Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What does this really mean? (Score 1) 236

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).

Comment Liners should always be run as doubles+ (Score 1) 212

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.)

Comment Re:Canada is more protective of rights than USA. (Score 2, Informative) 383

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.

Comment Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score 1) 383

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.

Comment Re:The REAL problem.... (Score 3, Interesting) 425

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).

Comment Surprised they even got out! (Score 3, Insightful) 460

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).

Comment Re:Boo (Score 3, Interesting) 265

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.

Comment Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score 2, Informative) 356

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.

Comment Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score 1) 643

Not exactly. As TFA states, "Air Canada stopped serving peanuts years ago, but the airline still serves cashews and other snacks that contain nuts."

As the CBC mentioned on TV today when covering this story, the cashews and other fancy nuts are only served in executive class. Which makes me wonder how it can be so difficult to make a nut-free zone; just put the woman in the back of the plane.

Also, you have your story reversed: on domestic and transborder (US) flights Air Canada doesn't charge for non-alcoholic drinks, but does charge you for food (sometimes they give you a free small snack (usually sesame sticks, but sometimes these lovely tangy and spicy lemony hard crisps)). Everything is free on overseas.

Comment Defamation law in Canada (Score 4, Informative) 146

Lots of confusion in the comments, so here's the skinny on defamation law in Canada, taken directly from this judgment (removing citations for readability):

[28] A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed, though this rule has been subject to strong criticism: [citations]. (The only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages, unless the impugned words were slanderous per se: [citation].) The plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless. The tort is thus one of strict liability.

[29] If the plaintiff proves the required elements, the onus then shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability.

[30] Both statements of opinion and statements of fact may attract the defence of privilege, depending on the occasion on which they were made. Some "occasions", like Parliamentary and legal proceedings, are absolutely privileged. Others, like reference letters or credit reports, enjoy "qualified" privilege, meaning that the privilege can be defeated by proof that the defendant acted with malice: [citation]. The defences of absolute and qualified privilege reflect the fact that "common convenience and welfare of society" sometimes requires untrammelled communications: [citation]. The law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes contribute to desirable social ends.

[31] In addition to privilege, statements of opinion, a category which includes any "deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof" ([citation]), may attract the defence of fair comment. As reformulated in WIC Radio, at para. 28, a defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?; and (e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice. WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a "fairminded" person could honestly hold, to a requirement that it be one that "anyone could honestly have expressed" (paras. 49-51), which allows for robust debate. As Binnie J. put it, "[w]e live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones" (para. 4).

[32] Where statements of fact are at issue, usually only two defences are available: the defence that the statement was substantially true (justification); and the defence that the statement was made in a protected context (privilege). The issue in this case is whether the defences to actions for defamatory statements of fact should be expanded, as has been done for statements of opinion, in recognition of the importance of freedom of expression in a free society.

Long story short: prove someone defamed you (defamatory, towards you, published), they're presumed guilty, with onus shifting. To defend themselves, they must prove either 1) the statements were absolutely privileged (from court or parliamentary testimony or documentation); 2) the statements enjoyed qualified privilege (certain other documents), though this can be defeated if malice can be shown; 3) if the statements were opinion, they are fair comment; or 4) if the statements of fact are at issue, they must be substantially true (justification).

Whether the fourth point should be expanded to include statements that are probably true was what was at issue in this decision. And the court decided that, essentially, if the trial judge determines the matter was in the public interest, and the jury is convinced the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, a defence to defamation has been established.

IANAL, etc.

Comment Re:70s computer (Score 1) 483

I reach for my 70's era calculator and estimate the operational life of 34 years for this system. Some Fragility. Who or what at the Post has been there that long.

Washington Post? 1970s? Any big events during that time that are still relevant today? I know there's something, I just can't gate my mind around it....

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...