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.
It's not a war when the other government doesn't mind you being there.
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.
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".
You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.
In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.
People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How is that any different than an X-ray/millimeter-wave/infrared device being used to determine the contents of the vehicles?
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).