Note : I don't download music I don't already own a physical copy of, but some of that material is on 8 or 4 track tape that I bought in 1974, I've format switched it via the internet. The music industry insists on a license to listen, not ownership model so be it. If you own ANY physical copy of the material the you are entitled to the material in different formats. If they want to change their policy to ownership of the single copy then I will change my behavior to reflect that.

The problem with that point of view is that the MAFIAA doesn't care if you're DOWNLOADING music at all. It's what files you are making available for download that they will be looking for. Unless you've got your torrents set to leech-only, then you're also making the music you own a physical copy of available for someone else to download, and THAT is the copyright infringement they're trying to stop.

but sleep dep is not likely to kill unless you are kept awake artificially. I've gone as long as 80 hours awake just for fun (teenager), and by about 72 I was having some serious visual hallucinations, and at 80 I just couldn't stay awake any longer. Slept for about 24 hours.

Ah, to be young again!

That would depend on what "government" you're talking about.
If you mean the US, then try the fourth amendment (See "seizure").
There's also some strong restrictions on the use of eminent domain (yes, some abuses too, but they're in the minority today).

Other places, I can't speak for.

While the article you link too was quite informative on the court issues surrounding encrypted drives, the matter is not anywhere near closed in that case. I suspect that one may go all the way to the SCOTUS, although even if they do say the court can compel testimony, then it appears to contain some specific issues such that it doesn't clearly say that courts can compel a defendant to provide a password just because the drive is encrypted.

If you read the reasoning from judge Sessions, who said the court has the right to compel the defendant to decrypt the drive, the court has that right only because the police had foreknowledge of some of the contents of the drive.

The distinction here is fairly subtle, but the crucial legal point appears to be the interpretation of the "reasonable particularity" requirement that applies when government demands the "testimonial" production of evidence. Crudely put, the government can demand that you produce that bloody knife the police saw you run into the woods with, but they can't insist that you turn over any objects you may have around the house that would prove you guilty of a crime. In one case, they're just insisting that you provide the thing they intend to show the jury; in the other, you're supplying the information that helps them convict you.

Too me, as a non-lawyer, the police already saw the "bloody knife" at the border check so can compel the defendant to produce it to show the jury. If they just see an encrypted hard drive they don't have any foreknowledge of evidence that may or may not exist on that drive, so cannot compel the defendant to produce a password.

Yes, goats emit CO2 just as would be emitted by lawnmowers.
BUT
CO2 emitted by goats is of the short carbon cycle variety: removed from and replaced to the atmosphere in a short time. No net longterm change in CO2 concentration.
CO2 emitted by lawnmowers comes from carbon stored deep underground for millions of years.

Just an aside, why doesn't the SUB tag work?

for finally doing the obvious. I was infected twice (I know, shame on me right?) by taking my flash drive to get photos printed at a kiosk. I finally placed a read-only, hidden, blank autorun file of my own on all my flash drives to avoid further infections.

Of course, it's only a matter of time before the next virus I run into undoes the read-only status and overwrites...

What I always wondered was why disabling autorun for "all drives" in Windows XP doesn't stop flash drives from autorunning, only the CD/DVD drive.

I agree. The article is full of blurred out addresses and file names. Makes me wonder if it's just a joke, or something to really think about. It's all well and good to say "zOMG! They're fuxord!" But it's another thing entirely to say "We've discovered a massive botnet, and here's how to detect infections, oh and here's some current ways to block it."

And don't tell me that this is about the ability of more Windows boxes to get pwned. That would be both redundant and redundant. We all know that Windows machines get zombified all the time, and the list of infections does include machines running Safari (Macs perhaps?) and Opera (Linux?), so it's not just a vanilla problem.

I think that is where the Fair Use comes into this case particularly well. The acquisition of a copy of an original work for the fair use of determining that another student has produced an identical work.

The teacher is not making any money off this, nor is there a reasonable expectation that the acquired work will be distributed. It is only being used as evidence.

It's not that it has too much tinfoil

It just needs more cowbell

Disregard the complete lag of regard for grammar in the summary! I think what they meant is that new keyboards SOUND ugly - hence the ugly when you shut your eyes