Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Robotics IT

Robot Lawyers Solve Problems 157

Ben22 writes "The Register is reporting that soon new 'Robot Agents' will handle all of our online disputes. The new system is called e-Dispute and could eventually be used on services such as eBay or even all online stores. Perhaps it will help usher in an age of simplified, safe online shopping. Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills. The possibilities are endless."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robot Lawyers Solve Problems

Comments Filter:
  • ha (Score:5, Funny)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:35AM (#14425303)
    In recent future, robot sues you!
    • by Cally ( 10873 )
      Nver mind that, what I want to know is this: after the robots have solved the lawyers (presumably others will be posting the functions here shortly) , who will solve the robots?

      Eh? Answer me that, then!

  • by DrJimbo ( 594231 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:35AM (#14425304)
    ... will have to find a new business model.

  • by filenavigator ( 944290 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:38AM (#14425309) Homepage
    I submitted my legal problem and it responded: Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto Mata ahoo Hima de Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto Now everyone can see - secret secret - I've got a secret My true identity - I'm Kilroy Kilroy Kilroy Kilroy !
  • by komodo9 ( 577710 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:38AM (#14425311) Homepage
    Sounds horrible. First we have to go through 500 options over a telephone menu to reach the right person, now there is no more people. And as horrible as ebay/paypal's customer service is anyway... this will remove even more personal contact. Ugh.
    United Bimmer - BMW Enthusiast Community []
    • I'd rather read a written statement, than try to understand the person on the other side of the phone line (and probably the ocean).
    • Perhaps there won't be personal contact, but... Whether or not you prefer robots over people depends on if the company of your choice has decided to outsource or not and whether or not you can understand heavy (just an example) Indian accents...

      And most technical support people that you contact over the phone aren't really knowledgeable. There nothing more than robots, they are given a set of instructions and something to say in response to what you say and they try to walk you through mostly what is alr
    • Ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sterno ( 16320 )
      Do you really want to have personal interactions with lawyers? :)

      So I'm wondering if they have a patent on it. If they have a patent on it, then they could write an arsenal of lawsuit bots and nobody could defend themselves because they'd have to violate the patent. They could rule the world! MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
  • Or... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nametaken ( 610866 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:39AM (#14425315)
    ...perhaps it will just cause a new genre of video gamers that are more adept at manipulating the input it bases its decisions on?

    Yes, lovely. Lets apply it to our legal system.
    • Yes, lovely. Lets apply it to our legal system.
      No need to wait. It's called jury-shopping and judge-shopping right now.
  • ..10 robot lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

    A pretty good start.

  • by boingyzain ( 739759 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:42AM (#14425329)
    This is a typical Slashdot boilerplate story. There will be exactly:

    - 28 comments regarding the problems with automated systems to determine human problems
    - 21 comments regarding the fact that current customer service is just as bad as robots
    - 14 comments regarding robots in other areas being inefficient and as such will be useless in this field
    - 4 comments regarding the new robot overlords
    - 3 comments regarding Soviet Russia where you solve robot problems
    - 2 comments regarding South Korea where old people solve robot problems
    - 1 comment summarizing this entire story
    • The problem with automated systems trying to determine human problems is that current customer service is already as bad as robots, and since robots are inefficient in other fields, they would be useless in this one. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords, because in Soviet Russia, robot problems solve YOU. For that matter, in Sourth Korea, old people solve robot problems.

      In review, they are testing out robotic lawyers.

      So, which type does this comment qualify as?

      OK, I admit, I didn't understand

    • And - 1 world-weary comment about slashdot culture This is just the same, tired rhetoric we've heard before time and again. Oops, make that - 2 world-weary comments about slashdot culture
  • by dcam ( 615646 ) <david@uberconcep ... m minus math_god> on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:44AM (#14425343) Homepage
    What a poor title for the article. For those who can't be bothered to read the article, we aren't going to see robots chasing ambulances or wearing pinstripe armani suits any time soon.

    "Robot agents digest all the information and make proposals to the parties. Once the arbitrator is agreed upon, the robot agent finds a suitable meeting date for everybody," said Jacques Gouimenou, managing director of Tiga Technologies, the company behind e-Dispute, speaking with ElectricNews.Net. "Our system reduces delays and costs. It is also very secure."

    So what we are really talking about is something that:
    1. Stores documentation
    2. allows the two parties to select an anbitrator
    3. Selects a date

    What does this have to do lawyers? This is a scheduling tool.
    • What does this have to do lawyers?

      One of them is still going to bill you for the time it would have taken him to do it without the automation.

    • Agreed. The term "robot" in the slashdot title and original title and article is misleading. It is simply a 3-way private discussion group tuned for legal disputes. In other words, e-arbitration or "ebitration".

      Hell, the arbitrators are probably gonna be in India. Tis time lawyers have a taste of "free trade" also.
    • From TF summary: Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills

      What bullshit. Conflicting bills are solved on the basis of power and horsetrading; and no one would want a record of their negotiations to come back and embarrass them. Anyway, they're all in the same building so I fail to see the point of an "e-negotiation" when they can just retire to the traditional smoke-filled backrooms.

      It may well have uses, but not in government.

    • From the article:

      Using e-Dispute, claimants and respondents can put their case before an independent online arbitrator (or "robot agent") who having reviewed the case will then set up a meeting between the two parties via chatrooms and video conferencing, at which possible binding settlements can be reached. ...

      "Robot agents digest all the information and make proposals to the parties. Once the arbitrator is agreed upon, the robot agent finds a suitable meeting date for everybody," said Jacques Gouimenou, m
  • At least (Score:5, Funny)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:45AM (#14425349)
    At least we can be reasonably sure that the robotic legislator actually read the thing first.
    • I can't wait to start slipping in exploit code along with the legal documents.

      Yep, I get the cars, dog, house, kids, beanbag chair...
    • Re:At least (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ghee22 ( 781277 )
      a little offtopic but there is a bill that i'm supporting we get signed. It's called Read the Bills Act of 2005 [] and the people from [] have made it very easy for citizens to get in touch with their reps for opinions on all matters.
    • At least we can be reasonably sure that the robotic legislator actually read the thing first
      True. Unfortunately, since it was probably written by lawyers (and impervious to comprehension even by an intelligent human) it is highly unlikely that the robotic agent will have understood what the hell it was trying to say.
  • In all honesty.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Combas ( 776699 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @02:46AM (#14425352) Homepage

    I think this is probably a good idea.

    Firstly, have you every tried sorting through legal documents? This is definitely an area we could use a little automation. Secondly, have you ever tried dealing with lawyers? Even when they work for you this is a frustraiting process and could use a little automation :)

    Hell yes, bring on the robots! Actually what would be even better would just be a interface, or have they already got something like that and I just dont know about it?

    • by PSaltyDS ( 467134 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:37AM (#14426385) Journal
      As others have pointed out, the article makes it sound more like a sched tool. But even if it really was a robot lawyer or robot arbiter:

      You are talking about a system set up, owned, and run, by the company you are disputing with. Think about that. Your HMO denies your medical treatment and you call to dispute that and get care you really need. You get to use a system built to your HMO's specs to try and dispute your HMO's decision. It's just as bad as contract clauses that require you to use a specified arbiter who is already selected a paid off by the company before you start.

      • This is why companies want to use such technology. It shifts things in their favor.

        Of course my gut is telling me that they will just hire a lot of newly graduated lawyers and pre-law students to sit in front of terminals and process the requests that come in. Probably cheaper than actually building something that can make a recomendation.

        Of course if this really takes off then I expect the lawyers to go after it with a claim that the system can not practice law since it did not graduate from law
  • I just fwd'd this to my Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, and while he is frightened and confused, he is angry enough to start on a complaint.

    Doing Business with Intelligence Agencies=$400 Billion []

  • robot leeches?
  • The RIAA has had these for a few years now. []
  • Hopefully these robots can apply some logic to the endless sea of IP disputes.

    Company A - I invtented the product & have been selling it for years!!!

    Company B - I thought about making the product, couldn't be assed and filed a patent now I want company A to give me my hard earned royalties.

    Robot Judge - Logic dictates that company B is an idiot, the case is ruled in favor of Company A. Company B will incur the online service fee for the judgment at also will be fired out of a cannon into the sun for was
  • Its been my experience that either the judge is the type who applies the law very accurately, or, and this is more often the case, has a builtin bias toward the consumer/little guy.

    I don't think this is a good idea, justice really does need the element of compassion that I doubt a robotic piece of code will ever be able to emulate well enough to keep things out of higher courts just to get the final answer as society deems it should be. Sure, the higher court may well find the same thing, but at least a hu
    • I doubt a robotic piece of code will ever be able to emulate well enough to keep things out of higher courts just to get the final answer as society deems it should be.

      If you'd RTFA instead of the bullshit summary, (look at the original headline "'Robot agents' to help settle disputes", vs Slashdot's) you'd see there is nothing about robotic lawyers or judges making decisions on cases; it simply acts to host an online venue for arbitration, processing the complaints and presenting options. So as for eBay

      • Re:OMFG! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Eivind ( 15695 ) <> on Monday January 09, 2006 @05:59AM (#14425858) Homepage
        Actually, it also works, if legally binding in the huge amounts of cases where one side is *not* in good faith, and the other side simply needs a legal document to, basically, say so.

        For example, the large majority of arbited disputes in the norwegian "Forliksråd" runs something like this:

        • One side in some relation refuses to deal with something he/she/it should. Could be a customer that ignores paying his bill, a business that doesn't respond to requests to warranty-repair a defective computer (I had this happen to me), whatever. You try for a while, but after your second formal letter of complaint is ignored you realize it's time to either give up, or get the law behind you.
        • You deliver a complaint to the Forliksråd with a written account of how you see the case. (you don't need to document anything, only explain.)
        • Complaint is delivered to other part, along with information that an answer is to be delivered within 14 days, or the "forliksråd" will be forced to conclude that you agree with the accusations.
        • No response comes.
        • Forliksråd decides you are rigth in your claims and issue a ruling to this effect.
        • Other part is informed of the ruling, and the fact that it becomes legally bindable if it is not appealed within a month.
        • Other part ignores this too. One month passes.
        At this point you've got a legal judgement, and can use any of the means available for getting your money. In the case of a consumer having a dispute with a business the simplest way of getting the money is simply to go demand the business be bankrupted, as it has legal, undisputed, but still unpaid bills. I did this.

        It's interesting how a company that's been ignoring your demands to fix their shit for a year is suddenly capable of bringing a courier to your house with full payment, within *the*hour* of them, their bank, their investors, and the entire board of Trustees learning that they are, legally, bankrupt this time next week unless they can show proof that they've paid the bill.

        Arbitration with no legal force is, however, as you say, pointless unless both sides actually want to reach an agreement.

        • Arbitration with no legal force is, however, as you say, pointless unless both sides actually want to reach an agreement.

          Yes, that's vital. Unless eBay or anyone who provides such a "service" puts this in the TOS, it will become just a way of delaying payment. I'm pretty disillusioned with such procedures myself, having suffered through a long process with our local Labour Tribunal when my former employer was months late in paying salary. Despite the simplicity of the case, it took over a year to resolve;

          • Sure. But payment can *always* be delayed. There's absolutely no way to prevent it. Any system for resolving a dispute will *always* take time. Sure, it's an advantage if it goes quickly, there's no reason it should take a year to settle a simple, undisputed claim. And in general the wheels of justice turn way to slowly. (on the other hand, they *do* have the benefit of producing wonderful dust.

            Some people, usually those accustomed to bullying others around with few consequences for themselves realize thi

            • One week passes. The court hear nothing. The day after one of the brothers show up with proof that they have now paid the bill. He is astounded to learn that the company is no more. It'll be liquidated. All assets sold to the highest bidder. The proceeds used to pay of this, and any other outstanding bills.

              I wish they'd done that to my former boss. He never counted a bill as being due till it was at least 30 days past the stated date. He did that with suppliers, and eventually started doing it to his staf

              • Yes. Agreed. There need to be a point where a judge says (and stands by it!) "No more bullshit."

                The funny thing in my case, by the way, was talking to the owner of the computer-store after he learnt that infact, there was only two choises left for him: Paying me (like I'd demanded all along) or loose his business, and *still* paying me. (I'd be paid by the proceedings from the liquidation)

                It's a very very nice feeling to witness an arsehole meet a wall that doesn't yield. I mean, it's his choise if he

      • Yep - looking ot over, I can see the obvious direction this is going - outsourcing the arbitration to India.

        Come on, you can hire a hundred legal clerks in India to search through your precidents for the price of one here! I'm looking forward to seeing guys in the ragged remains of three piece suits standing on the streets holding "will file divorce proceedings for food" signs.
  • Asimov's 1985 revised Laws of Robotics

    Zeroth Law:
    A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

    First Law:
    A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    Second Law:
    A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    Third Law:
    A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    An Extended Set of the L

    • i don't see how this is nothing more than a smart weighting algorithm.

      What do you think human judges do anyways? Also with past case bias. The only thing that i can see as a problem will be seeing if the prosecutor or defendant is lying. I guess we'll still have use for the old court... fraud cases. ^^;
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ... but they won't have souls or a conscience like human lawy....

    oh wait. never mind.
  • by know1 ( 854868 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:02AM (#14425412)
    "hi, i'm calling to cancel my aol subscription"
    "i'm afraid i can't do that dave"
  • It's a joke only die hard Frank Herbert fans will get...but it's *really* appropriate here.

  • It wouldn't take much effort to persuade a robot lawyer to sue itself for being an insult to human dignity (like most lawyers are) and put it into an infinite loop trying to decide which Asimov's Law of Robotics it was violating. At some point, the robot will shutdown after the warrantry expires and some stuck-up human lawyer will file a class-action lawsuit against manufactur for "previously known" defects. In short, too much legal trouble for what it's worth.
  • Must.. keep self from.. making fun of.. article about.. Robot - lawyers! SPOOOOOOCKKK!! NOOOOOOO!!!
  • Oh great, robot lawyers. Soon they'll replace the supremem court with these a cluster!!!
  • " Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to take you to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't. "

    I can see it now, manic depressed robot lawyers running around unchecked. something here seems, dangrious.
  • by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:22AM (#14425465)
    If litigation in the future is going to be resolved largely based on case evaluations by automated systems, this raises some interesting issues:
    • Would we pass various scenarios through the system, prior to initiating litigation, to assess whether the lawsuit makes financial sense and to choose the most promising approach?
    • It would appear that, if the proposed settlement to be chosen by the litigation system was completely predictable, this would be a severe weakness. It would make "gaming the system" even easier than today. Thus, as with the best poker robots, some level of randomisation would appear necessary to keep the "players" honest. On the other hand, many caught up in the legal system are under the illusion that outcomes should conform to something called "justice". While these participants may be delusional, their fantasies need to be catered to, and any form of randomisation in the results will be regarded as "unjust".
    • I find the possibility of duelling litigation robots a fascinating prospect. I can imagine a whole new specialty of "litigation robot optimization" where engineers, knowledgable about the internal operation of competing robots, find creative ways to enhance the results of their own robot.
    I certainly have no fear that such developments will lead to a worse legal system. The current system (in almost all countries, though there are a few honourable exceptions) is so hopelessly flawed that changes, while they may not help, will not cause any major new problems. Litigation in the US, and many other countries, is just a way to generate money for the legal profession. Adding a new legal specialty to get some of the spoils seems fine, especially as this one sounds like fun.
    • I can imagine a whole new specialty of "litigation robot optimization" where engineers, knowledgable about the internal operation of competing robots, find creative ways to enhance the results of their own robot.

      Rather than knowledgeable engineers I suspect we'll see a cadre of semi-morons charging outrageous sums of money to add keywords to lawsuits to boost relevance or perhaps set up entire networks of dummy lawsuits to try and distort case least until the alogithms get updated.

      I predict th
  • Very Very Scray (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Am I the only one frightened by this sort of thing? Arbitration is bad enough in it's normal state. Now take out the inteligent neutral party and replace it with this? Shall the more intelligent, or the better speaker win. The party who can better argue their case. If someone doesn't understand it and gives an emotional case lacking facts, as many people will, should they lose even though they may be in the right? On another front ebay customer service is already non existent. Imagine if you could
  • by Inspector Lopez ( 466767 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:23AM (#14425467) Journal
    The charming little SciFi novel, Monument by Lloyd Biggle, Jr., has a few small but important scenes in which legal disputes are argued by human lawyers, but decided by a robot judge. A pleasant read, especially for tree-hugging sci-fi nerds.
    • There's a bit in one of David Gerrold's "War against the Chtorr" novels where the main character sets up a software agent to run a trust. There's a side discussion of a really complex case where software guardians for a set of twins due to inherit money end up suing the doctor over which child should have been delivered first in the emergency c-section that was performed, etc. etc. Things get more complicated from there. Basically a description of a 'fork bomb' in the legal system... :->
  • 1. Put up the e-Dispute on LAWbay
    2. Parties put up a bid
    3. Repeat step 2 until one goes broke
    4. The one with the biggest sum wins!
    5. profit!!!
  • by TwentyLeaguesUnderLa ( 900322 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:28AM (#14425477)
    So basically, as far as I can tell, this is basically a chat room with a human organizer scheduling and moderating things - except that it also has lots of features (videoconferencing, etc) to make communication as convenient as possible, and it's also optimized for "chatting" about legal disputes.

    I wouldn't at all be surprised if it becomes very widely used, since for two parties across the globe it's pretty difficult to arrange a long series of meetings in person, but it's being misrepresented - no "robot lawyers" are solving anything, it's just a computer interface to a human lawyer, for convenience.
  • Court Services (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bombadillo ( 706765 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:32AM (#14425483)
    Back in 2002-2003 there was an online service in the UK called court services. Basically one could launch a claim online. This isn't a new concept. I am surpised the Register which is a UK site missed that one.
    • I think we're talking about entirely different things here. The UK on-line filing system that I'm aware of is essentially just an electronic application form for a small claims court action -- something you can do exactly the same in meatspace, but usually saving the hassle of physically going to court over a relatively minor grievance.

  • by pjt48108 ( 321212 ) <{pjt48108} {at} {}> on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:32AM (#14425484) Homepage
    Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills.

    I almost fought the urge to be cynical, but....

    Don't count on them using such a program, then. If Congress ever actually resolved anything, they'd have to close up shop for the duration, go home, and find a real job.

  • by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:36AM (#14425495)
    Executive Alpha, programmed to like things it has seen before. Executive Beta, programmed to roll dice to determine the fall schedule. And Executive Gamma, programmed to underestimate middle America.

    I'd like to introduce our newest Execubot Delta, programmed to cancel TV shows based on spurious legal threats;

    Execubot Delta: Futurama should be cancelled because the character name "Fry" makes us vulnerable to McDonalds.

  • the soon-to-be-developed Abrambott can automatically calculate how much to "donate" to contrarian lawmakers to buy off secure their votes, using proprietary "Duke Cunningham" algorithms!

    Democracy in action!

  • by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @03:44AM (#14425509)
    They're called "public defenders."

    Great news. You're going to plead guilty. (Urp!) Have I got a plea bargain for you! (Zzip!) If you don't plead guilty, the deal is never gonna get better. (Zzip, urp!) You know if you don't plead guilty you could go away for 0xFF years....
  • ...a fight between Robot Lawyer and Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. I think the best part of the war would be found in their rivaling corporate sponsors. Big Giant Bean, you've met your match!
  • C3PO: "R2, the client says that is not her signature."

    R2D2: "Beep doop beep girggle."

    C3PO: "Of course I can tell it's not hers. Just look at it."

    R2D2: "Beep girggle girggle doop bleep."

    C3PO: "No, I don't have training in penmenship pattern differentials. I don't need that to see that they are different."

    R2D2: "Beep doop girggle doop."

    C3PO: "No R2, it is premature to hire a handwriting expert. The other side has not disputed that the signature is false yet."

    Client: "Can I have my money back? You damned robot
  • "Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills."

    Unless the robot lawyer/judge comes with a "Bribe" key, polititians and rich folks won't ever accept it. The very last thing they want is a system that decides issues based solely on their merits without regard to wealth or power.

  • I suddenly have a new found respect for virus writers.

    Go get em boys.
  • Convenient Voice: Thank you for calling the parking violations bureau. To plea `not guilty,' press `one' now.
    [Homer dials `one']
    Thank you. Your plea has been...

    Male rough voice: Rejected.

    Convenient voice: You will be assessed the full fine plus a small...

    Male rough voice: Large lateness fee.

    Convenient Voice: Please wait by your vehicle between 9 AM and 5 PM for parking officer Steve...

    Male rough voice: Grabowski.
  • because no heart is required for this job, as real lawyers have shown us.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @04:34AM (#14425605) Homepage
    The first thing the company behind this, Tiga Technologies, needs is a new name. There's already a commercial product called e-Dispute. [] This is a system for resolving billing disputes between companies. It's useful where there are many invoices with multiple line items to be matched up with purchase orders, shipping and receiving information, rejects and returns. It lets both sides see all the documents involved. As issues are resolved, everybody sees the same markup and the numbers are recomputed. It's not AI, it's just good accounting.

    Tiga's new thing may be vaporware. Their website [] is suspicious. The graphics all look like generic clip art. The e-Dispute application system diagram [] appears to be a generic drawing of a Citrix Metaframe system with a bit of markup. An old Metaframe system, too. Note the terminals marked "OS/2 PCs" and "Legacy DOS PCs", and the data links marked "ISDN" and "Dial-Up". In fact, here's the image it was apparently copied from. [] Note that Tiga seems to have removed the Citrix name and the "tm" after Metaframe, along with other editing.

  • "Your Honour, I Object.."

    "Bite my shiny metal ass!!"
  • Go online select property law, then dividing equity after a relationship breakup, select non married then the fact that I PAID FOR MOST of the FRIKKEN HOUSE!

    <calm> Hit submit and a T-100 is sent round to isssue the documents, via an uzi!

    I'm not bitter! I'm NOT bitter....
  • This could be quite useful. Imagine for instance:


    Robot lawyer: Hello. I am Robot lawyer. How can I help you?

    RIAA: My grandmother has been downloading music.

    Robot lawyer: Why do you say your grandmother has been downloading music?

    RIAA: Our network of spys informed us

    Robot lawyer: Please go on.

    RIAA: We need to sue her

    Robot lawyer: Why do you want to sue her

    RIAA: To recoup our losses caused by the theft of our music

    Robot lawyer: Please go on.

    RIAA: We also need to send a lesson to all our customers that it i
  • That's it. I have nothing else for tonight. It's freaking 4:16AM in the morning. What the hell do you expect?
  • The following amendments have been made to the bill of rights...

    1. All constitutional guarantees are granted to robots.
    2. All constitutional guarantees are denied to humans.
    3. All humans are to report to the nearest processing facility for relamation as industrial lubricant.

    The only thing they need is a sexy robot anouncer to pitch this during Desperate Housewives, and I don't think they'll meet with any significant resistance. And as (shameless plug) director of a recent production of R.U.R., I fo
    • 0110110101? Not to worry, then, that session of Congress won't begin until 2661!

      (For those outside the US, each session of Congress lasts two years. The first one was in 1789. We're currently in the 109th Congress.)
      • You have to figure that they'll still be trying to resolve the "controversy" of intelligent design until around 2650. Only after then will politicians realize how very much extremist religious nutcases can damage a society and start to vote themselves out of office in favor of the Robots, which will by then be widely viewed as the next logical evolutionary phase. Sadly, all of this will be undone in the 0110110110 session, when Representative Unit MS784Ga31, suffering from a malfunctioning memory array,
  • "Support for the online arbitration system originally came from the European Commission's eTEN Programme..."

    So this software was designed by one of the many EU Commitees taking money from Microsoft to support software patents... what could possibly go wrong with that?!

  • by PrinceAshitaka ( 562972 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @09:07AM (#14426552) Homepage
    How many people will continue to shuffle responsibility by whineing after litigation that "the computer had it in for me since the beginning." People are goign to hate this. They will no longer be able to blame the "bigoted" judge or artbitur. The next thing you know they will claim the code was written with bias towards them.

    You cannot solve problems between people by removing the human element. You need to teach people to get along and take responsibility.
  • Welcome to Domestic Arbitration Court #375. All property lists should be pasted to #flood. Do NOT paste in this channel!

    Litigator42: This is a fact finding session for the divorce hearing between John Citizen and his wife Kate Citizen

    H0rn3yGuy69:It's not my fault, she's frigid.
    CalikoePrincess: You spent all our money on porn!
    H0rn3yGuy69:Litigator42: a/s/l?
    CalikoePrincess: He's a lying cheating f*ckwad!
    H0rn3yGuy69: Litigator42: What are you wearing?

    Litigator42 has left the room(Quit "I want to be re-assi
  • If Defendant == "Ebay":
  • I'm planning to start referring to every text processing program I write as a robot of some sort. Right now, in fact, I'm instructing my web-surfing robot to post some text to a bulliten board robot.
  • "The e-Dispute system, which has already been successfully piloted at the European Court of Arbitration and the Emilia-Romagna Chamber of Commerce in Italy, is now being trialed at a number of hospitals in the UK where it is being used to assist with claim resolution."

    "...It is also very secure."

    Wow, what any hostile country would love, a back door into an opponents legislation process.

    Lets just say that situations like China and Hong Kong or China and Taiwan might be a good examples of where this syste

  • "Robot agents digest all the information and make proposals to the parties. Once the arbitrator is agreed upon, the robot agent finds a suitable meeting date for everybody," said Jacques Gouimenou. The idea behind having an online arbitration system is that as well as being relatively inexpensive it allows organisations involved in international disputes to find a neutral venue in which to air their problems.

    I suppose it could be considered a neutral venue, except that it's run by freakin' robots! Hel-lo!

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll