Code on GitHub is no different from comments on slashdot or images on Flicker any other website in that regard. All the posts are covered by copyright, which is held by the original poster. All the sites have TOS which state that the poster gives the site permission to reproduce the content. Furthermore, even if the user didn't read the TOS, they intentionally made the posts knowing full well it would be republished (that is the entire reason for posting on any of those sites), so they have already given implied consent.

Where the difference comes into play is making it clear what third parties can do with the content. Flicker gets this right by assuming all rights reserved unless otherwise specified, while up to now GitHub has been putting their heads in the sand. This is a disservice to all their users as it makes the site far less usefull, but it isn't really a legal liability for GitHub itself.

Most 3rd party DVRs and VCRs these days have IR output capability, so they can change the channel on the cable box and then record the output. You still have to use the cable box as a tuner, but you can record using anything after that.

The first Calliga release was a little over a year ago, although the Calliga fork occurred about 2.5 years ago. It was a mass-exodus fork where nearly all the developers and maintainers went to the new project.

Nope, Calliga Words was written from scratch over the last few years. Kword is the only KOffice application that did not become a Calliga application.

Their stories were posted on slashdot pretty regularly, at least weekly if I had to guess. I don't know how to search slashdot just for links in articles, but a general search brings up quite a few of them.

Skip the regergitated article and go strait to the press release to see the map, and a video (and a link to the paper if you have access or are willing to pay $30).

Any question over the legitimacy of these documents has long since been resolved. The information is out there, and at least some of it (the official documents at least if not Snowden's commentary) is confirmed to be accurate. You can't put that cat back in the bag, so the military is not revealing anything by blocking those sites - especially since the block is broad and doesn't shed any light on whether specific portions of what was said is accurate.

The other (and arguably more important) purpose for continuing to treat classified information as classified until it is officially declassified is to prevent disclosure of even more secrets. Without doing a carefull study of exactly what has been released, what has become widely spread and confirmed or not, and how it impacts the mission at a high level, you are highly likely to inadvertantly reveal (or confirm, or draw associations between) other sensitive information.

There are lots of ways this can become complicated really fast. Someone working on some portion of a project may not realize why some information about another part is sensitive since it is harmless information for their part of the project. The leak itself may result in a change in what is classified. For example if X and Y are completely non-sensitive on their own but combined allow you to infer Z which is classified, it is customary to pick one of them to treat as classifed to protect Z, while the other remains FOUO. If X was being treated as classified and is now leaked, but Y and Z are still secret, then it may be prudent to start treating Y as classified going forward. It is also possible that even though a specific detail has been leaked, the enemy didn't understand it's significance or what it meant at all due to lack of context, so it does make sense to continue treating it as classified, even though it is already in the "public".

So until someone has carefully considered all these factors, developed a new classification guide, trained everyone on the new guide, and resolved any ambiguities that come up while implementing the new guidelines, it really does make sense to continue treating the leaked information as classified. Even if "common sense" might make you think it is a pointless exercise.

PS: This is a justification of the rules regarding legitimately classified information. I am not justifying the fact that these surveilence programs existed, or that their existance was classified in violation of the 4th ammendment.

There will always be disagreement on some issues of policy. Unfortunately, preserving our fundamental freedoms and the checks and balances that ensure them seems to continually take backseat to all these other disagreements. Committing to uphold the constitution should be a prerequisite to serving in government, not something that is so low on people's priority that none of the candidates even discuss it in their campaign, and all of them violate it when elected. Assembling a large number of people who will put freedom first when deciding who to vote for will be a wonderful influence on our government, even (and perhaps especially) if the people they elect are split on other economic and social issues.

The range bubbles are one way distance. To verify this look at the one surrounding Denver. Colorado is about 380 miles across, and the diameter of that bubble is slightly larger, so they have about a 200 mile radius. The advertized range for the two Tesla S models are 230 & 300 miles, so neither can drive from a charging station to the edge of a bubble and back.

No we won't. This just confirms our belief that complaining about problems on slashdot is all that is needed to make a difference.

And to add to that, there already are a number of observatories scattered about which devote some/all of their time to educational and outreach. There aren't any space telescopes dedicated to that purpose.

No, it indicates that these files were intentionally curated child porn, as opposed to files in a browser cache that ended up there accidentally.

He made short flights a lighter shade of blue than long flights, which over-emphasizes dense areas with lots of nearby airports.