I respectfully disagree. I started with 1st edition AD&D but lost interest once 2e came around. I once had a look at 4e, and found it completely baffling. I recently got back into D&D with a group of other middle-aged folk, and we initially using the 1e rules. When the 5e playtests came out, we switched to that, because we found that the new rules evoked the feel of AD&D, but are well-designed and coherent. I have all of the 5e rulebooks now, and I personally feel that these rules are like 1e but with all of the stuff that I would have houseruled anyway.

Regarding cost, anyone can download the "Basic" Rules for free: http://dnd.wizards.com/article...

The main difference between the Basic Rules and the hardcopies is that Basic is limited to the four classic D&D classes: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Mage. Otherwise, the Basic Rules are completely functional, and you can play solely with these.

You can get a "portable" version of Firefox that is packaged in a single folder from PortableApps.com

Supreme Court of Canada Stands Up For Fair Dealing in Stunning Sweep of Cases

These decisions also strongly affirms a right of "fair dealing", especially in the context of education.

This is implied by the separate but concurring judgment. The Chief Justice writes: "In sum, in our view, a hyperlink should constitute publication if, read contextually, the text that includes the hyperlink constitutes adoption or endorsement of the specific content it links to." Crookes v Newton (2011 SCC 47) at paragraph 50.

Sorry, IAAL in Canada, and I can't let your comment go without a reply. The libel laws between the US and Canada are very different. In Canada, there are several defences against libel: justification (ie "truth", the most difficult defence to prove), absolute or qualified privilege (ie communications in a confidential setting), fair comment (ie honestly held opinion in good faith), and the new defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" (ie. "responsible journalism").

The last defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" was created in 2009 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar 2009 SCC 61. That case was actually covered in Slashdot: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes to Supreme Court.

Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?

Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

Forgot to put this in my original post: link to R. v. Morelli webcast, so you don't have to RTFA, you can watch it!

If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is. All documents must be filed electronically. Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials. There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.

The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web. The court's decisions are all published and searchable on the internet.

Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada, which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.