Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/12/28/toronto-ride-tweets.html

Share: Facebook | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Reddit | Mister-Wong| Mixx

Ever since toronto introduced the new DUI laws, its become a mystery how much one can drink, how long before you drive. The rule of thumb is dont drink at all!

Before the new laws where introduced one had a "warn" that would be a buffer between being a criminal, and a normal driver on the road.

It doesnt suprise me that the internet took matter into their own hands with #ride. Dont get me wrong, im not condoning #ride, or praising it, but i have to be honest, im always terrified coming up to a ride stop if i had a beer 6 hours before hand!

"Spot checks, one of the key things about it is that it's random and you don't know where they are," --Const. Scott Mills

Link: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/092810-texting-bans-dont-work.html

Share: Facebook | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Reddit | Mister-Wong| Mixx

As more states ban the practice – Massachusetts will become the 31st to do so on Thursday – new research from the insurance industry claims that the prohibition of texting while driving does not reduce auto crashes … and may actually increase them.

Read more »

Share: Facebook | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Reddit | Mister-Wong| Mixx

Ontario is making the province's roads safer for all Ontarians with new changes that will help protect young and novice drivers.

Starting August 1:

All drivers 21 years of age and younger must have a zero blood alcohol level when they get behind the wheel or face:
An immediate 24-hour licence suspension
30-day licence suspension
Up to $500 in fines
Drivers in the Graduated Licensing System will face tougher penalties if they violate the conditions of their licence or if they are convicted of any Highway Traffic Act offences that carry four or more demerit points. Penalties include:
30-day licence suspension for the first instance
90-day licence suspension for a second instance
Further instances can lead to a cancellation of the licence and other penalties.
Also, effective August 3, eligible drivers convicted of an impaired driving offence for the first time, will be able to reduce their licence suspension if they agree to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle, at their own cost. This will help impaired drivers change their behaviour to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders.

These changes are part of the Road Safety Act 2009 and 2007's Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act and will help keep drivers safe on Ontario roads.

QUICK FACTS

The peak ages of drinking and driving collisions are 19, 20 and 21.
In Ontario, 235 drivers age 21 and under were killed in drinking and driving collisions in the latest 10-year period for which statistics are available.
Crashes involving drivers suspended for a drinking and driving conviction are 3.4 times more likely to be fatal.
LEARN MORE

Making Ontario's Roads Safer
Here's What Ontario's Road Safety Partners Are Saying
The Road Safety Act, 2009
The Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act, 2007
Learn more about Ontario's drinking and driving laws

Share: Facebook | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Reddit | Mister-Wong| Mixx

Over the last year I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about “cloud computing” and by now you’re probably wondering: what exactly is it?

At Webopedia.com, “Cloud Computing” is defined as a “type of computing that is comparable to grid computing, relies on sharing computing resources rather than having local servers or personal devices to handle applications. The goal of cloud computing is to apply traditional supercomputing power (normally used by military and research facilities) to perform tens of trillions of computations per second.”
Cloud Computing: What's next?

What is Cloud Computing?

In other words, cloud computing makes it possible for your data and software platforms and services to be stored offsite, in the “cloud”.

Online services of this type, which include software as a system (SaaS) and platforms as a system (PaaS), are becoming increasingly common and, for many lawyers, are an attractive alternative to the traditional law practice management software installed and maintained on a local server within a law office.

Online services available to attorneys now include law practice management systems, document management and storage platforms, secure document and information exchange services, secure email networks, digital dictation services and billing/timekeeping services. The online platforms are attractive, economical and viable alternatives for firms of all sizes.

Advantages include lower costs due to reduced overhead, less hassle related to maintaining the and upgrading the case management system and greater flexibility, since the Web-based system can be accessed anywhere, at anytime.

Taking advantage of cloud computing services allows firms to focus on the ever-important task of practicing law while the cloud computing provider operates, updates and maintains the practice management software.

Share: Facebook | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Reddit | Mister-Wong| Mixx

Susan Clairmont
The Hamilton Spectator

Everyone is allowed to take notes in court.

Period.

But the other day a Toronto justice of the peace decided to make up his own rules. He banned "note-taking" in his Etobicoke courtroom where bail hearings were being held for G20 protesters.

It was the latest -- and most ridiculous -- in a series of bizarre steps taken by court officials to build a big fat wall around the whole judicial process for accused demonstrators.

So much for an open and transparent court system. So much for accountability.

On Tuesday I went to the Etobicoke courthouse for the bail hearing of Peter Hopperton, a Hamilton guy facing charges related to the summit. He is accused of being a leader of the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance, planning violent and destructive activities during the protests. He was arrested for conspiring to commit mischief and conspiring to assault and obstruct police.

Before going, I knew it was not going to be a routine day at court.

Toronto journalists who had already been covering some of the protesters' court appearances had reported on the far-from-normal proceedings. For instance, at one hearing, the media and public were banned from the courtroom. They were, however, allowed to sit in a room right next door and watch the bail hearing unfold on a fuzzy closed-circuit TV screen.

It is as though the judiciary is trying to discourage people from watching justice happen.

In Etobicoke, I was puzzled by the tiny courtroom chosen for Hopperton's hearing. An hour before it was to begin there was already a considerable crowd of family, supporters and media waiting in the hall. Too many to squeeze into the small room.

The same thing happened five years ago for the so-called Toronto 18 homegrown terrorist case. Nearly 200 journalists descended upon the Brampton courthouse, only to find the room set aside wouldn't even hold all the lawyers. Court administrators quickly moved the case to the largest courtroom in the building, but even then only a quarter of us -- I was one of the lucky ones -- made it in.

In Etobicoke, though, no provisions were made. We were forced to sit nearly on one another's laps. A few supporters standing at the back of the court were told they needed to find a seat or leave.

Once things got under way, the media was reminded of the publication ban put in place earlier. It is Section 517 of the Criminal Code of Canada and is fairly standard for bail hearings, although not automatic. What it says, essentially, is that you can't publish, broadcast or otherwise disseminate evidence heard at the bail hearing.

The reasoning behind that publication ban, according to top media lawyer Brian Rogers, is to "protect the future jury trial of the accused from prejudice."

What that means to the media is that we still take notes on everything. But we only publish the parts not covered by the ban: the outcome of the hearing, the bail conditions, the description of the courtroom and the people in it. Later, after the charges have been dealt with through a trial or a plea, the media can go back to their notes from the bail hearing and publish them, because the ban no longer applies.

So, as per usual, I took notes at Hopperton's hearing. (It is against the law to take visual or audio recordings in a courthouse.) So did the other journalists. But after the morning break, we came back into court to have the clerk announce that Mark Conacher, appointed a JP in 2003, was ordering that no note-taking would be allowed in the courtroom.

I exchanged a bewildered look with Peter Small, court reporter from the Toronto Star.

Huh?

When the JP returned to court, Peter was on his feet in a heartbeat asking about taking notes.

"The ban doesn't apply to the media," Conacher answered before resuming the hearing.

Whew. I could still take notes.

But what about Hopperton's friends? And family? And the guy sitting near me who occasionally writes for an alternative newspaper?

Huh?

Conacher offered no explanation. Cited no law.

Because there is no good explanation. And there is no law. The publication ban doesn't prevent taking notes. It only limits what you can do with them afterward.

"Publication means showing it to somebody else," says Rogers. He has never heard of a JP or judge banning note-taking.

"There's nothing in the section (of the Criminal Code) he's relying on to impose that order. This is something the JP has come up with on his own."

Court security took Conacher's no-note-taking decree to heart. I was asked if I was "with the media" several times that day by officers who eyed my notebook as if it was contraband.

I have since left a message with Conacher's office hoping to interview him about the note-taking. He has not returned my call.

The whole thing is enough to leave one questioning the logic and order of things. Even those of us who aren't anarchists.