What's scary is that Coming Attractions states that the director is hoping to get Matt Damon on board (but doesn't mention for which role). I can't see Damon doing either Batman or Superman. Maybe he can play Jimmy Olsen:P
I would love to see Keaton under the cowl again. As for Superman, there's not a hell of alot of choices out there. Dean Cain did a half-decent job in the Lois & Clarke shot, but I don't think he could carry the movie.
Who would you like to see play The Dark Knight and The Man Of Steel?
I'm curious about something, and hopefully someone will be able to answer. Most of the hardware is made outside the US for US companies. WIll this mean that different hardware will be produced for countries != US? (IE: Canada), where the copyright laws are different?
I'm sure implementing US laws on hardware shipped outside the US probably breaks a few trade agreements (not to mention it enforces US laws [legal or copyright] on other countries). How will this affect us (us being users outside the US)?
I'm assuming from statements made in the article that you install the codec in the OS, and not on the hardware (they installed the newest DivX codec and it worked fine with the board).
At the price of hardware nowadays, you could buy a half-decent motherboard and 1 gig+ CPU for just a bit more than the price of this board... so I don't really see the point of buying one of these.
This isn't news.
Future Shop, a huge Canadian electronics/music/movie chain (a la Best Buy, Circuit City, etc...) stopped selling VHS tapes early last year and have been carrying DVDs exclusively.
Listen, the amount of money a film makes does *not* turn it into a myth or cultural icon. SO what if Spiderman is going to end up making more than Episode 2? Lucas himself has stated is that his only goal is that Episode2 will fair a bit better than Episode1. So far, he has reached this goal (in the amount of days since the release, Episode2 has surpassed Episode1 in sales).
If the biggest money maker makes a myth, then please explain Titanic. The biggest money maker of all time (not counting inflation). I would hardly call that movie a myth or a cultural icon.
"But surely it would be a negligible cost to put 1-2GB of RAM on even a reasonably budget router at todays prices."
This person is definately showing they have no clue what they're talking about. YOu can't just put cheap 100$ 512 SDRAM.... or there goes your Cisco warranty. 1 gig of CIsco RAM will cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Most routers that can handle that much RAM are not 'reasonably priced', unless you consider hundreds of thousands reasonable (IE: 7500 with RSP8 card).
It's a shame that ISPs and NAPs in New Zealand don't offer BGP advertisements for multihoming. I work for a NAP in North America, and advertising another provider's classes for multihoming purposes is not something unusual; it's common practice.
Paying for viewing webpages? That has to be the most laughable, ridiculous idea I have ever heard.
99.9% of the websites out there are not delivering original, worthwile content. No, they're not even worth a penny a pageview.
The author uses current-day numbers to show how profitable websites could be. If the web moved to a pay-per-view system, you can bet that the amount of hits even big sites like google will drop off dramatically. The amount of users that would pay pay-per-view fees or even a flat amount would be dramatically reduced. I know that instead of surfing 50-100 pages a day, I wouldprobably surf only when I absolutely needed to. Websites would be closing as fast or faster than last year with the entire banner ad revenue fiasco. Instead of everyone being able to have a free voice, only big, corporate websites would prevail.
A standard search on google will yield hundreds of results. It very often takes visits to multiple pages before finding exactly what you're looking for. Why should I spend money visiting sites that are not answering my need?
Then there's the whole issue of copyrights. Currently, for any given movie, band, tv show, etc.. there are thousands of fan related websites. These are , IFAIK, mostly free to visit. The website owners generally don't profit from the site. Charging a pay-per-view fee would change all that. Fans could now be making money directly due to copyright materials owned by a movie studio, tv network, etc... Having such a website will then break many copyright laws and would the sites would be shut down faster than a whore house in Vatican City. Currently studios, etc.. mostly turn a blind eye to such sites.
The web grew because it was a place where you could freely speak and freely view other people's thoughts, etc... Remove the free from it, and you would bring the demise of the web as we know it.
Limiting free speech in regards to hate speeches is something that already exists here in Canada. So far, it has not been abused. And I personally feel that society as a whole is not ready to have the right to full free speech. We are far too immature, egocentric and hateful to be allowed that right.
Taken from http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/lawroom/freespch.html# toc2
Free Speech and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. That means we're all free to say what we think. But what about statements that are hateful and racist? Where does free speech stop and hate crime start?
The Supreme Court of Canada asked this question in 1990. An Alberta high school teacher named James Keegstra was found guilty of the crime of "wilful promotion of hatred". Keegstra made many racist statements to his students, and parents complained about his teaching. Keegstra said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected his right to say these things.
The Supreme Court looked at the section of the Criminal Code that makes it a crime to wilfully promote hatred. The Court said the crime does take away people's freedom of speech - because it doesn't let them say things that encourage others to hate people because of their race, colour, religion or ethnic origin. But check out section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 means that a law which limits free speech is okay so long as:
It's a reasonable limit on free speech; and
The limit is justified in a free and democractic society.
The Supreme Court said that there are a number of reasons why limiting hateful speech makes sense.
Hate propaganda harms all of us.
Stopping the spread of hate propaganda makes it easier for people with different backgrounds to live together.
Stopping hate propaganda may even reduce violence in Canada.
Because of these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the Court said Keegstra had broken the law. Even though the law limits his right to free speech, it's a reasonable limit. Democratic societies must stop the spread of hate propaganda so everyone can live freely.
But the government has to be really careful about how it limits free speech. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the crime of "spreading false news" in the case of Ernst Zundel. They decided that the crime was too broad a limit of free speech. So even though Zundel published things which weren't true about the Holocaust, he wasn't guilty of a crime. His right to free speech was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finding the line between free speech and hate is difficult. One thing is for sure - the debate over free speech on the Internet is likely to continue.
Hate and the Canadian Human Rights Act
Another law fighting hate in Canada is the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act isn't a criminal law - in other words, it doesn't create crimes. But it does make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of:
race
national or ethnic origin
colour
religion
age
sex
sexual orientation
marital status
family status
disability
a crime for which they've been pardoned.
If someone is discriminated against, he or she can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission will investigate the complaint. If it finds there was discrimination, then it can order the person doing it to stop.
One section of the Human Rights Act is especially important in the battle against hate. Section 13(1) says:
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not an unreasonable limit on free speech.
Limiting free speech in regards to hate speeches is something that already exists here in Canada. So far, it has not been abused. And I personally feel that society as a whole is not ready to have the right to full free speech. We are far too immature, egocentric and hateful to be allowed that right.
Taken from http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/lawroom/freespch.html# toc2
Free Speech and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. That means we're all free to say what we think. But what about statements that are hateful and racist? Where does free speech stop and hate crime start?
The Supreme Court of Canada asked this question in 1990. An Alberta high school teacher named James Keegstra was found guilty of the crime of "wilful promotion of hatred". Keegstra made many racist statements to his students, and parents complained about his teaching. Keegstra said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected his right to say these things.
The Supreme Court looked at the section of the Criminal Code that makes it a crime to wilfully promote hatred. The Court said the crime does take away people's freedom of speech - because it doesn't let them say things that encourage others to hate people because of their race, colour, religion or ethnic origin. But check out section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 means that a law which limits free speech is okay so long as:
It's a reasonable limit on free speech; and
The limit is justified in a free and democractic society.
The Supreme Court said that there are a number of reasons why limiting hateful speech makes sense.
Hate propaganda harms all of us.
Stopping the spread of hate propaganda makes it easier for people with different backgrounds to live together.
Stopping hate propaganda may even reduce violence in Canada.
Because of these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the Court said Keegstra had broken the law. Even though the law limits his right to free speech, it's a reasonable limit. Democratic societies must stop the spread of hate propaganda so everyone can live freely.
But the government has to be really careful about how it limits free speech. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the crime of "spreading false news" in the case of Ernst Zundel. They decided that the crime was too broad a limit of free speech. So even though Zundel published things which weren't true about the Holocaust, he wasn't guilty of a crime. His right to free speech was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finding the line between free speech and hate is difficult. One thing is for sure - the debate over free speech on the Internet is likely to continue.
Hate and the Canadian Human Rights Act
Another law fighting hate in Canada is the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act isn't a criminal law - in other words, it doesn't create crimes. But it does make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of:
race
national or ethnic origin
colour
religion
age
sex
sexual orientation
marital status
family status
disability
a crime for which they've been pardoned.
If someone is discriminated against, he or she can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission will investigate the complaint. If it finds there was discrimination, then it can order the person doing it to stop.
One section of the Human Rights Act is especially important in the battle against hate. Section 13(1) says:
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not an unreasonable limit on free speech.
As much as I dislike some of their tactics, I never wanted the justice dept to 'destroy' or break up Microsoft.
But I do believe that fines should have been levied for some of their actions and tactics, possibly with some kind of regulations put in place to make sure they don't abuse their near-monopoly.
This ruling doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
Why is this news on Slashdot? It's not unusual for a help desk, whether it's Internet based or any other, to support an OS soon after release.
I would say it would be more unusual for a help desk to actually support an OS within even a couple of months of release.
A help desk I used to work for only started to officially support Win2000 6 months ago (which is what, 2 years after release?). They didn't start supporting NT until 98 or so.
Again, I ask, why is this story even on/. ? it's definately not newsworthy. I've also noticed that most of those articles and duplicate articles are posted by timothy. Is this a trend? Hmmmmm
What's the next news headline? CmdrTaco eats at KFC?
I don't know about the US, but in Canada it is illegal for anyone, including your employer, to do body/bag/car searches without either your consent or a search warrant, in which case, the search would be performed by a law officer, and not your employer/security guard.
Why? Because as soon as things like this virus starts affecting the network/backbone, you have to take action to protect it, that's the ISPs business. And trust me, this virus has been affecting backbones worldwide.
What you mention was actually Warcraft III in its infancy. About a year ago, Blizzard moved away from the RPG/Adventure aspect to turn Warcraft III into a strategy game like it's predecessors.
I also wonder why 3 month old news is being posted on Slashdot. If you want to read up on RPG news, check out Canada Gaming, which covered this news months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Gene Hackman? Oh god, no! If Luthor appears in the movie, they should get the guy who plays LUthor in Smallville. He's just perfect for the role.
Oh, forgot to add. Long before we see this movie made, we'll be seeing [drool] Ashley Judd as Catwoman [/drool]
What's scary is that Coming Attractions states that the director is hoping to get Matt Damon on board (but doesn't mention for which role). I can't see Damon doing either Batman or Superman. Maybe he can play Jimmy Olsen :P
I would love to see Keaton under the cowl again. As for Superman, there's not a hell of alot of choices out there. Dean Cain did a half-decent job in the Lois & Clarke shot, but I don't think he could carry the movie.
Who would you like to see play The Dark Knight and The Man Of Steel?
I'm curious about something, and hopefully someone will be able to answer. Most of the hardware is made outside the US for US companies. WIll this mean that different hardware will be produced for countries != US? (IE: Canada), where the copyright laws are different?
I'm sure implementing US laws on hardware shipped outside the US probably breaks a few trade agreements (not to mention it enforces US laws [legal or copyright] on other countries). How will this affect us (us being users outside the US)?
I'm assuming from statements made in the article that you install the codec in the OS, and not on the hardware (they installed the newest DivX codec and it worked fine with the board). At the price of hardware nowadays, you could buy a half-decent motherboard and 1 gig+ CPU for just a bit more than the price of this board... so I don't really see the point of buying one of these.
This isn't news. Future Shop, a huge Canadian electronics/music/movie chain (a la Best Buy, Circuit City, etc...) stopped selling VHS tapes early last year and have been carrying DVDs exclusively.
Oh god, Katz is shooting is mouth off again...
Listen, the amount of money a film makes does *not* turn it into a myth or cultural icon. SO what if Spiderman is going to end up making more than Episode 2? Lucas himself has stated is that his only goal is that Episode2 will fair a bit better than Episode1. So far, he has reached this goal (in the amount of days since the release, Episode2 has surpassed Episode1 in sales).
If the biggest money maker makes a myth, then please explain Titanic. The biggest money maker of all time (not counting inflation). I would hardly call that movie a myth or a cultural icon.
The only ale that rates a 9.5 in my book is Moosehead. (and no, it doesn't taste like a pickled moose head)
"But surely it would be a negligible cost to put 1-2GB of RAM on even a reasonably budget router at todays prices." This person is definately showing they have no clue what they're talking about. YOu can't just put cheap 100$ 512 SDRAM.... or there goes your Cisco warranty. 1 gig of CIsco RAM will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most routers that can handle that much RAM are not 'reasonably priced', unless you consider hundreds of thousands reasonable (IE: 7500 with RSP8 card). It's a shame that ISPs and NAPs in New Zealand don't offer BGP advertisements for multihoming. I work for a NAP in North America, and advertising another provider's classes for multihoming purposes is not something unusual; it's common practice.
Paying for viewing webpages? That has to be the most laughable, ridiculous idea I have ever heard.
99.9% of the websites out there are not delivering original, worthwile content. No, they're not even worth a penny a pageview.
The author uses current-day numbers to show how profitable websites could be. If the web moved to a pay-per-view system, you can bet that the amount of hits even big sites like google will drop off dramatically. The amount of users that would pay pay-per-view fees or even a flat amount would be dramatically reduced. I know that instead of surfing 50-100 pages a day, I wouldprobably surf only when I absolutely needed to. Websites would be closing as fast or faster than last year with the entire banner ad revenue fiasco. Instead of everyone being able to have a free voice, only big, corporate websites would prevail.
A standard search on google will yield hundreds of results. It very often takes visits to multiple pages before finding exactly what you're looking for. Why should I spend money visiting sites that are not answering my need?
Then there's the whole issue of copyrights. Currently, for any given movie, band, tv show, etc.. there are thousands of fan related websites. These are , IFAIK, mostly free to visit. The website owners generally don't profit from the site. Charging a pay-per-view fee would change all that. Fans could now be making money directly due to copyright materials owned by a movie studio, tv network, etc... Having such a website will then break many copyright laws and would the sites would be shut down faster than a whore house in Vatican City. Currently studios, etc.. mostly turn a blind eye to such sites.
The web grew because it was a place where you could freely speak and freely view other people's thoughts, etc... Remove the free from it, and you would bring the demise of the web as we know it.
Limiting free speech in regards to hate speeches is something that already exists here in Canada. So far, it has not been abused. And I personally feel that society as a whole is not ready to have the right to full free speech. We are far too immature, egocentric and hateful to be allowed that right.
# toc2
Taken from http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/lawroom/freespch.html
Free Speech and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. That means we're all free to say what we think. But what about statements that are hateful and racist? Where does free speech stop and hate crime start?
The Supreme Court of Canada asked this question in 1990. An Alberta high school teacher named James Keegstra was found guilty of the crime of "wilful promotion of hatred". Keegstra made many racist statements to his students, and parents complained about his teaching. Keegstra said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected his right to say these things.
The Supreme Court looked at the section of the Criminal Code that makes it a crime to wilfully promote hatred. The Court said the crime does take away people's freedom of speech - because it doesn't let them say things that encourage others to hate people because of their race, colour, religion or ethnic origin. But check out section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 means that a law which limits free speech is okay so long as:
It's a reasonable limit on free speech; and
The limit is justified in a free and democractic society.
The Supreme Court said that there are a number of reasons why limiting hateful speech makes sense.
Hate propaganda harms all of us.
Stopping the spread of hate propaganda makes it easier for people with different backgrounds to live together.
Stopping hate propaganda may even reduce violence in Canada.
Because of these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the Court said Keegstra had broken the law. Even though the law limits his right to free speech, it's a reasonable limit. Democratic societies must stop the spread of hate propaganda so everyone can live freely.
But the government has to be really careful about how it limits free speech. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the crime of "spreading false news" in the case of Ernst Zundel. They decided that the crime was too broad a limit of free speech. So even though Zundel published things which weren't true about the Holocaust, he wasn't guilty of a crime. His right to free speech was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finding the line between free speech and hate is difficult. One thing is for sure - the debate over free speech on the Internet is likely to continue.
Hate and the Canadian Human Rights Act
Another law fighting hate in Canada is the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act isn't a criminal law - in other words, it doesn't create crimes. But it does make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of:
race
national or ethnic origin
colour
religion
age
sex
sexual orientation
marital status
family status
disability
a crime for which they've been pardoned.
If someone is discriminated against, he or she can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission will investigate the complaint. If it finds there was discrimination, then it can order the person doing it to stop.
One section of the Human Rights Act is especially important in the battle against hate. Section 13(1) says:
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not an unreasonable limit on free speech.
Limiting free speech in regards to hate speeches is something that already exists here in Canada. So far, it has not been abused. And I personally feel that society as a whole is not ready to have the right to full free speech. We are far too immature, egocentric and hateful to be allowed that right. Taken from http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/lawroom/freespch.html# toc2
Free Speech and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. That means we're all free to say what we think. But what about statements that are hateful and racist? Where does free speech stop and hate crime start?
The Supreme Court of Canada asked this question in 1990. An Alberta high school teacher named James Keegstra was found guilty of the crime of "wilful promotion of hatred". Keegstra made many racist statements to his students, and parents complained about his teaching. Keegstra said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected his right to say these things.
The Supreme Court looked at the section of the Criminal Code that makes it a crime to wilfully promote hatred. The Court said the crime does take away people's freedom of speech - because it doesn't let them say things that encourage others to hate people because of their race, colour, religion or ethnic origin. But check out section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 means that a law which limits free speech is okay so long as:
It's a reasonable limit on free speech; and
The limit is justified in a free and democractic society.
The Supreme Court said that there are a number of reasons why limiting hateful speech makes sense.
Hate propaganda harms all of us.
Stopping the spread of hate propaganda makes it easier for people with different backgrounds to live together.
Stopping hate propaganda may even reduce violence in Canada.
Because of these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the Court said Keegstra had broken the law. Even though the law limits his right to free speech, it's a reasonable limit. Democratic societies must stop the spread of hate propaganda so everyone can live freely.
But the government has to be really careful about how it limits free speech. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the crime of "spreading false news" in the case of Ernst Zundel. They decided that the crime was too broad a limit of free speech. So even though Zundel published things which weren't true about the Holocaust, he wasn't guilty of a crime. His right to free speech was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finding the line between free speech and hate is difficult. One thing is for sure - the debate over free speech on the Internet is likely to continue.
Hate and the Canadian Human Rights Act
Another law fighting hate in Canada is the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act isn't a criminal law - in other words, it doesn't create crimes. But it does make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of:
race
national or ethnic origin
colour
religion
age
sex
sexual orientation
marital status
family status
disability
a crime for which they've been pardoned.
If someone is discriminated against, he or she can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission will investigate the complaint. If it finds there was discrimination, then it can order the person doing it to stop.
One section of the Human Rights Act is especially important in the battle against hate. Section 13(1) says:
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not an unreasonable limit on free speech.
As much as I dislike some of their tactics, I never wanted the justice dept to 'destroy' or break up Microsoft.
But I do believe that fines should have been levied for some of their actions and tactics, possibly with some kind of regulations put in place to make sure they don't abuse their near-monopoly.
This ruling doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
Why??????? this totally sucks
Why is this news on Slashdot? It's not unusual for a help desk, whether it's Internet based or any other, to support an OS soon after release.
/. ? it's definately not newsworthy. I've also noticed that most of those articles and duplicate articles are posted by timothy. Is this a trend? Hmmmmm
I would say it would be more unusual for a help desk to actually support an OS within even a couple of months of release.
A help desk I used to work for only started to officially support Win2000 6 months ago (which is what, 2 years after release?). They didn't start supporting NT until 98 or so.
Again, I ask, why is this story even on
What's the next news headline? CmdrTaco eats at KFC?
I don't know about the US, but in Canada it is illegal for anyone, including your employer, to do body/bag/car searches without either your consent or a search warrant, in which case, the search would be performed by a law officer, and not your employer/security guard.
Why? Because as soon as things like this virus starts affecting the network/backbone, you have to take action to protect it, that's the ISPs business. And trust me, this virus has been affecting backbones worldwide.
What you mention was actually Warcraft III in its infancy. About a year ago, Blizzard moved away from the RPG/Adventure aspect to turn Warcraft III into a strategy game like it's predecessors.
I also wonder why 3 month old news is being posted on Slashdot. If you want to read up on RPG news, check out Canada Gaming, which covered this news months ago.