Bah... The data was encrypted! I used a substitution cipher along with this "ASCII" table I found.

If you were paying your way to a PhD working at McDonalds, would you have the spare change to get tech certs?

Since when do IT Trade/Tech schools give you real knowledge? Nearly every applicant I've met who's been to one thinks he has real knowledge until you ask him to answer a real world question. The few who know the right answers generally knew the answers before they went to school for the paper.

I was just about to post the same thing. This guy should be suing himself. Now that's a trial I'd follow.

You should have worded your subject "You Can Only Really Know if Open Source Routers are Secure". For the sake of discussion, say I were to create the world's first 100% secure, completely unhackable router and not release its source code. It is secure, but you're assuming it isn't because you can't see that it is. At the same time you can't prove that it isn't. You could spend your entire life trying to find holes in it without ever knowing there was one. (You can't prove a negative)

Now with that said, If I were to scour the source of every open source router, I may or not find holes. Even if I didn't, does that mean that none exist? No. That just means that I was only able to validate the lack of holes within the confines of my own experience, short attention span, and ability to grasp the complexity. Sure, you have more eyes on things with Open Source solutions, but that doesn't make them immune to stupidity, lack of knowledge and complacency.

Let's look at the facts..

In their press release (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.html), the CSPC states "Since 2009, CPSC staff has learned of more than two dozen ingestion incidents, with at least one dozen involving Buckyballs. Surgery was required in many of incidents."

Let's do the math. If the number of children, 14 years of age or younger, in the United States was approximately 60,000,000 in 2010, then the probability of any one of them requiring surgery if all 24 known incidents required surgery would be 1 in 2,500,000. If the probability of being struck by lightning were 1 in 1,000,000 (estimates seem to between 1 in 500,000 and 1 an 1,000,000 depending on where you look), that would mean a child is 2.5 times more likely to be struck by lightning than swallow 2 or more buckyballs and require surgery. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+the+united+states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=age_group&idim=age_group:3:2:1&ifdim=age_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

According to asktheodds.com, your chance of dying in a car accident in any given year are between 1 in 4000 and 1 in 8000. Dying in a tornado? 1 in 60,000. If you go skydiving once a year, the odds you'll die are 1 in 100,000.

Now of those of us that have children, I'd wager that most (including me) expose our kids to the death trap that is an automobile quite often, and at times when we could walk instead. I also hear that there are people who expose their children to a higher risk of death by tornado by living in those areas where tornadoes are more common.

My point here (I almost forgot I had one) is that we do many things that are far more likely to kill our children than purchase buckyballs. It is completely irrational to blow taxpayer money to take a product that has injured somewhere around 24 kids over a 3 year period off the market.

I'm sorry, my probability was a little off. I lumped all 24 reports in one year rather than distributing it among the three, so it'd actually be 1 in 7,500,000.

That recall you are citing was in 2010.

I say we ban H20 and all products containing it. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeAndRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html), an average of 3,533 people drowned each year between 2005 and 2009. Of those, one in five was "14 and younger". While I'm not sure how a child can be both 14 and younger at the same time, this is certainly a much larger issue.

They are running ads for other parties who are soliciting donations from their site. I haven't seen ads either way, nor did the linked article directly state that they were hosting ads for other parties that were soliciting ads. If this is in fact the case, I'd be truly disappointed. Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd like to see the ads that are being posted for the other parties rather than jump to a conclusion based on a potentially biased source.

After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.

I agree with your assertion that his ruling and opinion are water tight, however I fail to see how his ruling has any effect on the the potential enforceability of an EULA. This case and his ruling dealt entirely with the issue of Copyright, not Google's use of a use of an Oracle application in relation to an EULA. Google is using their own implementation implementation of an API which is published in many forms that do not require agreement to Oracle's EULA.