They should be minimizing their javascript anyway. Tell that new credit-stealing dev how to use a minimizer. Then, he can feel all fancy when he brags about how his awesome stolen code loads more efficiently. He can also feel important because the obfuscation will make it harder to reuse, making it harder for other devs to take the credit for his awesome stolen code!

If people are willing to sell their friends out for another silly turn at crushing some candy, I worry what they will do to save actual money!

No. Exactly this. I'm referring to propping oneself up on the work of others; worrying more about getting grants and being published in Journals. I didn't say he would excel, but he sure is cut out for it.

The summary makes it look like he is being held back by bureaucracy, while he's really just using it. He entered ONE project in many fairs. Each of these fairs were lateral contests in a larger competition. Effectively he entered multiple times in the over-all road to the International Fair.

What he did would be like a NCAA team losing in March Madness multiple times, only to move position in the bracket, to try again on each defeat. Sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy.

The kid was taking the same project to different fairs after failing to qualify. Nothing is stopping him from doing Science. He was more interested in being successful. He wasn't doing this so he could "do more science". He was doing it so he could basically enter more times, giving him an unfair advantage. Say I ran a science fair for a bunch of inner city kids. They worked really hard on their projects. When time for judging comes up, some AP, college-bound kid with a rich ( anything white-collar, to these inner city kids) dad comes in with his garage-built project. He didn't qualify in his home town, but blows these kids out of the water. I would be livid.

However, by seeing the way he plays ball, we know he will fit right in in Academia.

Is the contributed data public? I can just imagine a 6 year old saying: "Hey, strangers! This is my location. Here is a picture of me in my living room, playing with the Wii U!"

If everyone behaved the same as this guy, I'm sure that Verizon would not be able to offer the service at the consumer price.
70 Terabytes would certainly be the equivalent of "unlimited" to me. This isn't to defend Verizon, as I do agree that they could find a way to make the limits of their plan more clear.

I Suppose Verizon COULD, instead of using the term "unlimited" call the plan: the 50 Terabytes / month plan.

But, for typical consumers, this *IS* unlimited and those numbers just might make choosing an Internet provider more complicated. In fact, if my parents were asking for advice on an Internet service, I would indeed say: "oh, don't worry about those numbers, that pretty much means unlimited for you guys".

By adding these numbers to the plan, competitors could simply up the numbers, while adding no real value for the user. Even Verizon could even offer a 100 Terabyte plan for "only $20 more a month". The average consumer would see this as value, while in reality they would just be paying more.

Brace yourself for the awesome as I go to every gamestop to buy every first generation XBox for $40 a pop. Once the new console is released, I'll sell them on EBay as "XBox 1, slightly used, only $200".

People of Earth, who by their access to the Internet are arguably connected to the internet are served with a court order to forget this information.

Robots will be so good at complex tasks that they will find it overkill to use one for simple tasks. They'll simply say, why waste a robot on this task when we have all of these stupid humans who are willing to do it for basically nothing. Half the quality at an eighth the price. Can't beat that.

Nice GUI! Do you do freelance?

Suppose I upload content that is copyrighted, and I do not own. I then orphan the account. Obviously, that cannot be brought into the public domain this way. Why should copyright be any different for content that I own and post. It just makes no sense. Wouldn't the person using this newly "public" content have to prove that the abandoned account was mine? This whole idea just baffles me.

I did. I probably over-read because I got caught up in 3 other articles about the subject. I'm sorry about the confusion. My main point stands. The real issue is that this requires an insecure system in the first place.

This looks like a module for apache that, while sinister and clever, must be installed like any other module. Presumable, unless I'm missing something, this requires root access. If this so called "back door" (debatable) is on a system where it shouldn't be there is a bigger question on how was access to install it obtained it the first place.

Then, any cameras being placed should be openly accessible to the public in real time. I won't like the presence of cameras, but at least this is consistent with the sentiment that public places are not to be considered private.