I wonder which distro he uses personally? Or what Medvenev uses, since he's more geeky than Putin. Maybe Medvenev has already changed his iPhone 4G gifted by Steve Jobs with an Android based phone.

What this has to do with science?

So they would think killing people is not "sin" but eating bacon is.

Have you ever heard something called trade marks or brand recognition? If your FOSS project is successful, your brand name would be tasty enough for big cats to swallow you and you'd be wealthy and get back what you invested for your company not reward of volunteer work of others.

No reward? I'd prefer to own thousands of linux servers for my botnet, not thousands of windows servers.

Let's admit it, it's easier to hack a windows machine. Not because it's wildly used. But because it lacks fundamentals in its design. Their closed design and monopolistic approaches never let any kind of software repository to be build. So people got used to install software downloading from the Internet and double click on them. They don't have central update mechanism so that vendors can push their updates easily. They tried to be "user friendly" but it's evident that they created something "hacker friendly".

Linux is less used so it's not hacked in masses is a fallacious claim. Everyone knows it's hard to convince a Linux user to 'download and run' an application since it has longer path to convince users to do that. Of course nothing is fool-proof, but vast majority of people getting infected with these worms are not fools, they are just victims of stupid design decisions. Even very technical people get infected with viruses and worms in Windows, remember recent Google case in China to be convinced.

And what gives you the right to spread radio waves in my home? I don't think connecting to an unprotected wireless network is criminal issue as in your analogies, but an ethical issue.

Maybe you can live with not logging in from a "computer" that you don't fully control in your basement, but in real world, there happens to be a lot of times that you need to login through a computer (and sometimes only available ones are public). On the other hand, it's not over only with control of the computer you used as client. You need the control of the network as well.

General rule of thumb should be, never put anything secret at all to databases that could be accessed over public networks, like Internet. If you don't do that, just admit that the thing is not a secret anymore and live with it.

I always wondered how someone can't "protect" himself/herself could protect others (ie. their children). Companies know that, and exploit it, nothing new out there on the Earth.

They could inform their users about this and even better tell public what actions they have taken in order to prevent such incidents to happen in future. I don't see any reason why an engineer can access user data. I hope they don't design their systems in a commodity CMS fashion that "admin" can alter any kind of data, let alone viewing them.

But that's not science, that's philosophy.

If they earn significant amount of money from this bussines that's their job to figure out how to filter out these content. Do you think rapidshare would be that popular if there wasn't any copyrighted material on that site? Or do you think people would visit youtube that often if there only had stupid videos of random people? I think not.

These sites earn money (and very big money) from illegal behavior of the users. Agree with it or not, they exploit the lack of regulations on this front.

They've already created Go. But nobody wanted to learn it, yet.

They don't care whether you read their ads or not, they only care if you click on them.

Pet project.

Moreover that might be a strategic move from RIM, since they know that NTP can suck much more money from other companies, and that might hurt their competition power. I guess, RIM wanted to fund them to give headache to its competitors.