You can kludge on encryption in the pipeline:

http://sourceforge.net/project...

If they told everybody "your info was hacked" while they hadn't cleaned it up yet, a bunch of folks would have logged on and changed their passwords, immediately exposing the NEW ones. You clean up first, then you engage the PR folks.

So does Adobe.

The inflexibility of Unity for anyone who uses two monitors and has Linux on the right-hand one led me to switch to KDE. This is most likely a permanent switch.

He only eats Open Source food from under his own toenails.

Also, Open means "there is no NDA preventing you from sharing your thoughts and screenshots", whereas Closed Beta (and the beta cycles before that, yes there were non-Cryptic people testing this game long before Closed Beta) was Closed because it was bound by NDA.

As one of the moderators of Cryptic's official IRC channel for this game, I was darn glad to see that NDA go; most of my job is banning jerks, but NDA enforcement required punishing nice people. That's not fun.

Actually, PE did license some of their code out; to Bioware, who's using it in Star Wars: The Old Republic. All Cryptic got from them was some concept art, which they did use.

Yeah, because it's not possible for programs to detect they're running in a VM...

I'll be bookmarking this and referring people to it for a very long time. Oooh, look, project re-use! :)

The key to these laws in these states is "covert", even if not explicitly stated in the law.

If the camera is in plain view, anywhere, it is not "covert". If there are signs posted, it is not "covert".

Recall, this is an issue with the so-called "nanny-cams", several cases of which are still winding through the courts; the defense being that it is within the walls of the home negates the issue of being "covert", as one can do anything within reason within one's own home.

It does not, however, trump the consent to be recorded issue, though that's usually done by the court "in the interest and furtherance of justice".

This does, however, raise an interesting possibility...

Taken as presented, it is possible that by stating "I do not consent to being recorded" when pulled over by a highway patrol officer, any attempt to use that recording for conviction may be voidable since it negates Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent (and assuming that you don't blather on thinking that your words automagically protect your Fifth Amendment rights). Pleading the Fifth, then continuing to talk, is seen as waiving the Fifth by the courts.

By extension, this might apply to the use of radar; while courts recognize "plain view" as acceptable, the fact that an officer has to use a sophisticated device to record your actions without your consent (which is not granted by the issuance and acceptance of a driver's license, by the way), negates the "plain view" applicability here. You can grow marijuana in your back yard, and the police may suspect, but many a potential conviction has been tossed out because an officer placed a brick or box down and used it to stand on to look over the fence. "Plain view" means "plain view", not "plain view if you use something to get past what's blocking your ability to see".

Mr. Gannon may have an interesting precedent looming in any pending court action on his arrest.