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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Something deeper.. (Score 2) 154

Anyone who deals with such placement knows that you get a flood of obviously fake, misleading, and just plain silly applications from certain Asian countries

Advertise a job in Silicon Valley and you will get lots of applications from ethnically Asian people who are local and either have green cards or are citizens. There is no reason to assume that this issue is in any way related to foreign applicants (who can be legitimately discriminated against).

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 254

If one were to believe that their peers can be so swayed then they have no confidence in the court to deliver a just verdict in the first place. After that, there is no rational basis remaining for them to even *want* to use the court system to resolve a dispute unless that person were actually wanting to manipulate the court into delivering an unjust verdict, or unless one figured that the court system was intended to be used as some sort of casino for justice.

Comment Re:Questionable analogy and questionable analysis. (Score 1) 142

This is fallacious, as capacity is consumed and is a limited capacity.

So, if I understand you correctly, if I download 1GB, then for the rest of that month, the routers can only handle their normal traffic minus 1GB? And so on for every user?

No, your explanation is flawed because it assumes that, at a given time, one individual can consume all the bandwidth, locking out other users. In reality, of course, what happens is that everyone's Internet service slows down so that the sum total matches the capacity. But the network capacity for the rest of the month is unaffected. Even if no one downloads anything, the network capacity for the rest of the month is unchanged

Network capacity has an instantaneous limit, and capacity is not "consumed" in any meaningful use of the word.

What ISPs are really selling is speed. But this ISP only offers low speeds. It's offering a sub-par product and would like to hide that in ridiculous monthly caps.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 254

The system that exists will inevitably cause some dodgy claims to be put forward.

It's not that it *causes* them to be put forward, its that it permits them... without regard for anything that one might expect or hope for with regards to a fair verdict.

Loser pays only allows for the possibility for legitimate claims to be dropped when one has very little confidence in the court system to deliver a fair verdict, and in such circumstances one ought to have equally little incentive to be using the court system in the first place to resolve a dispute. I'm not saying that people can't be unconfident in the court system to be fair... only that such people are only at best using the court system like a casino, and gambling on justice. That's not what the court system is for, and such usage *should* be discouraged, because such usage is, itself, a kind of frivolous lawsuit based on personal beliefs of what is right, rather that on what is objectively lawful.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 254

Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is.

Assuming that they believe that the intrinsic merits of their own case are stronger than those of their opponent... the only reason that would be true is if one did not believe that the court system was capable of seeing this fact simply because of the amount of money that their opponent might be spend on lawyers. This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 254

People that believe they have a legitimate claim, but do not believe that the court system is capable of rendering a just verdict in their favour simply because they don't have as much money as their opponent might have to spend on lawyers don't use the court system to resolve their disputes in the first place. I'm not saying that believing your opponent has more money than you won't stop some entirely legitimate claims, but that happens already if everyone pays their own costs anyways, and I cannot say for sure, but this demographic may not even be significantly impacted by implementing a loser-pays policy. However, the notion that a loser-pays policy would stop many more non-frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise happen simply because of how much money their opponent is likely to spend on lawyers than frivolous lawsuits is almost certainly a specious one.

Slashdot Top Deals

In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter

Working...