Ah, I kid I kid.. I just wanted to be the first person that said yes after 67 comments of NO. Slashdot is united in opinion for the first time ever! I doubt it would have made a difference

You know what would have been nice though? If twitter had been around for a couple of years before that, and it had today's popularity back in 2003. I saw somewhere earlier in this thread that claimed 90% of America was in support of the war at the time. That seems a bit high, but regardless of what that number is, I'll bet most of them are silent now. It would be nice to know which politicians, celebrities, friends & neighbors were fully supporting war back then. So when the next middle east war "opportunity" rolls around and the same people shout "We want war! But this one's legitimate this time we swear, not like Iraq", their twit / blog / wall post history can be used against them.

The conservatives didn't pass the last similar bill through, though they could have. They *could* pass any bill they like, but if there's enough public backlash they may decide against passing it. They do plan on winning seats in future elections, so they won't just pass anything unless it has a minimum threshold of public support.

What can you make out of $100 bills? Besides crappy paper airplanes.
Better question, what can you make out of a $100 bill with a value close to $100?

I'd like to see some more detailed data on a course by course basis (or in different programs). I've taken some bio courses that are about 95% pure memorization - I'd be inclined to think the online courses like this wouldn't have 90% attrition rates. Conversely, I'd be lost in some math or comp sci courses without a teacher explaining how a concept or formula actually works. Some classes have a lot more students asking teachers than others.

See this is your problem right here, slashdot users. Instead of just reading the summary/header and commenting - you've decided to first RTFA. Maybe you even clicked on all the links the summary.

If you dumb asses would have read the comments first, you would instantly known it was a fluff piece / disguised advertising. But NOOO, you have to try to be knowledgeable about the subject before deciding you're qualified to comment. Well that'll learn ya for next time - *always* read the comments first!

What? We don't get to vote on this - this isn't a referendum. Harper and the conservatives have a majority government, they can vote whatever they want in.

Or do you mean the MPs will vote on this? Sure they will. But the end result is really no different than an "executive order from harper". Canadian MPs virtually never vote against their own party . They vote against their own party less than 0.5% of the time, if EVER.

The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.

You know, for such an Orwellian sounding program, you'd think the marketing droids there would have picked a better acronym than RIOT. Like Worldwide Online Overlord Technology or something on the lines of that.

There must be a huge difference in paper usage in an office vs a classroom. Classrooms demand a heavy volume of handout material, because you're constantly feeding large amounts of students multiple handouts, perhaps at least one a day.

10,000 a year is an absolutely bogus exaggeration of a number for the average office worker; that's 30 pieces of paper per worker being used up every single day of the year. Maybe law offices, or education centers use higher volumes because of the nature of the business, but I doubt most offices use that much. In an IT office, I'll print maybe 100 documents a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

Sorry for a wiki link, too lazy to look up more sources. Basically we'd have better battery technology if Oil & Car companies didn't deliberately stifle technology

Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!
What's next, Ms paint found to be inferior to Photoshop in comprehensive image-editing software test?

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what "It" was. Now what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too"

Replace "It" with "Slashdot", and replace "Weird and scary" with "Stupid and gone down the toilet". Voila!!

At least buy local to be green. The majority of comments here seem to be stressing the importance of buying local so your local community thrives and discussing the economics of the situation. There's little on the externality of pollution costs via transportation. Granted you can't buy a lot of things that are locally made, thanks to Walmart, cheap overseas labor etc.. But if your groceries come from a local farm instead of being shipped 3000km, that's a net gain and the greener option. Buy your stuff from a farmer's market (all local) instead of having your goods shipped from another country.

Yes, the world would still be a better place. First off, we're not totally restricting imports - the idea is to buy things locally that you can't purchase elsewhere. Unfortunately that's not an option for most electronics, toys and other things generally made in China. But shopping at a farmer's market is a net + for everyone (as opposed to buying your groceries from somewhere where it's all imported).

Of course the biggest net gain is the reduced transportation. Even if you don't particularly care for the welfare of your community, buying something that was manufactured less than 50km away is better than getting your goods imported from China right? Think of all the wasted transportation costs from all those goods made over 3000km away. The only reason this still happens is that the goods are made in a place where laborers are paid more like 10 cents an hour instead of 10 dollars an hour, so it's still profitable to have it made in asia and exported here.

2002 called. They politely (must have been Canadian) asked to stop making currency exchange jokes, as the USD is actually worth less now

I wouldn't agree with that statement. Suppose there's a wall post by the defendant, or a note or a message to a friend that says something on the lines of "Boy my employer is a hottie, I'd just like to take him for a ride if you know what I mean!" - how would that having nothing to do with the case? A statement like that would pretty much throw this case out - if it's reasonable (or provable) that she was the one that made these statements (meaning someone else didn't make the statements via a hacked account) then I don't see why facebook statements can't be used or relevant.

One of the tidbits of information the plaintiff claims is relevant is this :

Now we're getting into a bit of a grey area here, but such a photograph would be relevant. Now it's obviously not acceptable to call your employee a cunt to their face, I would expect harassment charges to stand here. But if the defendant hears the employer using that term to describe someone else, or happens to overhear that term being used and the defendant isn't the person being referred to - then such a picture of the t-shirt would be quite relevant. If the defendant claims that "such use offended her" by simply overhearing the word, but if a photograph shows her in a shirt with CUNT on it - then it's pretty clear she doesn't have a valid claim to simply be offended by hearing the word

You make a good point on being "forced to give the password to others" - but this is the plantiff, not the defendant. If it was the defendant, then I'd be more outraged. But if the defendant says "the plaintiff first sent me sexually suggestive messages on facebook!", it seems perfectly reasonable for the judge to request proof from the plaintiff