But the cops, like everyone else, are free to sample public air however they want. They just can't use it as evidence against you. Still bloody rude.

And grow lights put off infrared. Judge said no.

Know.YOUR.rights.

A dog sniff is not a search. The dog "signal" is now reasonable suspicion, which now allows them to search you for realsie. Of course, the dog is "signaling" to what the cop wants so he can get his search. Catch 22.

Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?

Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.

"The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public."

Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.

Almost right. The host header is encrypted. The target IP address is in-the-clear for obvious reasons. Your IP stack does not connect to DNS names. It connects to IP addresses. DNS resolves the DNS name, then the stack connects to the address.

Now the DNS name might be unencrypted during the SSL negotiation, but that's not the HTTP header, as your browser has to decide if it likes the SSL cert before it negotiates. Part of that check is "does the host name match the cert?". I'd look up SSL negotiation details, but I'm lazy.

Nope. This is a clear FDA overreach. They were not involved in any process designed to diagnose, treat, or prevent illness. They were involved only in protected speech. And because of the FDA, we now have prior restraint on protected speech. 23andme should have released the lawyers on the FDA.

And you missed "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

You can copyright an implementation of a language, but you cannot copyright the language itself. This view is more completely settled in EU law, but there are US cases that have reached the same conclusion.

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs6998/lectures/11-10-11_Zimmeck_ProtectPL.pdf
http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/sas-v-wpl-programming-languages-not.html
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/january/computer-programming-languages-should-not-be-viewed-as-copyrightable-says-high-court-judge/

"... claiming that assorted parts of Linux violate MS copyrights."

PLEASE stop confusing patents and copyrights. Microsoft has NEVER accused Linux of violating copyrights. (Perhaps you were thinking of SCO? ;)

Side note, I miss PJ...

"If someone attempts to prove prior art that's a different factor"

Yes, and a factor that does not influence copyrightability in the slightest. Perhaps you are thinking of patents? Oracle's patent claims died in the first trial, and they are not appealing that part of the decision. All that remains is copyright. And APIs are purely functional, not creative.

Copyright covers creative expressions, not functionality. If I write code identical to yours given only a description of what the code should do, the code is not creative enough for copyright.

We have a winner! No, really, it makes so much sense now!

Wireless Tor AP built with a Raspberry Pi: http://learn.adafruit.com/onion-pi/overview

No, I'd prefer an intelligent discourse of experts, perhaps moderated by a competent paralegal with years of experience researching such things.

PJ, this post is for you. We NEED you. Please reconsider.