●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
68697119
comment
bywrecked
1, 2014 @04:08AM
(#48703105)
Attached to: The Making of a 1980s Dungeons & Dragons Module
D&D 5e brings back a lot of the crap I didn't like from 3.x, ignores positive changes made to the game in 4e (powers, tactical battle with miniatures, skill challenges) and introduces a couple of new things: higher prices for books, missing information on how to handle certain situations (for instance: poison), and advantage/disadvantage. All summed up, it's got me saying "meh". The fact that the core rulebooks cost $50 each instead of $20-$30 makes them out of the price range of what 12 year-olds can afford (the age when I started playing AD&D). It seems to me that WotC really fucked up this release, not having the PHB, DMG, and MM ready at the same time. Yes the new books are gorgeous, but have you ever had to use them for building a character or referencing information mid-game? I give it a C.
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.
39151481
comment
bywrecked
2012 @03:02PM
(#41744419)
Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Seamonkey vs. Firefox — Any Takers?
I rather liked the original Windows installs of Phoenix too. You just unzipped it to whereever you wanted it. Want to uninstall it? Delete the directory. That was it. Nicely minimal. Wish more applications were like that.
You can get a "portable" version of Firefox that is packaged in a single folder from PortableApps.com
35174229
comment
bywrecked
12 @11:33AM
(#40629121)
Attached to: Canada's Supreme Court ruling scraps fee for downloading music
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.
24811138
comment
bywrecked
2011 @12:21PM
(#37764264)
Attached to: Canadian Supreme Court Rules Linking Is Not Defamation
Does this protect http://www.example.com/john/is/a/compulsive/liar?
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.
24344582
submission
Submitted
by
Anonymous Coward
Saturday October 01, 2011 @01:43AM
An anonymous reader writes: Australia may consider excluding software from its second-tier patent system to better align the system with those of trading partners like Japan and Korea. A Government review has raised concerns that it may be difficult to justify Australia's low requirements for software innovation patents. The public consultation period for the review closes on 14 October.
24343058
submission
Submitted
by
wrecked
eptember 30, 2011 @11:37PM
wrecked writes: A trial judgment from British Columbia, Canada, found that Zoocasa, a real estate search site operated by Rogers Communications, breached copyright by scraping real estate listings and photos from Century 21 Canada. The decision thoroughly reviews the issues of website scraping, Terms of Use, "Shrink Wrap" and "Click Wrap" Agreements, robots.txt files, and copyright implications of hyperlinking. For American readers used to multi-million dollar damages, the court here awarded $1,000 (one thousand dollars) for breach of the Century 21 website's Terms of Use, and statutory copyright damages totalling $32,000 ($250 per infringing real estate photo). More analysis at Michael Geist's blog, and the Globe & Mail.
16358960
comment
bywrecked
8, 2010 @11:18AM
(#33620464)
Attached to: In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police
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?
11133400
comment
bywrecked
0 @09:35PM
(#31729400)
Attached to: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes To Supreme Court
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.
10658242
comment
bywrecked
010 @03:30PM
(#31551820)
Attached to: Canada's Top Court Quashes Child Porn Warrant
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!
10658160
comment
bywrecked
010 @03:27PM
(#31551800)
Attached to: Canada's Top Court Quashes Child Porn Warrant
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.
7959862
bookmark
bywrecked
2009 @07:38PM
7959840
bookmark
bywrecked
2009 @07:37PM
7959820
bookmark
bywrecked
2009 @07:37PM
7959742
bookmark
bywrecked
2009 @07:31PM
7959738
bookmark
bywrecked
2009 @07:30PM
« Newer
Older »
Slashdot Top Deals
●(email not shown publicly)
●
Years Read
●
Submitted a Story That Was Posted
●
The Maker
●
Re:Keep on the Borderlands...
●
Re:Nope
●
Better summary from Michael Geist
●
Re:What if the defamation is in the link?
●
Re:No kidding
(Score:3, Informative)
●
slashdot (submissions)
●
libel (submissions)
●
canada (submissions)
●
binspam (submissions)
●
notthebest (submissions)
●Ubuntu - Embed a Terminal into Your Desktop using Compiz [Howto] ~ Web Upd8
●Real-Time Earth Wallpaper For Linux ~ Web Upd8
●Most Popular Ubuntu / Linux Posts Of 2009 [Part 2] ~ Web Upd8
●Most Popular Ubuntu / Linux Posts Of 2009 [Part 1] ~ Web Upd8
●25 Great-Looking Compiz Emerald Themes ~ Web Upd8
●
British Columbia teen incarcerated for Swatting and online harassment
●
Canadian Supreme Court rules that hyperlinking is
●
Canadian court finds that website scraping infring
●
Michael Crichton Dies at Age 66
●
World Series starting pitcher is a physics nerd
Slashdot
●
Submit Story
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some
rays and became a tangent ?
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...