]

As you sit alone. Lonely and Miserable.

Donald Trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Best prenup advice is from Eddie Murphy. (completely NSFW).

Re:Hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

As you sit alone. Lonely and Miserable.

That that is the future awaiting Zuckerberg was exactly his point, I think.

Re:Hahahahaha

[ArcherB]

She's a fat Chinese bitch. Oh well.

Quit changing your status to "It's Complicated". You're a damn booty call!

This ..

[Anonymous Coward]

...post will be the main reason for the slashdotters to quit!

I still say...

[whargoul]

...he is one weird looking mother fucker.

Re:I still say...

[Ihmhi]

It's all the weight he lost recently. He used to be healthier looking, but when you sign the contract and Belial, Lord of Lies rips your netherself from the husk that is left on the mortal coil, you drop about 26-27 lbs.

Re:I still say...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all the weight he lost recently. He used to be healthier looking, but when you sign the contract and Belial, Lord of Lies rips your netherself from the husk that is left on the mortal coil, you drop about 26-27 lbs.

Sign me up!

Why ISN'T this idle?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what Idle was created for! PLEASE USE IT.

This isn't news for nerds at all.
If he DIED, maybe that would be news. (loss of a huge influence in the market)
If he gave birth, maybe that would be news. (scientific monstrosity)
If he married a robot, maybe that would be news. (AWESOME)
This? Big deal.

9 billion $ ?

[Anonymous Coward]

so she's now worth 9 million $ ?

ANd a Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

She's a fat Chinese bitch. Oh well.

FB is going to be worthless soon and SHE's going to wish the HE signed a prenup.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Napster is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever!
Yahoo! is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever!
MySpace is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever!

Later...

Facebook is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever!

Re:ANd a Doctor

[craigminah]

FB is cool which is partly why it's so popular...other reason is it fills a niche that people craved. I think once FB tried to monetize itself and put ads everywhere the coolness will wear off and people will move elsewhere (e.g. Google+ or an unknown alternative).

Re:ANd a Doctor

[moozey]

They're not stupid enough to put ads everywhere though. If they were, they would've done it already. They would understand why people use their site more than anyone else does. Also, Facebook isn't used because it's cool, it might have been when it first started, but it's become a necessity for hundreds of millions of people that don't just use it for social status (if Facebook ever achieved that for individuals), they use it to connect and share with friends (some more than they do with any other medium, i.e mobile phones, email). To undo that kind of relationship would be an extremely difficult task and would take a major fuck up on Facebook's end to achieve it. Anyone who believes that Facebook is going to turn out like the next Myspace has to remember one thing - it's NOT Myspace in the slightest.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever!
Skype is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever! ...

Re:ANd a Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Communities have a certain threshold of users, above it the community will grow bigger forever, below it the community will slowly die. I'm pretty sure Facebook is 10x above the threshold.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[Hognoxious]

Slashdot is great, everyone uses it, it's going to be around for ever!

Second thoughts, that's taking it too far.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[Hognoxious]

it fills a niche that people craved.

It has electrolytes?

(Not that craving a niche sounds right to me)

Re:ANd a Doctor

[EvilBudMan]

None of those companies had as many users and Yahoo is still around as are the other companies that you have just mentioned although Napster in name only. So you are saying FB is overvalued? Could be.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[EvilBudMan]

Yep /. has the right formula. Not everyone uses it but who cares? The ones that do know what it is.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[EvilBudMan]

Twitter if anyone.

Re:ANd a Doctor

[craigminah]

I agree my choice of words was weak but that's what happens when I write something, get distracted, and edit it. Stupid squirrels :) I hope FB isn't MySpace in terms of longevity but my larger point was it's profitability. Other than ads they have social gaming and some other options, I just think they're way overvalued.

any for anyone who wants to know

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a shit around 4:30am.

Re:any for anyone who wants to know

[AngryDeuce]

You should totally change your Facebook status, the media will pounce all over it!

Re:any for anyone who wants to know

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a shit around 4:30am.

Was that a late shit or an early shit?

who cares ?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously ? who gives a rat's ass ?

What's the percentage

[ibic00]

of ladies out there (married / unmarried) who envy Ms.Priscilla Chan?

WE CARE A LOT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck cares? Is /. becoming Yahoo?

The way they met is interesting

[paiute]

Zuckerberg knew a guy who was engaged to her but didn't know much about wedding rings, so he asked Zuckerberg to look into which ring to buy. Zuckerberg agreed, then he vanished for a few days. The guy couldn't find his fiancee and Zuckerberg wasn't returning his calls. After a couple weeks, Zuckerberg shows up in the national news married to the guy's fiancee.

Re:The way they met is interesting

[betterunixthanunix]

We should make a movie about that...

Re:The way they met is interesting

[paiute]

...and the Facebook fellators came out to play.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuck is this shit?

Vote with your clicks

[dejanc]

If you don't like a piece of news on Slashdot, I think the best idea is not to open it. As far as Slashdot is concerned, you are just +1 in their visitor log. If this news didn't get any comments or views, it would be the best filter against this kind of stories in the future.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Ihmhi]

Well, I'm not sure about the "bitch" part seeing as I know pretty much nothing about her, but I wouldn't exactly call her fat.

Slashdot's just trollin' now

[humanrev]

The editors here at Slashdot know a lot of people here don't like Facebook for various reasons. It's one thing to put a post regarding the Facebook IPO, but putting such a non-story like this here suggests Slashdot editors either don't know their audience... or that they DO know their audience and expect a flamewar, increasing comment count and hence views and so on.

This is what other shitty websites do to keep getting attention. Surely Slashdot doesn't have to troll as well.

Oh and to paraphrase Sideshow Bob, I'm aware of the irony of posting on Slashdot in order to decry it. So don't bother pointing that out.

Marrying Ages of Tech's Rich and Famous

[theodp]

1. Bill Gates, age 39. 2. Larry Page, age 34. 3. Sergey Brin, age 33. 4. Steve Jobs, 36. 5. Larry Ellison, 23, 33, 39, 59 (currently divorced).

Re:Marrying Ages of Tech's Rich and Famous

[Nemyst]

All this shows is that Ellison is an ass even in his personal life.

Re:Marrying Ages of Tech's Rich and Famous

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded 'funny'?

amusing comment of scale

[argStyopa]

Of course, given the lackluster IPO results and the nature of relationships, secretly she probably read about his $19 billion and thought: disappointing....

Be funny if she dumped him because of it. Heh.

Loves cooking and soft things

[Ice Station Zebra]

Better not piss her off Mark.

Uhh...

[WD]

"One of the richest people in the world gets married."

FTFY

Re:Uhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is just stupid. I can't speak for the rest of you and maybe I just haven't met "the one" but were I his age with that kind of money the LAST THING I would do is get married. What a schmuck.

Re:Uhh...

[flimflammer]

Someone sure is jealous.

Not News

[Anonymous Coward]

Not News

Re:Not news

[koan]

It's news because a nerd actually landed a girlfriend AND got married.

More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck?

Leykis 101

[in_ur_face]

Zukerberg must not be a student of Leykis 101...

This should make for a good topic from the professor on the Tom Leykis show Monday!!!

https://twitter.com/#!/tomleykis/status/204110248502493184

oops

[nurb432]

There goes that fortune. Easy come, easy go.

Re:oops

[zippthorne]

He waited until after the IPO. I wonder if there's a reason for that...

Re:oops

[nurb432]

No, SHE waited, not him. :)

slashdot, what the fuck?

[yanyan]

What the fuck is this shit doing on slashdot?

Re:slashdot, what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

The highest profile figure in tech at the moment gets married the day after the $105B IPO of his tech company that happened two days ago... And you don't get why this might be News for Nerds?

Stop playing dumb.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Loosifur]

40 pounds? It might seem strange to you, given your...perspective...but heterosexual men aren't really attracted to anorexic models. Yes, they're easy to drape clothes on, which I'm sure comes in handy in your profession, but they don't really look, well, feminine. Again, not something you're concerned about, but the rest of us kinda dig chicks, see?

Does she know

[waltlaw]

He only eats what he kills?

Re:Hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, she's at least a US size 8.

Moderation

[geogob]

Slowly but surely, I'm beginning to think it would be time to introduce editor moderation.

Re:Hahahahaha

[houghi]

Men are able to multitask. They are able to like a motherly type for the children, a sensual type for in the bedroom and a model to show of to their friends.

Society says this must be the same person. For men it can be several women. So yes, men ARE attracted to anorexic models. Just not all the time.

No Black Hoodie ! LoL xD

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Forbes is commenting on king-Zucks suit.

Does this mean king-Zuck will go sans regarding his 'beers-for-breakfast' morning ritual.

However, from the photos I've seen, one little detail is missing! Did king-Zuck wear flip-flops instead of loafers with his blue suit?

xD

The most laughs I've had on a Sunday morning this year!

LoL

Re:No Black Hoodie ! LoL xD

[AdamWill]

One little detail? The suit doesn't fit him, neither does the shirt, his top button's undone, and that tie is hideous. And you shouldn't wear a blue suit with a black tie for a wedding in the first place; if you're not going to wear a morning coat at _least_ wear the correct colors, i.e. light grey for the suit and grey/silver for the tie.

The guy's a freaking gazillionaire and he can't even be bothered to dress nice for his wedding? Yeesh. All he'd have to do is give a flunky a few thousand and tell him to take care of the details and leave it lying on his bed. At least she looks good.

Re:Hahahahaha

[rubycodez]

you'll note porn stars are not bony anorexic models, because their bodies really don't look good and are only useful for clothes hangers for garments largely designed by the fashion scene's homosexual men.

I wonder how long before...

[Red_Chaos1]

...he begins modifying the terms of marriage to continually erode her privacy to monetize her.

Zuckerberg Weds.........

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a flying.......? Don't know how I would live my nerd life without this world changing news, LOL.

Re:Hahahahaha

[DNS-and-BIND]

Anorexia is a disease. Failing to be 40 pounds overweight is not anorexia. I lived in America for 30 years and never once saw a person suffering from anorexia. Obesity is entirely another story. I often saw obese people.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

I've met her in person. I'd guess size 6, but even a size 8 isn't fat unless you like your women to look like little boys.

really?

[arnodf]

really Slashdot? Has it come to this?

Self-centered jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see Zuckerberg is so keenly interested in ensuring investors get their money's worth--NOT.
Riding one emotional high after another, gosh-oh-golly, what will Zucks think of to try next?

We care because...

[BlindRobin]

it's totally irrelevant, let's all go home and watch 'The View'.

Hoodies

[Anonymous Coward]

"The couple was married in a small, private cerimony wearing a beautiful pair of Pierrie Cardin hoodies."

Fat apologism? Please ....

[King_TJ]

How about an apology from the multi BILLION dollar industry centered around weight-loss and dieting? You know ... all those asshats trying to guilt people into paying $79 plus some outrageous shipping charge for the "ab lounger" or "thigh blaster" or whatever piece of crap they're hawking on late night TV, and every knucklehead gym rat who decided to make a living with a concoction of powder or pills that claims to "add muscle" and "burn fat"?

What's "normal" is constantly evolving, my friend. If most people today are a little bit heavier than they were 50 or 100 years ago? Then that, indeed, might just make "chubby" the new "normal". People have definitely gotten taller than they used to be, on average. We have a transportation museum in town with lots of old locomotive cars and engines, and it's amazing to sit in the cab of one of those old steam trains and realize how little headroom it had, and how small the seat was for the engineer. Back then, they considered it enough room for the average person.

Re:Hahahahaha

[rubycodez]

Nonsense, the question is really a binary thing, and most heterosexual men would vote "yes" in the "would you or wouldn't you"

Very Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro, needs more dragons and shit

A whole day?

[Anonymous Coward]

It took him a whole day to change his status? I figured the ceremony would have gone something like, "I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may now update your Facebook status."

Someone tagged this as spam...

[theshibboleth]

think about it: a geek getting married; this is always front-page news.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

As in do her or not do her? Given convenience, Sure, why not.

Throughout history, kings and rock stars have chosen to avail themselves of plenitude.
A man of power and status, not enjoying a five star buffet, is whipped.

I've had the multitude of lady friends, and the one-on-ones. My experience says that

"more is indeed more."

Prenuptial Agreement Probably Pointless

[cmholm]

IANAL, and thus I can only conjecture based on hearsay that any prenuptial agreement Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan may have signed may prove pointless. If they had a previous written or oral agreement to treat assets like community property or she was promised lifetime support, despite the fact that both partners knew they were not married at the time, she may be entitled to support or property rights under California contract law.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

By American standards as set by the tabloids, woman at any healthy weight is "fat". In any case, she's undoubtedly skinnier than you.

Re:Hahahahaha

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Actually she's not fat, and she looks very pretty and sweet. More likely than not, she is also very intelligent. In short, the kind of woman that you will probably never have.

Not news

[Kardos]

This is not news for nerds. It's not even news for normal people. This shit belongs in the tabloids.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Noughmad]

most heterosexual men would vote "yes" in the "would you or wouldn't you"

Most heterosexual men and all mathematicians.

Re:Hahahahaha

[mc10]

Coward, post this with an actual account.

Re:Hahahahaha

[mc10]

She looks perfectly fine. Too many people like you promote the development of anorexic models.

Community Property

[PhilistineGuillotine]

The astute reader will note that California is a community property state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property) and that Zuckerburg married the day after his company went public.

Re:Community Property

[geminidomino]

What exactly does that mean?

In my limited (read: TV, movies, and books) knowledge of Community Property law, it's basically "you're fucked in the divorce."

Needless to say, I'm not the astute reader you speak of. Care to enlighten me? :)

Re:Community Property

[PhilistineGuillotine]

The NYT just posted an interesting article about it http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/technology/zuckerbergs-property-status-post-marriage.html?_r=1&ref=technology.

Re:Hahahahaha

[koan]

Nope he's right she has cankles, but hey love is blind right.

Irony

[Tokerat]

The person would not discuss the names of others who attended to protect their privacy.

Well if that isn't the most ironic thing I've read all day...

Wish I had mod points

[turing_m]

I lolled.

Yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news [yet another famous person] does [ordinary stuff] lazy journalists amazed.

Re:Hahahahaha

[causality]

Actually she's not fat, and she looks very pretty and sweet. More likely than not, she is also very intelligent. In short, the kind of woman that you will probably never have.

I think she's a "butterface" (everything looks nice ... but her face). Like Garner from the show Alias. But she's definitely not obese and anorexia isn't sexy; you're not supposed to be attracted to nutcases. I am in the USA so I really, REALLY wish more women had a BMI like hers. Seriously.

The US dating pool is drastically reduced by too many people who seem hardcore determined to commit suicide-by-food. That's both sexes, for my lady friends complain about this too. Barring a physical cause like a thyroid disorder, which is very rare, it's just not possible to be obese and emotionally healthy at the same time. And believe me, you really don't want to be yoked to a woman who is an emotional disaster. Obesity is one of those things that's unattractive for good reason, it is not merely a matter of taste. I wouldn't want to be with a food-aholic any more than I'd like to be with an alcoholic. Both are self-destructive.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Rakarra]

Once you make enough money, you never ever need to be lonely and miserable. At that point it just becomes a choice.

Miserable? Maybe. Lonely? Certainly not.

Re:Hahahahaha

[causality]

Nope he's right she has cankles, but hey love is blind right.

She has curves. I really don't understand how you can call her fat (and I really don't like fat chicks). I've seen cankles before and they belong to women significantly heavier than her. Women with cankles don't usually have such a noticable hourglass shape.

At most I'd call her "thick". Feasible, but a bit of a stretch.

Married AFTER the IPO

[melted]

That way should there be a divorce, he can claim that he made all that money before the marriage, and not while married, so it remains his.

Zuck is not dumb, that's for sure, but his new wife must be all pissed on the inside.

Re:Married AFTER the IPO

[GiganticLyingMouth]

They married after she graduated. The IPO date was variable, and seeing as she graduated from UCSF, I doubt she cares that much about the money.

My 10 year prediction...

[damn_registrars]

I will wager that in 10 years, if she decides to practice medicine after having completed med school, she will be making more money than him. Facebook is on a giant bubble that will pop before then.

Re:My 10 year prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know much about Zuckerberg and I think he looks like douche, but a TINY fraction of his personal fortune squirreled away will take care of them for life when the bubble pops.

Futurama dude?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would that guy on futurama need to update his facebook status

No worries, all the weight he lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries, all the weight he lost, she apperently gained...

Guy marries girlfriend, sex vid

[bryan1945]

News at 11.
OK, sure it's news (kinda) because it's Zuckerberg, but c'mon. Is /. going to post links for their honeymoon sex video next?

soon

[MadMaverick9]

soon he will change his status to single again (i like that), because he couldn't poke his wife.

IANAL

[Lord Kano]

But it seems to me that since he waited until after he was a billionaire to marry her, she can't claim that his fortune is a marital asset because he earned it before they tied the knot.

LK

God Himself came up with the idea of marriage

[grantspassalan]

According to the Bible, marriage dates to the first humans, Adam and Eve. God himself brought the bride to her husband. That is where the custom of the father giving his daughter in marriage originated. When the religious leaders asked Jesus about divorce, this is what he told them:

Mattew 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female", and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Marriage was originally ordained by God. It was not invented by the church or any other human being or organization. Notice also that Jesus said “male and female” and not some other combination.

Re:God Himself came up with the idea of marriage

[able1234au]

It may be a shock to you but the first humans weren't called Adam and Eve.

The bible has all sorts of things written into it that are taken from other religions. Noah and the Ark is a story that appears in other religions, particularly the Sumerians who live in a very wet swamp likely prone to flooding (Hello!!!!).

"Pagan" societies in Europe had forms of marriage long before they found christianity. The romans had marriages again, long before they unfortunately created christianity.

Re:God Himself came up with the idea of marriage

[grantspassalan]

They weren't called Adam and Eve either, because those are our English terms. The point of my post was that God came up with the idea of marriage. Jesus Christ who claims to be the son of God, tells his religious critics that marriage is for life and between a man and a woman. That is not politically correct these days, but then the mention of God is not liked by many either.

Re:God Himself came up with the idea of marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Your god was a little late as many other religions and non-religions came up with it first. But anyone believing in Adam and Eve, whatever name you use, gives up all right to comment on real history.
 
And if you want to draw life lessons from your two thousand year old jew then make sure you follow all his advice:

Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

Shamelessly googled from http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

Re:God Himself came up with the idea of marriage

[tehcyder]

The slight flaw in your argument is that the Bible is a load of old bollocks and a work of fiction

Re:God Himself came up with the idea of marriage

[grantspassalan]

You are free to believe what you wrote. Christians are not going to riot in the streets if you proclaim your opinion, burn the Bible or publish an ugly cartoon drawing of Jesus Christ. You won't have to go into hiding for fear of getting killed by some radical Christian.

There are billions of people who believe in and live by the contents of this book. The Bible is not old, but timeless, eternal truth from the living God. Your attack is like one of many worn out hammers that litter the floor in the center of which stands the Anvil of the word of God.

high tech tabloid

[perles]

Slashdot should create a tabloid section to publish these things. It could be called trash bin as well.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Even my hand is more attractive than that chinkoid pan-face and I don't have to worry about kicking that fatass out of my bed when I'm finished using her as a cum dumpster.

The day after the IPO...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because she wanted to know his true net worth before saying 'I do'.

In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...MZ's net worth just decreased by 50%. At least, depending on how good his wife's lawyer is.

Hopefully his status update included a prenup!

[madhi19]

Or Zuck is going to get screwed worse than he screwed the Douchebag Twin!

Why?

[sander]

Why is this crap on slashdot? Whats the relevance? Where is the news for nerds of some random corporate schmuck marrying?

Re:Hahahahaha

[Johann Lau]

You got that exactly right! Zuckerberg may be filthy rich, but at least he made the mistake to marry an actual human being... and you, sir, get to laugh last.

Re:Hahahahaha

[koan]

Who cares...

Re:Hahahahaha

[_Shad0w_]

He'd been going out with her since they were at Harvard together.

Really slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this really one of the most important stories of the day?

Shame on you.

Do it for the girl

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done Zuckerberg! Now I know why you worked so hard creating your own tech start company from scratch, growing its worth to over $100 billion and taking it public. You did it all so you could marry the girl. Geeks everywhere will be inspired. Good work!

Slogan Update!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot: Gossip for nerds, stuff that partially matters.

Re:Hahahahaha

[Metabolife]

You can be surrounded by people, but still feel lonely. It's the type of people you're surrounded by that usually matters.

Another slow news day on slashdot...

[ToddInSF]

I'm glad I got rid of my FB account months ago, before this dirtbag and his "Do Evil" company went public.

Zuckerberg Updates Relationship Status To "Married

[Zanadou]

News for Nerds.

Stuff that Matters.