"The Machine That Won the War" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. The story first appeared in the October 1961 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and was reprinted in the collections Nightfall and Other Stories (1969) and Robot Dreams (1986). It was also printed in a contemporary edition of Reader's Digest, illustrated. It is one of a loosely connected series of such stories concerning a fictional supercomputer called Multivac. == Plot summary == Three influential leaders of the human race meet in the aftermath of a successful war against the Denebians. Discussing how the vast and powerful Multivac computer was a decisive factor in the war, each of the men admits that in fact, he falsified his part of the decision process because he felt that the situation was too complex to follow normal procedures. John Henderson, Multivac's Chief Programmer, admits that he altered the data being fed to Multivac, since the populace could not be trusted to report accurate information in the current situation. Max Jablonski then admits that he altered the data that Multivac produced, since he knew that Multivac was not in good working order due to manpower and spare parts shortage. Finally, Lamar Swift, executive director of the Solar Federation, reveals that he had not trusted the reports produced by Multivac, and had made the final decisions purely on the toss of a coin.
WinFIG
WinFIG is a proprietary shareware vector graphics editor application. The file format and rendering are as close to Xfig as possible, but the program takes advantage of Windows features like clipboard, printer preview, multiple documents etc. As of 2011, WinFIG is under active development, with new features being added regularly. == History == The first release was in March 2003 and based on the Amiga program AmiFIG by the same author, which is also an Xfig compatible vector drawing application. WinFIG was not created by porting the Xfig source code to Windows. It is an independent implementation. Starting with release 4.0 WinFIG was ported from MFC to the Qt toolkit as the application framework and thereby enabling the first release of a Linux version. After Version 7.8 the Version scheme changes to years with version 2021.1. == Interface and usability == WinFIG is designed to provide a clear, efficient and convenient graphical user interface. It allows working on multiple documents using an MDI user interface and provides unlimited undo and redo of actions. == Features == === Object creation === The basic types of objects in WinFIG are: Open and closed Splines Ellipses Polylines and Polygons Texts LaTeX formatted texts Arcs Images: PNG, GIF, JPEG, EPS and more Compound objects, which are hierarchical compositions of objects Objects can have several attributes, which depend on the object type: Line width Line style Line cap style Line join style Arrows Outline color, fill color and fill pattern === Object manipulation === move copy scale rotate align add/delete points from lines or splines copy object attributes Numerical input of point coordinates === Exports === WinFIG can export into various formats: Raster formats: GIF, JPEG, PNG, PPM, XBM, XPM, PCX, TIFF, SLD Formats for printed documents: PostScript, PDF, LaTeX, HP-GL (printer control language used by Hewlett-Packard plotters), Vector graphics formats: EPS, SVG, PSTricks, TPIC, PIC, CGM, Metafont, MetaPost, EMF, Tk. === Miscellaneous === Winfig can handle smart links. A smart link is a moving connection from a source to a target object. It is established by connecting the end point of a line or spline to another object. The connecting line or spline segment follows the movements of the target object. Smart links are useful for diagrams, graphs etc. WinFIG can show a grid and provides several magnet modes for constraining editing operations to discrete coordinates. Objects can be organized in layers to control their Z-order. This is important to control overlapping of filled shapes. Object library: drawings can be stored in a special sub-folder in the program installation directory, which makes them available in the library dialog for easy reuse.
Anti-social Media Bill (Nigeria)
Anti-social Media Bill was introduced by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 5 November 2019 to criminalise the use of the social media in peddling false or malicious information. The original title of the bill is Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulations Bill 2019. It was sponsored by Senator Mohammed Sani Musa from the largely conservative northern Nigeria. After the bill passed second reading on the floor of the Nigeria Senate and its details were made public, information emerged on the social media accusing the sponsor of the bill of plagiarising a similar law in Singapore which is at the bottom of global ranking in the freedom of speech and of the press. But the senator denied that he plagiarised Singaporean law. == Opposition to the bill == Angry reactions trailed the introduction of the bill, and a number of civil society organisations, human rights activists, and Nigerian citizens unanimously opposed the bill. International rights group, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned the proposed legislation saying it is aimed at gagging freedom of speech which is a universal right in a country of over two hundred million people. Opposition political parties are very critical of the bill and accused the government of attempting to strip bare, Nigerian citizens of their rights to free speech and destroying same social media on whose power and influence the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC came to power in 2015. Nigeria Information Minister, Lai Mohammed has been at the center of public criticism because he is suspected to be the brain behind the proposed act. Lai was a former spokesman of then opposition All Progressives Congress. A "Stop the Social Media Bill! You can no longer take our rights from us" online petition campaign to force the Nigeria parliament to drop the bill received over 90,000 signatures within 24 hours. In November 2019, after the bill passed second reading in the senate, Akon Eyakenyi, a senator from Akwa Ibom State publicly said he would resist the bill. === Support for the bill === Those who support the proposed act especially Senators have often argued that the law would help curtail hate speech. President Muhammad Buhari who is seen as a beneficiary of the influence and power of the social media and free speech has been mute about it. But the president's senior aides and family members have publicly spoken in support of the bill. In November 2019, the wife of the president, Aisha Buhari, told a gathering at the Nigeria's National Mosque in the capital, Abuja that if China with over one billion people could regulate the social media, Nigeria should do same. But Nigerians reacted saying Nigeria is not a one-party communist state like China. Days later, a daughter to the president, Zahra Indimi told a gathering of young people in Abuja that social media had become a potent weapon for bullying those they thought were doing better than them in terms of social class and called for a critical regulation. == Key provisions of the bill == === Title === Protection from Internet Falsehoods, Manipulations and Other Related Matters Bill 2019. === Explanatory memorandum === This Act is to prevent Falsehoods and Manipulations in Internet transmission and correspondences in Nigeria. To suppress falsehoods and manipulations and counter the effects of such communications and transmissions and to sanction offenders with a view to encouraging and enhancing transparency by Social Media Platforms using the internet correspondences. === Objectives === One objective of the bill is to prevent the transmission of false statements or declaration of facts in Nigeria. Another objective of the bill is to end the financing of online mediums that transmit false statements. Measures will be taken to detect and control inauthentic behaviour and misuse of online accounts (parody accounts). When paid content is posted towards a political end, there will be measures to ensure the poster discloses such information. There will be sanction for offenders. === Transmission of false statement === According to the bill, a person must not: Transmit a statement that is false or, Transmit a statement that might: i. Affect the security or any part of Nigeria. ii. Affect public health, public safety or public finance. iii. Affect Nigeria's relationship with other countries. iv. influence the outcome of an election to any office in a general election. v. Cause enmity or hatred towards a person or group of persons. Anyone guilty of the above is liable to a fine of N300,000 or three years' imprisonment or both (for individual); and a fine not exceeding ten million naira (for corporate organisations). Same punishment applies for fake online accounts that transmit statements listed above. === Parody accounts === The bill says a person shall not open an account to transmit false statement. Anyone found guilty will be fined N200,000 or three years' imprisonment or both (for an individual) or five million naira (for corporate organisations). If such accounts transmit a statement that will affect security or influence the outcome of an election, such a person will be fined N300,000 or three years' imprisonment or both. If a person receives payment or reward to help another to transmit false statements knowingly, he/she is liable to a fine of N150,000 or three years' imprisonment or both. If a person receives payment or reward to help another to transmit a statement affects security or influence the outcome of an election, the fine is N300,000 or three years' imprisonment or both (for individual) and ten million naira for organisations. === Declaration === According to the bill, a law enforcement department can issue a "declaration" to offenders. And this declaration will be issued even if the "false statement" has been corrected or pulled down. The offender will be required to publish a "correction notice" in a specified newspaper, online location or other printed publication of Nigeria. Failure to comply, a person is liable to N200,000 or 12 months' imprisonment or both (for individual) and five million naira for organisations. === Access blocking order === The bill says the law enforcement department will also issue an access blocking order to offenders. The law enforcement department may direct the NCC to order the internet access service provider to disable access by users in Nigeria to the online location and the NCC must give the internet access service provider an access blocking order. An internet access service provider that does not comply with any access blocking order is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten million naira for each day during any part of which that order is not fully complied with, up to a total of five million naira.
Line splice
In electrical engineering and telecommunications, a line splice is a joint directly connecting lengths of electrical cables (electrical splice) or optical fibers (optical splice). The splices are often protected by sleeves. == Splicing of copper wires == The splicing of copper wires happens in the following steps: The cores are laid one above the other at the junction. The core insulation is removed. The wires are wrapped two to three times around each other (twisting). The bare veins on a length of about 3 cm "strangle" or "twist". In some cases, the strangulation is soldered. To isolate the splice, an insulating sleeve made of paper or plastic is pushed over it. The splicing of copper wires is mainly used on paper insulated wires. LSA techniques (LSA: soldering, screwing and stripping free) are used to connect copper wires, making the copper wires faster and easier to connect. LSA techniques include: Wire connection sleeves (AVH = Adernverbindungshülsen) and other crimp connectors. The two wires to be connected are inserted into the AVH without being stripped, which is then compressed with special pliers. The about 2 cm long AVH consist of contact, pressure and insulation. For wire connection strips (AVL = Adernverbindungsleisten) several pairs of wires (10 = AVL10 or 20 = AVL20) are inserted, the strip is then closed with a lid and pressed together with a hydraulic press, which ensures the connection. == Splicing of glass fibers == Fiber-optic cables are spliced using a special arc-splicer, with installation cables connected at their ends to respective "pigtails" - short individual fibers with fiber-optic connectors at one end. The splicer precisely adjusts the light-guiding cores of the two ends of the glass fibers to be spliced. The adjustment is done fully automatically in modern devices, whereas in older models this is carried out manually by means of micrometer screws and microscope. An experienced splicer can precisely position the fiber ends within a few seconds. Subsequently, the fibers are fused together (welded) with an electric arc. Since no additional material is added, such as gas welding or soldering, this is called a "fusion splice". Depending on the quality of the splicing process, attenuation values at the splice points are achieved by 0.3 dB, with good splices also below 0.02 dB. For newer generation devices, alignment is done automatically by motors. Here one differentiates core and jacket centering. At core centering (usually single-mode fibers), the fiber cores are aligned. A possible core offset with respect to the jacket is corrected. In the jacket centering (usually in multimode fibers), the fibers are adjusted to each other by means of electronic image processing in front of the splice. When working with good equipment, the damping value is according to experience at max. 0.1 dB. Measurements are made by means of special measuring devices including optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR). A good splice should have an attenuation of less than 0.3 dB over the entire distance. Finished fiber optic splices are housed in splice boxes. One differentiates: Fusion splice Adhesive splicing Crimp splice or NENP (no-epoxy no-polish), mechanical splice
Elonis v. United States
Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines (under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening. In controversy were the purported threats of violent rap lyrics written by Anthony Douglas Elonis and posted to Facebook under a pseudonym. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner. It was the first time the Court has heard a case considering true threats and the limits of speech on social media. == Background == In May 2010, Elonis was in the process of divorce and made a number of public Facebook posts. Prior to his postings, he had lost his job at an amusement park. He "posted the script of a sketch" by The Whitest Kids U' Know, which originally referenced saying "I want to kill the President of the United States" and replaced the president with his wife: Elonis ended the post with this statement: "Art is about pushing limits. I'm willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?" A week later, Elonis posted about local law enforcement and a kindergarten class, which caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Then, he wrote a post on Facebook about one of the agents who visited him: He concluded: == Arrest and Conviction == These actions led to Elonis's arrest on December 8, 2010. He was indicted by a grand jury on five counts of threats to his estranged ex-wife, park employees and visitors, local law enforcement, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class that had been relayed through interstate communication. At the district court, Elonis moved to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege that he had intended to threaten anyone, claiming his Facebook post was not were not intended as a threat. He argued that, as an aspiring rap artist, his posts were intended to be a form of artistic expression to help him cope with his recent loses. According to him, he did not mean anything said in his posts in a literal sense. His motion was denied. He requested a jury instruction that "the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat", which was also denied. He was convicted on the last four of the five counts, and was sentenced to 44 months in prison and three years on supervised release. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Third Circuit, renewing his challenge to the jury instructions. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court based on lack of any attempt to show intent to threaten and on First Amendment rights. == Decision == On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Elonis's conviction in an 8–1 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a seven-justice majority, Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion. The finding of the circuit court was reversed and the matter remanded. === Majority opinion === The majority opinion, written by Roberts, did not rule on First Amendment matters or on the question of whether recklessness was sufficient mens rea to show intent. It ruled that mens rea was required to prove the commission of a crime under §875(c). Importantly, the mens rea issue had been preserved for review, since Elonis had raised that objection at every stage of the previous proceedings. The government contended that the presence of the words "intent to extort" in §875(b) and §875(d) implied that the absence in §875(c) was constructive. The court disagreed, holding that the absence of the language in §875(c) was because the section was intended to have a broader scope than threats relating to extortion. The opinion drew on many Supreme Court cases holding that in criminal law, mens rea was required though it had not been mentioned explicitly in statute. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elonis. === Alito's concurrence === Justice Samuel Alito, concurring in part and dissenting in part, opined that while agreeing that mens rea was required and specifically that showing negligence was not sufficient, the court should have ruled on the question of recklessness. He further opined that recklessness was sufficient to show a crime under that provision on the basis that going further would amount to amending the statute, rather than interpreting it. Since Elonis explicitly argued that recklessness was not sufficient, Alito said: I would therefore remand for the Third Circuit to determine if Elonis’s failure (indeed, refusal) to argue for recklessness prevents reversal of his conviction. The Third Circuit should also have the opportunity to consider whether the conviction could be upheld on harmless error grounds. Alito also addressed the First Amendment question, elided by the majority opinion. He held that "lyrics in songs that are performed for an audience or sold in recorded form are unlikely to be interpreted as a real threat to a real person. ... Statements on social media that are pointedly directed at their victims, by contrast, are much more likely to be taken seriously." === Thomas's dissent === Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, wrote against discarding the "general intent" standard without replacing it with a clearer standard. Thomas argued that "there is no historical practice requiring more than general intent when a statute regulates speech." Thomas cited Rosen v. United States, arguing that general intent was sufficient in this case. However, the majority opinion offers refutation in that Rosen turned on ignorance of the law: knowledge as to whether material was legally obscene, not on whether it was intended to be obscene. Thomas also supported the government's claim that the presence of "intent to extort" language in the adjacent §875(b) and did not address the majority's reasoning on that language. Thomas used precedent, notably from the states and 18th-century England based on other but similar and, arguably, influencing legislation to support his "general intent" claim. Thomas also drew a parallel with general intent in tort. While he sought to address the First Amendment issues, he never strayed far from "general intent". == Aftermath == On remand, the Third Circuit reaffirmed the conviction "concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Elonis would have been convicted if the jury had been properly instructed" and therefore was harmless error. In 2022, Elonis was once again arrested and indicted on three counts of cyberstalking involving three people. It was discovered that between 2018 and 2021, Elonis had sent numerous threatening messages over email, text, voice mail, and social media platforms like Twitter to a former prosecutor of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, his ex-girlfriend, and ex-wife. On August 5, after a five-day trial, Elonis was found guilty on all three counts, and on March 23, 2023, he was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Edward G. Smith of Easton, Pennsylvania to twelve years and seven months in prison.
Dominant resource fairness
Dominant resource fairness (DRF) is a rule for fair division. It is particularly useful for dividing computing resources in among users in cloud computing environments, where each user may require a different combination of resources. DRF was presented by Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica in 2011. == Motivation == In an environment with a single resource, a widely used criterion is max-min fairness, which aims to maximize the minimum amount of resource given to a user. But in cloud computing, it is required to share different types of resource, such as: memory, CPU, bandwidth and disk-space. Previous fair schedulers, such as in Apache Hadoop, reduced the multi-resource setting to a single-resource setting by defining nodes with a fixed amount of each resource (e.g. 4 CPU, 32 MB memory, etc.), and dividing slots which are fractions of nodes. But this method is inefficient, since not all users need the same ratio of resources. For example, some users need more CPU whereas other users need more memory. As a result, most tasks either under-utilize or over-utilize their resources. DRF solves the problem by maximizing the minimum amount of the dominant resource given to a user (then the second-minimum etc., in a leximin order). The dominant resource may be different for different users. For example, if user A runs CPU-heavy tasks and user B runs memory-heavy tasks, DRF will try to equalize the CPU share given to user A and the memory share given to user B. == Definition == There are m resources. The total capacities of the resources are r1,...,rm. There are n users. Each users runs individual tasks. Each task has a demand-vector (d1,..,dm), representing the amount it needs of each resource. It is implicitly assumed that the utility of a user equals the number of tasks he can perform. For example, if user A runs tasks with demand-vector [1 CPU, 4 GB RAM], and receives 3 CPU and 8 GB RAM, then his utility is 2, since he can perform only 2 tasks. More generally, the utility of a user receiving x1,...,xm resources is minj(xj/dj), that is, the users have Leontief utilities. The demand-vectors are normalized to fractions of the capacities. For example, if the system has 9 CPUs and 18 GB RAM, then the above demand-vector is normalized to [1/9 CPU, 2/9 GB]. For each user, the resource with the highest demand-fraction is called the dominant resource. In the above example, the dominant resource is memory, as 2/9 is the largest fraction. If user B runs a task with demand-vector [3 CPU, 1 GB], which is normalized to [1/3 CPU, 1/18 GB], then his dominant resource is CPU. DRF aims to find the maximum x such that all agents can receive at least x of their dominant resource. In the above example, this maximum x is 2/3: User A gets 3 tasks, which require 3/9 CPU and 2/3 GB. User B gets 2 tasks, which require 2/3 CPU and 1/9 GB. The maximum x can be found by solving a linear program; see Lexicographic max-min optimization. Alternatively, the DRF can be computed sequentially. The algorithm tracks the amount of dominant resource used by each user. At each round, it finds a user with the smallest allocated dominant resource so far, and allocates the next task of this user. Note that this procedure allows the same user to run tasks with different demand vectors. == Properties == DRF has several advantages over other policies for resource allocation. Proportionality: each user receives at least as much resources as they could get in a system in which all resources are partitioned equally among users (the authors call this condition "sharing incentive"). Strategyproofness: a user cannot get a larger allocation by lying about his needs. Strategyproofness is important, as evidence from cloud operators show that users try to manipulate the servers in order to get better allocations. Envy-freeness: no user would prefer the allocation of another user. Pareto efficiency: no other allocation is better for some users and not worse for anyone. Population monotonicity: when a user leaves the system, the allocations of remaining users do not decrease. When there is a single resource that is a bottleneck resource (highly demanded by all users), DRF reduces to max-min fairness. However, DRF violates resource monotonicity: when resources are added to the system, some allocations might decrease. == Extensions == Weighted DRF is an extension of DRF to settings in which different users have different weights (representing their different entitlements). Parkes, Procaccia and Shah formally extend weighted DRF to a setting in which some users do not need all resources (that is, they may have demand 0 to some resource). They prove that the extended version still satisfies proportionality, Pareto-efficiency, envy-freeness, strategyproofness, and even Group strategyproofness. On the other hand, they show that DRF may yield poor utilitarian social welfare, that is, the sum of utilities may be only 1/m of the optimum. However, they prove that any mechanism satisfying one of proportionality, envy-freeness or strategyproofness may suffers from the same low utilitarian welfare. They also extend DRF to the setting in which the users' demands are indivisible (as in fair item allocation). For the indivisible setting, they relax envy-freeness to EF1. They show that strategyproofness is incompatible with PO+EF1 or with PO+proportionality. However, a mechanism called SequentialMinMax satisfies efficiency, proportionality and EF1. Wang, Li and Liang present DRFH - an extension of DRF to a system with several heterogeneous servers. == Implementation == DRF was first implemented in Apache Mesos - a cluster resource manager, and it led to better throughput and fairness than previously used fair-sharing schemes.
Pridgen v University of Calgary
Pridgen v University of Calgary was freedom of speech case which took place in Alberta, Canada, in 2010. The case deals with two university students, Keith and Steven Pridgen, who were found guilty and punished by the University of Calgary in 2008, on grounds of "non-academic misconduct". The University of Calgary defines "non-academic misconduct" as:(a) conduct which causes injury to a person and/or damage to University property and/or the property of any member of the University community; (b) unauthorized removal and/or unauthorized possession of University property; and (c) conduct which seriously disrupts the lawful educational and related activities of other students and/or University staff.The Court of the Queen's Bench of Alberta found the University of Calgary to be wrong in prosecuting ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, in regards to comments made about a professor on Facebook. The key ruling in this case was that the universities are not exempt from, and that these students were in fact protected under, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is notable as it highlights the jurisdiction of the Charter in terms of both new media technologies and university institutions in Canada. == Background == Keith and Steven Pridgen were undergraduate students at the University of Calgary in 2008. The twin brothers shared a Law and Society class being taught by Aruna Mitra. Professor Mitra was teaching this class for the first time in her career, and many of the students were very critical of her knowledge of the course. A Facebook page entitled “I NO Longer Fear Hell, I Took a Course with Aruna Mitra” was created, and many students began posting comments. In particular, Steven Pridgen's comment on November 13, 2007, read: “Somehow I think she just got lazy and gave everybody a 65....that's what I got. Does anybody know how to apply to have it remarked?” Many students had similar concerns to Pridgen's and after having their work re-marked, a number of them did in fact receive higher grades. Keith Pridgen also commented on August 26, 2008: “Hey fellow LWSO. Homees.. So I am quite sure Mitra is NO LONGER TEACHING ANY COURSES WITH THE U OF C !!!!! Remember when she told us she was a long-term professor? Well, Actually she was only sessional and picked up our class at the last moment because another prof wasn't able to do it ...lucky us. Well, anyways I think we should all congratulate ourselves for leaving a Mitra-free legacy for future students!” On September 4, 2008, Aruna Mitra complained about the Facebook page to the Interim Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary. Dean Tettey called a meeting for the ten students who posted material about Mitra on the Facebook page. The meeting took place on September 18, 2008, and included four professors from the department as well as the Dean. At this meeting, all ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, were found guilty of non-academic misconduct. On November 20, 2008, the Appellant's received a letter from Dean Tettey advising them that their comments “clearly caused unwarranted professional and personal injury to Prof. Mitra and clearly meets the criteria for non-academic misconduct as outlined in the University of Calgary Calendar”. Keith Pridgen was put on probation for 24 months, and both brothers were required to write a letter of apology to Prof. Mitra and refrain from posting or circulating defamatory material regarding any faculty members of the University of Calgary. The Pridgen brothers appealed the decision to the University of Calgary Review Committee and later to the Board of Governors of the University of Calgary however neither of these attempts succeeded in having the decision overturned. == Opinion of the Court == Eight main issues to be determined were laid out by the Honourable Madam Justice J. Strekaf: (a) Does the Charter apply to the disciplinary proceedings taken by the Respondent; (b) If, so were the Applicants' Charter rights infringed; (c) Were the actions taken by the University ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta; (d) Did the Board of Governors err in refusing to hear the Applicants appeals; (e) Were the Applicants' denied a fair hearing; (f) Did the Review Committee provide adequate reasons for its decisions; (g) Did the Review Committee err in concluding that the activities of the Applicants constituted non-academic misconduct; and (h) What, if any, remedy should be granted to the Applicants. The Court determined from previous cases that "a non-government entity may still be subject to the Charter of Rights and freedoms when implementing a specific government policy or program". Justice Strekaf distinguished that the University was acting as agent of the provincial government in providing accessible post-secondary education services to students in Alberta pursuant to the provisions of the PSL Act. Justice Strekaf felt there was sufficient evidence to show that universities in Alberta have some level of reliance on government funds and therefore they are not a "Charter free zone". Justice Strekaf concluded that comments made by Keith and Steven Pridgen, regarding Professor Mitra, on Facebook did not constitute academic misconduct and the Pridgen brothers' right to freedom of expression, under section 2(b) of the Charter, was infringed by the University of Calgary Review Committee.