Only corporations have rights. This seems like the best deal no matter where you live anyway.

I'm using WebVirtMgr for KVMs (libvirt) but it doesn't do LXCs, though libvirt does. Proxmox does both, but I don't want to pay for it (at my scale, it doesn't make sense) ... what else is out there, something which can handle both KVMs and LXCs and hopefully LXDs even, although if I want that I'll probably just use a KVM

However, pardon me, you are correct: It WAS the Riley case that actually put the nail in it solidly. I stand corrected on that point.

Camou was one of the Ninth Circuit case which caused a lot of the uproar that SCOTUS settled. But while it wasn't definitive, the idea that it wasn't about border searches makes absolutely no sense.

Damn autocorrect. It insists on putting in "probably" when I write probable.

But to clarify my point: if border searches of cell phones were exempt from probable cause, the agents could have searched it without it being "exigent to arrest". The entire thing was about whether the standard exceptions to probable cause applied. If probable cause didn't apply, logically he would have lost his case. You don't get to have that both ways.

The Wikiepedia article was last edited before this appeal was decided.

Are off your nut? The entire case is about border searching and exceptions. It was the Border Patrol who had picked him up at a border checkpoint, and searched his gear. Did you even read it?

Have you read any of the independent analyses of this decision? It established solidly that a border search of electronic devices such as cell phones carry the same standards as a search under other non-border circumstances. The same standards apply, the same exceptions apply.

If different standards applied at the border, the appeal would not have succeeded. The decision was made based on the fact that none of the standard exceptions to probably cause were met.

You can also pay for the privilege of not being harassed. You can block ten numbers, you can block numbers without caller ID, and you can get caller ID. And you can pay for each of these features.

He's rocking them like rocks all day, in his cradle of love, which also rocks.

Only if you assume non-crowded airways. Get a crowd in there (which would be inevitable), and it gets very difficult indeed.

Having a flying car would be pointless if everybody had to go 10mph.

What you say is true of the current situation. But it all goes out the window if you extrapolate to a world in which most people who drive are flying instead.

Irrelevant. I agree with you: the navigation issue was solved long ago. But navigation isn't the problem. Collision avoidance is.

At the present time the probability of ANY drone collision is ridiculously low, and if it did happen, relatively little would be lost.

But if everybody -- or even 30% of everybody -- were flying at the same time, this would all change.

You would have to have low-altitude "commuter lanes" which would of necessity be crowded. Collision avoidance would have to be active and dynamic... not merely relying on "lanes" for safety. Not to mention that most vertical-lift small vehicles today have rather blatant single points of failure: until you get at least four independent rotors, if one fails, down you go, and you'd likely take several others with you.

Yep.

Your first link is to the American Psychological Association, and only a 9very) brief abstract. I searched and did not find the paper anywhere that wasn't paywalled. So this doesn't really say anything. It said "evidence of impairment" at ridiculously low concentrations of 0.015% (15 mg/dl), but doesn't say anything about at what point they consider "significant", or how how impairment was measured. What was the methodology? Without that information this is meaningless. It says exactly nothing about the subject under discussion.

Your second link is just a straw-man. Quote:

This says nothing about the effects of alcohol. I has to do with the effects of the law, and the behavior of people in states which passed those laws. While it might be reasonable to think there is some relationship between the two, that's not what the study shows. Further, the numbers given are of drivers who killed themselves, not of drivers who were endangering others. The whole point of the law was supposed to be about endangering others. I have zero respect for laws that try to protect me from myself.

Your third link:

Another straw-man. I don't dispute this, but it's irrelevant. The whole subject here was the point at which impairment is significant enough to endanger others. That is supposed to be the point of the law.

All of these are rather vague conclusions which skirt the real issue (which does not surprise me in the least... it is rather typical of "studies" that attempt to support a forgone conclusion).

My main point though is: even if these studies validly contradicted the ones I mentioned (they don't), that doesn't mean the ones I mentioned don't exist. Contradictory studies happen all the time. It doesn't prove me wrong, it just implies that there is controversy.

Because if you aren't in danger of causing death or serious injury, then you aren't significantly endangering anyone. So why make it against the law?

A world that is 100% safe for children would also be suitable for nobody but children. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.

I don't have the citations at hand, though I've posted them here on Slashdot at various times in the past.

The State of Idaho did its own study, in which it concluded that the driving of most people is NOT significantly impaired at 0.1% BAC. Of course, that didn't stop them, some years later, from changing the law to 0.08% anyway. Which just illustrates my point.

Over 40 years ago, the national government of Canada did a very comprehensive study involving hundreds of people, which among other things compared the effects of marijuana in various doses to the effects of alcohol in various doses. That study reached similar conclusions.

If you would care to make specific accusations about the things you think I said which were wrong, I would be happy to prove otherwise.

Unless or until you do, you are just blowing hot air. I cite sources for my information, demonstrating that I am neither ignorant or lying. You have provided no information at all, much less citations. All you're doing is calling names.

Calling me ignorant doesn't faze me at all, because I know otherwise and I regularly demonstrate otherwise. If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other.

Because the language of the bill says nothing about requiring any kind of personal details, or anything else that the alarmists claim it is aimed at.

If by that you mean: "Rulemaking should not have to be based on sound science," then I agree: it would appear to prevent that situation.

I, for one, think that's great.

No, it is NOT about climate science "denial". At all. It was a series of factual statements about actions by the EPA.

I did NOT say "EPA's science is bad". What I wrote was that EPA has refused to produce any actual science at all in support of its rulemaking. Good, bad, or otherwise. It wasn't a judgment about the state of climate science in any way.