Thats why I said Alleged. But it could have been anything along the pornographic or embarassing material lines - something that doesn't suggest any kind of Skill. Using it to his advantage might NOT be an option.
You didn't read the summary. Someone else wrote his name in a low-circulation document that is now publicly indexable.
This stuff scares the crap out of me. If you live in a small town, ANY arrest will get you in the newspaper.
I'll admit to having only skimmed the FTC posting, but I didn't see anything saying that could be construed as "virtual worlds are bad for minors." They said that minors have ACCESS to virtual worlds, but any conclusion of harm is based on prior assumptions, with which many of us would disagree.
That said, there are two ways security could be affected by open design:
First, they said open design, not copylefted design. Someone could take an open design, change it just a little, and not list their changes. It could then be really tricky to determine whether the demonstrated flaw is in the open design or the hidden changes.
Second, many of the people who are most vocal about security believe (for good or ill) in "security by obscurity." You can't get that from an open design unless you secretly change it, which loops back into point one.
Further, unless a big company forks the project
Remember the Microsoft mantra: "Embrace, extend, extinguish."
It's not right to have that steep a difference, to have that sharp a limit. You shouldn't have to have unlimited data to use your phone on the internet for map programs...
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"
Probably about the same time the technology becomes ubiquitous. Remember when Stereo sound was the cool new technology? One need only listen to an old Beatles album to be reminded about how that was abused.
"Not to mention that this lets sleazy lawyers "fish" for people willing to pay them off rather than prove they did nothing wrong."
Ladies and gentlem, seeker_1us has just accidently illustraded exacly what's wrong.
It SHOULD be:
"Not to mention that this lets sleazy lawyers "fish" for people willing to pay them off rather than defend their innocence."
People ahve someone how got the twisted notion the innocence should be proven. This is wrong. it's to be defended.
Let's take that one step further and say guilt should be proven, not fished for.
...which is perfectly consistent with the previous 50 years of being able to get music for free.
You condition the consumer to the expectation that they can get entertainment for free then they are bound to continue thinking that.
It's just that now most any form of "broadcast" is also a "download". That's just the evolution of technology.
Pretty lucky here, no kudzu on the property yet, so haven't seen them eat it or tried to feed it. There's a lot down the street so eventually it will get here. I know they can eat it, theoretically, and so do deer and so on, goats whatever, but so far across the south, there's no group of animals that will eat kudzu faster than it grows unless you got them in such a small pasture as they would eat anything at all to keep from starving. Once it is established it takes over near as I can see, short of massive chemical warfare. The taproots they grow from get six feet long and a hundred lbs or so, hard to kill them off.
I have no idea what controls kudzu in japan. If there is an overlooked cheap and easy method, you could be a billionaire here by applying it.
It's nothing to do with the safety of the inks. Sometimes, I think people ink entire oranges to make them orange enough. No. It was determined that, if more than a certain number of people squeeze a given grapefruit, the ink smudges, leaving the label unreadable. This is worse than nothing no matter how you slice it -- especially now that large oranges are the same size as small grapefruit.
Using water-soluable ink on citrus fruit that is then left directly under sprinklers also creates problems...
Our population rises exponentially.
No, premise is wrong. Some parts of "our" population have exponential growth rates and some have exponential decay rates. And projections are that the global population will start to decline around 2050.