RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.

That and there is no guarantee that they'll line up between the patient and the donor. He could be trying to beat his heart but all that's happening is his big toe is wiggling. I'm suspicious too.

Really? So Vietnam war wasn't a war, and neither was the Soviet war in Afghanistan?

I have a very simple definition of war. If you have a "legitimate military operation" with "legitimate military objectives", then guess what, it's a war.

I bet you were saying the same thing when Apple released a cellphone with no keypad that cost $600 and still made you pay a subsidy. Ok, that last part was some real bullshit on AT&Ts part. Still, it hasn't exactly been a massive flop for Apple.

A more apt comparison would be to Snake Oil salesmen.

Just as we can compel you to pay your income tax by force if needed, so we can compel you to get yourself vaccinated. You can protest as much as you want, and you're welcome to "fight us to the death", but judging by the fact that you're still alive, it seems that you have diligently filed your tax returns so far, so I'm going to file it as "just talk".

In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.

No-one has an absolute right to anything. All rights are ultimately balanced against the good of society. That's why free speech does not preclude libel & slander laws, for example, and why RKBA doesn't mean that you have a right to own a cruise missile.

In this particular case, your right to control your body is overridden by the extreme degree of common good that results from mandatory vaccinations, combined with a very low degree of personal invasion that such a vaccination actually entails.

It's a cache timing app. Pretty impressive that they were able to maintain the precise timing necessary to conduct the attack in Javascript, but still quite limited in what it can collect. Basically they can tell if certain cache lines are in use, and figure out maybe what those lines are shared with to do some behavior analysis on the victim. This application is a bit of a stretch, since learning the allocation patterns is not going to be easy.

Their other example is a user that has a machine with two VMs on it. One is highly secure (no network access) but has been rooted. The other has network access but no normal connection to the rooted VM. You can pass data from the secure VM to the network VM and then ex-filtrate the data using a malicious advertisement injected into a normal browsing session. It does require the victim to not understand that VMs are not airgapped though.

The paper assumes that your problem is exfiltrating data because the target has somehow gotten infected but is ultra-paranoid about outbound traffic from his machine. You can instead transfer the data to a javascript app running in a webpage on a different VM that may be less secure. It seems pretty cornercase to me, but every time I think that someone comes out with some crazy exploit that extracts all of your SSH keys or something from the box using what seems like a nearly useless exploit.

Actually I've had Seagate, WD (I wrote an article about a WD drive about ten years ago, it will be in Random Scribblings), Maxtor, and others, and I haven't been disappointed with any of them.

My guess is that going pure pneumatic is probably inefficient and more difficult to build. A hybrid system probably make more sense, if for no other reason than you don't have to maintain an airtight seal around the car for an entire 1000km journey. Electric motors are pretty reliable and relatively inexpensive.

Even a quick search violates your privacy rights. The question is what exactly is "reasonable suspicion". It can't just be a hunch, they have to have some tangible evidence for that.

The basic idea there is that the dog can't tell anything other than whether you have drugs or not, and 4A is not deemed to be applicable to your criminal activity (i.e. you don't have the right to privacy to evidence of the crime). The reason why your right to privacy is violated in a regular warrantless search is because of all the other things that cops get to see that aren't related to a crime. But if they have a magic device that can only detect evidence and not anything else, then that doesn't affect anything other than evidence and hence is not an infringement. Cops claim that drug-sniffing dogs are such devices.

They can still use a dog, because that doesn't count as a search (for 4A purposes). But now it's only true if they have one at hand already, and do it as part of the traffic stop without extending your detention (because such an extension would be illegal).

There is a lawyer who's doing some nice comics that explain all those intricacies - he has a strip covering dogs.

However, dogs are still BS, for the simple reason that a signal from the dog is considered to be probable cause, which is ridiculous because they can be conditioned quite easily to do so at the handler's signal (and often do it without the signal just to please the handler).