I suspect that in at least some jurisdictions this will fall into a close enough to taxi to be taxi category.

Similar to how Aero lost the lawsuit where it was determined that they were functionally a cable company, not a rental of equipment (which is what they were technically).

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my questioning that active THC remains in the body with a similar pattern to its matabolized parts.

I have no idea the reasonableness of the limits set, but it does look like they are talking about people that currently have THC in them, and are actively trying to test that, unlike employers.

I would think that active THC by definition makes you high. If it doesn't have effect it's inactive.

Is that true for active THC?

I know it is for the matabolized leftovers, but never heard this to be the case for THC.

Really? Reports about le mans when audi won with a diesel engine a few years back said that the winning car was quite enough that if it was driving through a neighborhood nobody would call the police.

Uber cars can't be flagged down, I think that's the distinction they are relying on.

Considering everyone I'm referencing has a Masters or PhD, that's not the problem I was referencing.

I have highly educated friends that are getting kicked out of the country after losing the H1-B lotto, I don't think it's an issue with not being able to attract people.

Pretty sure you won't be allowed to do your final step of you accept a settlement.

I'm not actually convinced machines from back then could.

There used to be, I feel like things are worse than they were 7 years ago now.

Compiz was stable, drivers were good, motherboard support was better, Gnome 2 just spoke to me in it's looks.

I haven't built a system for a while, but the last one I built won't boot with a USB drive plugged in, the desktop environments were shaky, video acceleration meant playing h.264 videos, and that was a no go. Gallium still isn't working.

Ubuntu 7.04 was for me, the peak of usable, workable Linux vs other OSes. 7.10 introduced a locking while heavy disk bug, and Linux in general has been frustrating since then (I've dabbled in Linux, or run it as my primary desktop for over 15 years).

The supreme court decides what is and is not against the constitution (that's in the damned constitution).

We live in a common law, it's not just what's written that matters, but all of the rulings since.

I personally see:

As a right to privacy. It is spelled out, not just stated that it exists. The edges of what that means for legislating things is in the jurisdiction of the courts.

It's very difficult to pierce the corporate veil for a properly setup and run company (as in run by the letter of the law, including previous rulings).

I worked for a company that essentially dissolved itself, moving almost all assets, to a new company, and plaintiffs were still not able to get past the block (certain amounts had to be left behind, and most debt was moved, it was over a dispute with a union that the new company was formed, but lawsuits filed after the switch were not able to get through).

Hardly technically inclined. And hardly a group of homosexuals.

It was proposed in a column of Savage Love (Dan savage is not technical), and acted upon (after the definition contest) by his readers, which I suspect are majority heterosexuals.

Not trying to nip pick, but portraying an act of protest with broad support as a homosexual conspiracy plays into the right's opinion of who wants equality, and who is appalled by people such as santorum.