Blech, I hate this style of journalism. I gave up reading while slogging through the guy's entire personal history. I never even got to the meat of the article. (I suppose the style works for bio-centric publications like Rolling Stone, though.)<p>Could anyone post a synopsis of why the guy is supposedly dangerous?
I think that the guys who were able to hack into cardiac pacemakers would be a <i>lot</i> more dangerous:<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/13/scipace113.xml" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/...</a>