Blog

On December 7^th, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada will, according to the National Post, examine “whether the common practice of hyperlinking can expose a writer to a lawsuit.” At the heart of the case is Wayne Crookes, who is described by the Montreal Gazette as a “former campaign organizer and financial backer of the Green Party of Canada.”

Crookes is alleging that blogger Jon Newton defamed him by having links that pointed to another website, which itself contains what Wayne Crookes believes to be defamatory content. The Montreal Gazette asserts that “Newton did not repeat the content, nor did he include any comment about the links“, and that as such, Crooke “lost [his original case] in the B.C. Court of Appeal, which upheld a trial judge’s decision that hyperlinks are like footnotes and do not constitute republication.”

However, Jon Newton is not the only person to have dealings with Mr. Wayne Crookes. Michael Geist, university professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, was also previously targeted by Wayne Crookes. In Geist’s words:

I have not been served with the suit, but the reports indicate that I am being sued for an allegedly defamatory third party comment on my site that I took down and for writing about, and linking to, P2PNet.net, which in turn linked to another site that allegedly contained a defamatory posting. In other words, I’m reportedly being sued for maintaining a blogroll that links to a site that links to a site that contains some allegedly defamatory third party comments.

It should be noted that Crookes had also launched cases against Google, Wikipedia, as well as MySpace and Yahoo. It places into question as to whether, as one commenter put it, Crookes is a “vexatious litigant.”

I don’t believe that Crookes will succeed with the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, I remain concerned – because the case managed to get this far in the first place. It is my hope that the outcome with the Supreme Court of Canada is that it sets a precedent such that posting a hyperlink would not be tantamount to defamatory publication.

Otherwise, I myself would be open to lawsuit by posting this very article – because the opinions in the comments section of some of the sites I’ve linked to express less than favourable views of Mr. Crookes. Those views could consequently be perhaps perceived as defamatory, and I would be liable for having linked to them.

Follow the Case on the Supreme Court Website:
Summary, Factums, and Docket

PS. I apologize to my lawyer friends for any screw-ups with the use of legal terms in the above posting.

After much procrastination, I finally took the plunge and went to get myself tested for STIs and HIV. This is something that all sexually active individuals ought to do, regardless of how low the chances of them thinking they have any of the conditions are.

I had put it off because I had heard from more than one source that it hurt like hell. That they jabbed something up your urethra, and that it was really unpleasant. As it turns out, that procedure has since been replaced with a pee test.

The tests for STIs for me were as follows:

• Two swabs from the mouth. Painless.
• Pee in a cup. Painless.
• Two swabs from the rectum. Pleasurable.
• Blood draw. Painless.

The HIV testing is done by pricking your finger, and the results are instant – though interestingly enough, a test done today identifies whether you’re HIV negative or questionable 12 weeks ago. So having taken my test on September 23rd, I found out that on June 23rd, I was HIV negative. If I wanted to know whether I was HIV negative today, I’d have to take the test in 12 weeks.

The HIV test was the only one where the results were instant. For the others, the results come in about 3-4 weeks after the test. If you’re sexually active, I’d strongly suggest that you get tested – and contrary to popular belief: it doesn’t hurt!

With Chapters having recently unveiled their budget-priced Kobo eReader, it seems like every major book player has jumped on the electronic book bandwagon. There’s lots to like about these little digital wonders: you can fit thousands of novels into something that’s thinner than a children’s book. That’s far more pleasing to bring along on a trip than a pile of books. The screens use eInk, so they don’t tire the eyes like a traditional screen. It’s more like looking at paper.

However, I myself, will never buy an eBook. There’s a few reasons for this. For one, I see the price of eBooks as being far too high. Comparing prices, eBooks are still only a few dollars cheaper than their paper counterparts. This is amazing to me, given that digital distribution is virtually free. It has been suggested that the prices of eBooks are artificially inflated as a means for publishers to protect their main revenue stream, the paper book.

Second of all, I own the [paper] books I buy. I can resell them, if I so desire. I can lend them to a friend or a family member. Not so with an eBook. In fact, the digital controls placed on the eBooks mean that publishers can even delete legitimately purchased books from your eReader, as happened to customers in the ironic Amazon “1984” and “Animal Farm” fiasco.

Other publishers sell you time-limited titles. You can buy eBook textbooks – which self-destruct after three months. You can’t resell them like you do your old textbooks. This time-limited practice is reasonable if the cost reflected it, but alas – the price for these digital textbooks is almost as bad as their hardcover brethren.

The books I buy don’t require batteries. They don’t self-destruct after a time defined by the publisher. If the publisher or distributor disappears, my books will still be there. I don’t have to worry about them vanishing in cyberspace. They’ll work no matter where I go in the world.

That’s not to say I won’t buy an eReader. I’ll gladly use it to read long PDF documents, and to download free books from legitimate outlets such as Project Gutenberg. But if I am to actually purchase a book, I will never go the eBook route.

Windows and Linux are both mature operating systems, and they both have their advantages. If you’re like me, then you like having both. Windows for those high-performance commercial games such as the newly released Starcraft 2, and Linux for it’s multitude of awesome open-source tools.

Now usually, if you want to have both platforms running on your computer, you think of dual-booting. You install both operating systems onto the computer, and when you start up, you choose the one you want to boot into. Although that’s better than nothing, you still end up in a situation where you’re running one operating system and kind of wish you had access to software that only runs on the other.

This is where what I do comes in. I use a virtual machine (the free VirtualBox) so that I can run both at the same time. I have Windows 7 as my host OS, which allows me to keep that performance for my games. Meanwhile, I run Ubuntu 10.04 as my guest OS.

To create the illusion of a single seamless desktop, I have the virtual machine go full-screen and take up the whole right monitor. I download a dual-monitor wallpaper from mandolux, with one half of the image taking up the left (Windows-dominated) screen, and the other taking up the right (Linux-dominated) screen. Because the VM is an application within Windows, the Windows applications can be placed on either screen, as in the screenshot above. This further reinforces the idea of a single unified desktop when in reality two operating systems are running simultaneously.

Now I can run both my Windows and Linux applications together, at the same time. As for the speed of the Linux VM: not an issue. I have Compiz effects running, and on my two-year old Intel box, I’ve never hit a performance snag.