(Note: this is based on my memory of reading the decision last night at 4 a.m., and I don't feel like rereading it for a /. comment; some things may be slightly off, and IANAL, but the gist is correct.)

Telecommunications companies in Canada cannot be "influenced" by non-Canadians, which means while non-Canadians can have a stake in a company, it can't be significant (there's no set standard, but think under 10% or 20% and not on the board). (Whether this policy is a good idea is fully debatable, but it's the law.)

Globalive (operating as Wind Mobile) is an upstart Canadian cell phone company run by Canadians (technically, they're old, but new to the cell market); there's no dispute here. However, to bid in the recent spectrum auction, it needed cash. So they called up Orascom, an Egyptian company, to get some financing. But they needed so much money that if they issued equity (shares) Orascom would own more than half of Globalive, breaking the Telecommunications Act. So they decided to borrow the money (debt) from them instead, thereby getting around the rules.

Public Mobile, another upstart Canadian company that also won spectrum in the auction, said this was unfair: they played by the rules and got financing from Canadians, and so took Globalive to the CRTC. The regulator ruled that while "in law" Globalive was certainly Canadian, "in fact" they owed so much money as a part of their overall net worth (~2/3) to Orascom there was no way the latter couldn't have influence on the former, which meant Globalive broke the rules and couldn't even bid in the spectrum auction, let alone operate in Canada.

The Conservative Government, which is generally pro-free market (in favour of foreign investment and competition and against regulators and government, though many have argued their actions haven't matched their ideals (see, e.g. Potash Corp., supply management, etc.)), issued a cabinet decision that overruled their regulator, thereby allowing Globalive to operate (which it did within days). They are allowed to overrule the CRTC, but they can't just say "because I said so": they need to justify their reasons, and the Federal Court can review their decision to see if their reasons are reasonable. (Obviously any decision will be debatable, so there is some standard for reasonableness.) So Public Mobile took the government to court. (For those interested in where our scummy telcos (Bell, Rogers, Telus) lined up, they all, of course, favoured less competition, so wanted to get Globalive out of business regardless of the merits of the case, though only Telus spoke at trial. We know they're hypocrites because their execs have all publicly lobbied for opening up telcos to foreign ownership and financing, while arguing against it here.)

The court ruled that the CRTC was correct in determining that Globalive was influenced by a non-Canadian, and that the government's "reasons" for their decision did not change this.

Basically, there are four basic tenets of telecommunications policy set out in the act, and one of them is the no non-Canadian influence part. The government tried to say that this part was less important than the other three parts, and that this part should only be applied "when possible" (i.e. when it won't conflict with the other parts). The government also seemingly added another tenet, which was that companies should search for technological advancement from outside Canada. And lastly, it said its cabinet decision applied only to Globalive, so wasn't precedent.

The court said while there would be nothing wrong with a policy that had some tenets be more important than others, or one that added other tenets, that's not what the law says, and unless Parliament (legislative branch) changes this, the Cabinet (executive branch) can't issue a decision that isn't grounded in law. The court also said the arbitrariness of the decision (applying only to Globalive) further proved their decision couldn't stand.

So that's where we are. The judge stayed his decision for 45 days to give time for the government and/or Globalive to appeal (after which it will probably be stayed further), so Wind will continue operating, probably until appeals are exhausted (there's the Federal Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, so we're probably looking at a year or two).

What should come out of this case is a public debate about the completely antiquated, anti-competitive telecommunications market in this country, and how we're falling behind other countries. (I won't speculate on how to fix this, but letting one more cell phone company into the market is a drop in the bucket.) What will actually happen is the politicians will be too scared to do anything, leaving the consumer to be continued to be screwed over by the status quo.

Actually, it has nothing to do with retailers in Canada being a high percentage of winners. What actually happened was that when a customer who won a large prize handed in his or her ticket and the machine beeped, the retailer told the customer he or she won a free ticket and then took the multi-figure winning ticket to the lottery commission pretending he or she bought it. It was plain old fraud, and a number of retailers are currently under indictment for it. (Also, as your article states, the tickets in questions were draws, not scratch tickets.)

Saying Bell Canada sucks doesn't mean you work for a competitor; it means you're Canadian. (And you know I'm not shilling for a competitor, because no matter what business of Bell you're talking about (local landline, long distance landline, cell, dialup, DSL, TV), their competitors suck too. I have yet to find a good telecommunications company in Canada; in fact, there are only two companies of any type that operate in Canada that it's always been a pleasure to deal with, and both their head offices are in other countries. (To be fair to Bell, I suppose online TV on demand from CTV (which Bell's parent BCE owns) is not godawful.))

This sounds to me much more like a PO Box: correspondence is sent to it and kept in it, and even though the box is the physical property of the mailbox company, the contents are the legal, private property of the person renting the box. Police can't just go into a box unless they have probable cause (or exigent circumstances, like they think there's a bomb there or something smells weird, or is moving (e.g. an animal), say), and the mailbox company can't open it either even if it decides to comply with a voluntary police "request". Same for a safety deposit box. And now that I've skimmed the judgement, it seems the judge agrees (p. 19).

A lot of commenters seem to think this is a bad idea, but once you're sure you hit the ball over the infield, you should be running as if you've got at least a double, as your single is essentially guaranteed regardless of how you run (unless they catch your fly ball, in which case you're out anyway). Most ball players can immediately tell the difference between hitting the ball into the infield and hitting it over them (and if it goes through on the ground, the first base coach should be telling you what to do).

Also, to clear up the rule question everyone's asking (I've been an ump for >10 years): so long as no one is trying to tag you out, you can go out as far from the diamond as you want. What you can't do: go inside the diamond. (Also: if you overrun first, even if you curve to the left (or right) as you run past the base, you can't be tagged out unless the ump thinks you've made a break for second, so even fewer worries with this strategy.)

Maybe we could get The Founders^TM and get their opinion on every US law and policy (that would shut a lot of people up). Or maybe realize that they aren't a perfect, collective hive mind, but a bunch of individuals who incidentally got a whole bunch of things wrong (why amendments were needed).

Don't worry, the RIAA is trying to fix this.

I'm sure that "vague language" has never been interpreted by the courts. Oh wait:

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
   1. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
   2. There must be minimal impairment of rights
   3. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

You're right, though, that's pretty permissive in what it allows the government to do. Fortunately for Americans, their rights are not subject to such "vague language". For example, when courts are trying to decide if it right has been violated, the most stringent judicial review they are allowed to use is strict scrutiny. What are the three prongs a law must pass to survive strict scrutiny?

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest
2. It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest
3. It must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

Totally different situations, obviously, especially since it's been speculated that the Canadian test comes from the SCOTUS test for commercial speech. Still, between 1990 and 2003, 30 percent of federal cases involving strict scrutiny have approved of the rights restrictions.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't Canadian laws or court decisions I disagree with, while the US is completely messed up. But don't pretend that the country that gave the world "free speech zones", "contemporary community standards" for obscenity, the PATRIOT Act and other national security laws, Morse v. Frederick and Gonzales v. Raich and other ridiculous drug laws, among many, many other laws and court decisions can look down on other jurisdictions' rights while implying theirs are absolute. It's not just what you write in your constitution, it's how five of the nine people in black robes interprets it. And given some of the wacky decisions I've seen out of your country lately, I'll take my nine red-robed over your nine black-robed.

Actually, Quebec language laws have not used the notwithstanding clause since 1993, though politicians have certainly threatened to since. The reason Quebec languages laws are legal is due to Section 1 of the Canadian Charter, which allows violation of other parts of the Charter as to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." This has been interpreted by the courts (R. v. Oakes) as requiring there be a "pressing and substantial objective" where the means are rationally connected to the objective, minimally impairing the rights and contain proportionality between the infringement and the objective. These limits are somewhat similar to strict scrutiny in the US (which through the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment is the strictest scrutiny possible that can apply to the Bill of Rights; many government actions require only rational basis), and contrary to popular belief, between 1990 and 2003, 22 percent of federal cases involving free speech restrictions survive strict scrutiny.

As a Quebec anglophone, don't think I approve of the Quebec language laws, but you also shouldn't think that the Canadian Charter is impotent while the US Bill of Rights has no restrictions on it. If that were true, there wouldn't be "free speech zones", or "community standards" regarding obscenity, or principals being able to suspend students for holding up a "humourous" sign referring to drugs at an event outside school grounds.

Exactly, just follow Bill O'Reilly's advice and shut up: "It is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins--" "Once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if they can't do that, to shut up." See no evil....

Actually, Ticketmaster already has Dutch auctions, or at least a seemingly well-designed variant (price doesn't go down, but you input a secret bid and multiple winners pay the same amount, with higher bids getting better seats in the section you bid on), as an option for a way for the event to sell its tickets (not for resellers). This obviously makes a lot of sense, as everyone can input their intrinsic "value" for how much a ticket is worth and those who value it most will win. Assuming perfect information (everyone knows about the auction when it happens (they can lengthen the time of it being open to make this work decently)) and no one's value changes (which clearly won't happen), you have a perfectly efficient market. Because both those conditions will not met, there will be room for resellers to try to make a profit, but for an event that sells out in the first day Ticketmaster would never be able to get any of the reseller market to begin with, so this is clearly the best way to go for events with much fewer seats than potential buyers.

Another possibility is based on an idea a mathematician friend of mine heard at a conference. The speaker claimed that even with different classes, there is generally no way for airlines to make money if prices are fixed (if you raise the price high enough to break even, the plane won't be full). The solution is to change prices all the time, to get each passenger to pay as close to their intrinsic value as possible. People whose time is valuable will do one search, choose the cheapest flight (or even a more expensive yet more convenient one) and be done with it, while people whose time is less so will search and search, day after day, till they feel that given the inherent variability in the price that they would rather lock in now than risk paying (much) more (an expected value and/or gambling/insurance test). Those who want a guaranteed seat will book at whatever the going rate is, while those who will risk it may wait till the last minute. A Dutch auction would be preferable from the airline's perspective, but with multiple routes and multiple companies, you don't have the monopoly that venues do, making it much harder to do well.

I'm not sure why more venues that already sell tickets through Ticketmaster don't use Dutch auctions (makes sense why non-online sales couldn't do it); my guess is venue promoters don't know about it, or are confused and scared of doing things and making money differently than they've done before (sounds like the RIAA).

For today's print edition, Tackett has duplicated the familiar components of The Saratogian from scratch, with the goal being that you won't know the difference between the look of today's paper and tomorrow's. Likewise, photographers Erica Miller and Ed Burke have used free software instead of Photoshop for their pictures, and the reporters have filed their stories in Googled Docs instead of Microsoft Word. Online Editor Steve Shoemaker is posting video and stories to a free website, in addition to the regular site at saratogian.com.

Considering how much needs to be done in such a short amount of time, newspapers tend to use massive collections of templates and integrated scripts if it will save even a few minutes during a production night. Even if the new templates and scripts were prepared in advance (bug-free and fully-featured, I'm sure), those doing layout would be put at an incredible disadvantage, even if they knew how to use the new programs at the same technical proficiency as their current ones (which I'm guessing they didn't).

A copy editor (who spends most of his job laying out a paper, not finding typos, despite his title) at the Montreal Gazette, a daily in a large city, describes transitioning from QuarkXPress to InDesign over a month or so, in stages, with certain staff and sections learning how to use the new system each week. Anyone who thinks trying new specialized software for one day will result in anything other than total chaos is kidding themselves. ("Hey, we switched from Drupal to Joomla for one day and it was much less efficient and took a lot more time.")

Also, the headline and summary are not completely correct: the paper used free (as in beer) software, some of which was libre and open source, some of which was not (Google Docs, likely the video site).

My office does all three of those, although it's partially so coworkers can access your computer if you're sick (lack of folder sharing being a problem in and of itself). In fact, I think my immediate boss is at 'password14' right now.

Civ II was MicroProse (ahh, that list takes me back); Activision did Call to Power.

What I remember Activision for was the original MechWarrior game. I had to underclock my 486DX2-66 (still in my (mom's) basement (no, I don't live down there...yet)) to 10 MHz so the "robots" moved at a reasonable speed. Of course, when starting at opposite ends of the battlefield, it was much quicker to hit the turbo button and jump back up to 66 MHz till they started firing on you and then slow down again. One run in which the button didn't uncatch, leading to many frantic pushes, resulted in having to sell two Battlemechs just to cover repair costs.

Gosh, /., couldn't you have run this story during the day, when I didn't need to go to sleep? Ah, well, off to DOSBox.

It's probably the first time I've ever said this, but I am an expert on these machines, as I drive one for a living. One of the main reasons rinks still prefer natural gas (or even propane) is that those ice resurfacers have what are essentially internal combustion engines, which reduces repair costs, because the cities that own them usually have many spare parts around and the employees that work for the city usually know a lot more about ICEs than electric engines.

Further, eight years seems a little short for a natural gas machine; our last one (propane, actually) went 15-20 years (and we still use it to take out the ice in April and when our main one breaks down (man, it's a PITA to drive)) and our newer one is still going strong after nearly 10 years, and given its 3,800 hours of use, we probably won't be replacing it till near the end of the decade (barring unexpected problems), hopefully when electric motors are more competitive.

Lastly (not a reply to you, but to others), so long as your ventilation system is decent (which I would assume an Olympic oval's is), and it's actually used properly, air quality in an arena using a natural gas resurfacer is essentially the same as that in one using an electric resurfacer. If our arena didn't pass with the flying colours it got and instead got the massive fail 4 Glaces got I'd be suing my city (or getting our union to do it) immediately; I'm sure Olympic spectators have nothing to worry about.