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.

Here's a list of 450. Now please STFU. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/450_peer_reviewed_papers.html

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.

The GFDL gives users of your book the freedom to make copies forever, and to make modifications for their own use. But if they modify the book *and* distribute the modified version, they have to make the modifications available under the same license. Thus the term "viral." This gives your users (other faculty?) the assurance that they can continue to improve your book, should you decide (or become unable) to continue working on it. By contrast a CC license can come in several forms. For example, a NonCommercial clause limits what people can do with your book and makes it not truly free. This seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes interesting things happen if you allow commercial applications. A CC-BY-SA license is close to the GFDL, but the statement of the GFDL is much more explicit and comprehensive. Learn more at http://linear.ups.edu/

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.

The designs don't have to be lousy to have faults visible only in the design. The truly lousy designs have flaws visible whenever you try to use the things.
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.

Remember the Microsoft mantra: "Embrace, extend, extinguish."

Oh, no. I'm sorry to hear that...
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.

Let's take that one step further and say guilt should be proven, not fished for.