Did anyone commenting here actually read TFA (specifically, the court ruling)?
The reasoning for why the conviction was quashed had absolutely nothing to do with cached images. It was quashed because the police were ruled to have conducted an illegal (as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) search, despite having a search warrant to search for possession of child pornography.

Essentially, this is what happened:
1) Technician shows up to install an Internet connection on accused computer.
2) Technician notices probable child porn links in IE favourites (along with other legal porn links), and sees (legal) porn image, either on browser homepage or desktop. Technician also notices webcam hooked up to VCR (turned off at the time) directed at accused's 3 year old child.
3) Technician returns next day to finish work, and finds computer had been formatted.
4) Technician reports to social worker about possible child abuse. Social worker in turn informs RCMP.
5) Police obtain search warrant based on technician's observations.
6) (Four months after technician's initial visit) Police search accused's home, and find child pornography.

The court essentially ruled that the technician's observations did not legally justify a search. And I find this patently ridiculous.

So because the software tool in question used SOME GPL code (as well as plenty of custom code written by Microsoft or its contractors).. MS is forced to release the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE for the software.

Does this not confirm Ballmer's statement from a few years back that the GPL was like cancer?

This whole thing was handled piss poor by both Microsoft and Mozilla.

First off, WHY did MS install a FF plugin which cannot be disabled/uninstalled by normal means? And why does FF ALLOW plugins to have this functionality?

But onto the core issue.. why is Mozilla disabling the plugin AFTER THE FLAW HAS ALREADY BEEN PATCHED BY MICROSOFT??!

The proper way Mozilla should have went about this if they were concerned with users who have not patched their systems (and on that note - MS calling it an IE update was a BAD IDEA as well, since it doesn't only affect IE..) would be as follows:
1) If system has been patched (check .dll versions or something which would indicate patch installed..), LEAVE IT ALONE.
2) If not, pop up a message saying there is a vulnerability, and suggest it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to either:
a) Allow FF to disable the extension, but if not..
b) STRONGLY RECOMMEND the user apply the security update.

And if this is not possible in the current version of FF, push out an update (installed only with consent/auto updates enabled..) WITH FUNCTIONALITY TO ALLOW THIS.

I think it is DOWNRIGHT SCARY - on par with the Amazon Kindle 1984 debacle - that Mozilla has the ability to disable plugins on MY COMPUTER without my knowledge or consent.

I'm done now.. I feel a bit better.

Yet he was judged under a disgusting law (one that condamned people for private action where all participants where willing and free
Paedophiles could argue the law still DOES do this.. do you believe preventing adults from having sex with children is a "disgusting law" ?

Alan Turing did many great things.. but he did break the law of the land at the time which prohibited sodomy. I don't believe that people who are famous should be treated lightly by the law, and so his punishment was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.. no apology is necessary.

The teaching company courses are not free.

So does Windows 7.

It's not so much voting, per se.. it's that the business of actually governing the country shuts down during an election (all existing legislation dies on the order paper).. and then there's the massive cost ($300M I've heard cited) to boot.

We need to allow the elected government to have a chance to actually implement some of the things they've promised to do. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with how Harper has governed so far, but personally, I'm not convinced we have a better alternative (the coalition, headed by that buffoon Dion, certainly would NOT be better..)

Aye, there's the rub.

We do not need another election - 4 in 5 years? Give me a break!

To my understanding, statutory damages absolutely apply - in fact, they're more or less tailor made for these situations, given it is more or less impossible (without wiretapping, at least) to know how many times a defendant has uploaded songs (and thus, impossible to know actual damages).

But then again, I'm not a lawyer.. I use common sense :->

That may once have been the case, but how it's far from it.
RIP wikipedia, we miss you.

[krusty]
Bloody morons at Fox wouldn't know a good show if it bit them in the..
hey, hey!
[/krusty]

there is an "always no" option (ie. don't ask me this again, I don't want to see any fucking ads.. ever), I'm OK with it. I'd be using that option, BTW :->