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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Submission + - UK judge calls for an "online court" without lawyers (

mi writes: A senior judge has called for the establishment of an online court that does not have lawyers and can deal with claims of up to £25,000.

The proposal is the centrepiece of a package of reforms to the civil justice system, drawn up by Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge.

Just how exactly will this court ensure no one is, in fact, a trained professional on the Internet, where no one knows, who you really are, is not explained.

We discussed the idea last year. Apparently, it is still alive.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 999

Do members of a golf club have the right know all the emails and conversations within the club's administration?

That may depend on the club's bylaws. We do not know, what they are.

But we do know the laws of the US, which NY Times broke when they published classified information, which was illegally obtained. So, whatever excuses were found for NY Times back then and the reasons to reward them, would certainly apply for the publishers of DNC-leaks today.

There is a difference between "members" & their "club" and "citizens" & their "government".

Nope, your anonymous sock-puppet is wrong. There is a distinction, but it is without difference to the matter at hand.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 999

a government that is accountable to the public and a private organization that is not

Ah, a Democrat stating, leadership of the Democratic Party is not accountable to the Democrats... The desperation is palpable...

Why, then, if DNC aren't accountable to the members, have they fired Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Why are they apologizing?

Of course, as is usual with the crooked liars, the apology and the recriminations follow not the actual misdeed, but the getting caught.

When it comes to private organizations, members can accept the rules or vote with their feet.

The rules, huh? How about the nation's laws about classified information? Which NY Times broke back then — and not only got away with breaking, but was rewarded?

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 999

The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate.

Ah, so if it turns out, a Russian newspaper is behind it, you'll have no problem?

Those are held to different standards than the media

Wow, a Clinton-supporter justifying a double standard... Do go on...

And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers

Trump didn't call on anybody to do it either — he just said, he "hopes" they'll do. But you missed the analogy by comparing NYTimes to Trump (even if incorrectly)

NY Times were the ones ordering the leaks back then. Putin — or whoever ordered it this time — will be in their position.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 999

You[r] reference to the NYT's pulitzer is too vague

The link included in my post provides all the details.

The Democratic National Committee is not a government body. As such, I am not sure that "the people deserve to know" anything about its internal machinations.

Ok, substitute "the people" for "the Democrats" — I too have always suspected, there is a difference, but considered it impolite to mention it.

Certainly the Democrats have no less right to know all about the functioning of the Democratic Party's national body, than the citizens of the US — about the Federal Government.

Comment And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 3, Interesting) 999

When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.

Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?

Comment Re:Easy target for enemies... (Score 1) 84

One you blow up a support pillar of a regular bridge, the whole bridge will collapse

That is, actually, very hard to achieve. Possible, but very hard — ask any demolition/explosives expert.

And a single pillar is unlikely to do it — you will make the bridge unusable, yes, but there will not be massive amount of deaths — most of the people on the affected section it will survive either on their own or thanks to rescuers. Whereas everyone in the entire flooded tunnel (except those right by the exits) will drown even if they are expert swimmers.

Comment Re:Easy target for enemies... (Score 1) 84

Why is this any more risk-prone than immersed tube tunnels

If they are to be suspended, they must be flexible. If they have to be flexible, the walls will inevitably be softer than what we've had 'till now...

Unless, of course, some wonderful (and expensive) new material comes along... Like those nanotubes we keep thinking about for our space elevator.

Comment Easy target for enemies... (Score 4, Insightful) 84

Such a tunnel seems to be an even easier target for a Russian submarine or a well-equipped terrorist, than a regular bridge or a tunnel in solid soil.

And the results will be spectacular — once a wall is breached, everybody inside drowns... No escape, no rescue... Unless, maybe, individual segments can somehow be made to self-seal and automatically surface in an emergency.

Comment Re:Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 1) 270

is a moral imperative not a logical one

It is moral because it is logical — like the rest of Libertarianism. But this is irrelevant to the conversation...

That's not true of our more recent social media companies.

But it still true of GoDaddy et al. Their UI and horrible customer service makes them the equivalent of GeoCities of the past.

The government could step in to regulate these companies to make sure their users' rights are protected.

Please, cite the right currently being violated. Thanks.

Comment Re:Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 1) 270

When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly.

That may be relevant, if it were to try to use that monopoly status to get into a different market. Facebook is not doing that, so let them be. The barrier to entry into their market is none-existent — various snapchats, instagrams, et al. have done that. Facebook itself unseated MySpace in front of our eyes.

In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote

Who are these omniscient benevolent "we", that need to ensure something for the "citizens", god bless their pretty little heads? No, the "we" and the "citizens" are the same people — and your sentence makes no sense.

A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.

So, your proposal is to surrender an essential liberty in exchange for a hypothetical temporary gain?.. Don't we already know something about this approach?

The outrage is not that Facebook is censoring whatever they please. The outrage is that others aren't afforded the same liberty.

Comment Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 3, Informative) 270

They are a private company. They can filter, block, promote any speech that they want.

I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.

Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.

Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol