Yes, high speed rail is going to be expensive. Yes, it's now projected to cost much more than the original estimate. (The cost has largely increased due to delays (the longer it takes to build a project, the more it costs), particularly fuelled by NIMBY appeasement ("We don't want the train passing near our house!" "But it is much quieter than standard trains and will increase your property values by being near an HSR station." "Build a tunnel!" "Okay, we'll build a tunnel." "The costs on this project are ballooning!").)

But you have to compare the cost to the alternatives. California's freeways and airports are jammed. With increasing population and mobility, something to move people around will have to be built. And the estimated costs to add volume to airports and highways is estimated to be $100-billion as well.

And, to top it off, high speed rail runs on an operational profit. (This means that yearly revenues are higher than yearly costs.) Everywhere. Yes, high speed rail lines run an operational profit in Japan and France, Spain, Russia, Taiwan and car-loving-and-train-hating America. In Britain all rail is private, and for-profit companies are in fierce competition to pay for the rights to run rail services, which are barely at HSR levels if at all. It's a strongly held misconception that rail travel is unprofitable: HSR makes a profit all over the world, and it usually subsidizes local and regional rail transport (which the US has much of).

And though only the Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon line have paid off all their construction costs, that's because they're the oldest HSR lines; others are on track to in the future. Which modes of transportation don't pay off their construction costs? Oh, that's right, nearly all roads. Remember Carmageddon/The Carpocalypse, when an overpass outside LA was torn down, shutting traffic for the weekend? That was all so they could widen the highway through a mountain pass. Were the anti-HSR people asking for ridership studies for the Sepulveda Pass? Were they asking for the expansion to run an operational profit, let alone an overall profit? Of course not; only rail is subjected to such standards.

Add to this that a train is much more efficient in transporting this number of people, from an energy, environmental and economic perspective, and this is using studies that are assuming that gas prices will be relatively stable over the next few decades.

Obviously there still has to be overview of the project, making sure money is being spent efficiently and for best value. But the entire transportation sector needs to be looked at from this viewpoint. Airlines can work with rail to transport their passengers on their "last mile", freeing up their planes for more profitable medium- and long-haul routes, like done in Germany (Frankfurt Airport has two train stations). Road funds can be diverted to repairing our existing infrastructure as opposed to building more asphalt that needs to be maintained. And everyone will get to where they are going sooner. If this is done, North America will look back 20 years from now, not wondering "How could they do this?", but instead "How did they wait so long?"

Depends. The English rule, used in most common law and Western jurisdictions for civil cases, except state-level cases in the US, allows the judge to award costs to the prevailing party (FRCP 54 causes this to apply to federal civil suits in the US). The American rule is used for state-level civil suits, and requires each side to pay its own legal fees. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

The rationale for awarding costs is obviously to dissuade frivolous litigation; you're going to be badly hurt if you lose. This could conceivably reduce the mounds of ridiculous lawsuits that come out of the US. On the other hand, allowing the awarding of costs means that people (especially those who have been badly wronged and desperately need compensation) are much less likely to initiate valid lawsuits for fear that they would be even worse off if they lose. Further, after years of litigation, parties may be loathe to settle as then they would not be able to get costs, so will turn down reasonable offers on the hope of getting costs. (I also remember a case (possibly regarding libel) in which one party was found guilty but the judge thought the claim was baseless even if technically correct, so awarded the party one dollar in damages. However, in this case the rule was that the losing party automatically paid the winner's attorney's fees, so the judgement was still for hundreds of thousands.)

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and you can find proponents of each; it's not as clear cut a case as it seems on first glance.

The US federal government has awful, awful branding. It's just terrible. How could half of social program recipients believe that they have "not used a government social program"?

In Canada, the federal and provincial governments make sure you know what they're doing. Every advertisement/public service announcement from the feds has the Canada wordmark, a simple "logo" with the word "Canada" and a Canadian flag above the last "a" (on TV and radio ads someone always says "A message from the Government of Canada"). But it's not just media advertising -- movies and tv shows that get tax credits from the government show it, correspondence (taxes, welfare, etc.), worksites partially paid for by government funding, and it goes on and on.

That's not to say that the branding gets to politicians' heads: our stimulus had a massive amount of advertising that many thought was flagrant self-promotion of the current government's policy, as opposed to ads which are usually along the lines of "Don't bring things across the border you shouldn't" or "Here's how young people can get help finding a job" or "Come visit our national parks". The current government even made it such that anyone who accepted stimulus money had to purchase a sign at their own cost extolling the benefits of the stimulus and the plan, post it on-site and send two pictures (one wide shot, one close-up) back to the feds before getting the money.

But when I look south, I'm at a loss to figure out who's responsible. Is the national guard a state or federal program? Is the FDIC run by the banks, or is that freecreditreport.com site run by the government? Who funded that study I read online? And the US government's websites all look completely different, so you don't know if it's the government or some independent agency or someone else (.gov notwithstanding -- who looks at URLs anymore besides /. readers?). Maybe if people knew all the services provided by government they wouldn't hate it as much (or maybe they would hate it more, but at least they would better understand everything they want to cut). It also lets you judge information more easily based on its source (your choice whether that improves your opinion of the information or the opposite).

Up north, I see this great anti-speeding ad and the Quebec flag at the end of the word Quebec and I know where it's coming from. Or this anti-fraud ad. France has their wordmark/logo too.

77% of people interviewed in a 1999 survey reported seeing the Canada wordmark, 60% in the previous 12 months. Over 85% of them reporting seeing the wordmark made them have more confidence in the information and make them "feel proud to be Canadian". And they almost unanimously agreed that the wordmark should be on websites, publications, advertisements, worksites and buildings. The key is that this doesn't happen overnight; the FIP started in 1970, and this is what they were running 10 years later.

If you want people to know that the government does important things besides building roads and national defence, make sure that when you spend tons of money on an ad buy, people know who's spending it. Get some cohesion going, US government; it's in your interest.

This case perfectly showcases the difference between regular people and those at the top. Let's be honest, here is what would happen if some random Joe broke into that girl's voicemail and deleted messages:

1. Within hours, the national police would raid Joe's home, arresting him and confiscating every piece of electronic equipment he owns, promising to return it within days (and making this promise every few days for years).
2. The police would charge Joe with obstruction of justice, bulglary, destruction of property, copyright infringement, the DMCA equivalent of breaking a digital lock, hacking, unauthorized use of a computer, wire fraud, impersonation, collusion, conspiracy, and anything else they could throw at him.
3. The police, realising their luck, would then add all those charges twice more, first with "...of/to/concerning a minor" and then with "...on/using/with a computer/electronic device".
4. The victim's family would then sue Joe into oblivion, while the public would cry for his head, settling for life in prison without the possibility of parole and bankruptcy.

Obviously I'm exaggerting slightly, but we could easily see more jail time (at least in theory) for this phone "hacking" than for the actual murderer. Obviously what's been done here is awful, but this is a time to revise sentencing (for all people) to better reflect the actual harm done rather than just yelling "HACKER!!!" and committing these people to decades of hard time. Of course, given how disgusting this was, we'll probably keep pushing sentences the other way.

What are the legal implications of Watson lying? of providing false or misleading information?

Why would it be different than what salesmen do now?

So, nothing?

If I find that my competitor is abusing Wikipedia to boost their search engine ranking, of course I will remove it.

And you would be violating Wikipedia guidelines. The French version is sorely lacking, but as a translation from the English version has been requested, you can read up over there, but for some quick summaries:

This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.

If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard.

If you fit either of these descriptions:

1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or
2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing;

then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).

Anything you say and do on Wikipedia can have real world consequences. COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely. You do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known. While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context. Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a very public forum, and news of attempts to improperly influence Wikipedia are frequently reported in the media.

The new map is here (PDF). It was adopted by 90-7 and 48-1 votes in both chambers on April 14, signed by the governor five days later. The population variance is 0.0005%, which is so small I almost don't believe it. (More details here.)

And the guidelines are here, summarized in the redistricting commission report:

1. Districts shall be established on the basis of population and shall each have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population.
2. For Congressional districts, each district shall be composed of whole counties. For Legislative districts, the number of counties and cities divided into more than one district shall be as small as possible.
3. Districts shall be composed of convenient contiguous territory.
4. Districts shall be reasonably compact in form, to the extent consistent with the first three standards. In general, reasonably compact districts are those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape, and not irregularly shaped, to the extent permitted by natural or political boundaries.
5. A district shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, political party, or other person or group.
6. Each state representative district shall be wholly included within a single state senatorial district. To the extent possible and consistent with the first five standards, each Senate and House district shall be wholly included within a single Congressional district.
7. A new districting plan shall not be used prior to the primary election of 2012.
8. Each bill embodying a plan shall include provisions for election of senators to the general assemblies which take office in 2013 and 2015, which shall be in conformity with Article Ill, section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Iowa.

Lastly, note the following from the same report: "[N]o political or demographic information other than total population is taken into consideration when creating proposed redistricting plans."

This Russian company didn't purchase the Canadian company. They purchased Wind Telecom S.p.A., a company owned by an Egyptian family. That company owns 50%+1 of Orascom, which itself has a complicated relationship with Globalive, a Canadian* company that operates Wind Mobile, an upstart wireless telephone service provider in Canada. "Complicated" and "Canadian*" because the Federal Court disagrees it's Canadian, as I wrote last month.

(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.