Come on, quit the lies. Here is what you wrote:

That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.

Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.

Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.

And there's no dogmatism here? It should be called GNU/linux, With open source, all bugs are shallow, Vi vs Emacs, systemd, $WHOEVER is evil, This will be the year of the linux desktop, Ubuntu yadda yadda yadda, anything to do with ruby or ruby on rails...

Really?

Why not look at the government's failure to get a conviction against Ellsberg even after he admitted to releasing the Pentagon Papers.

As for that case, I've already covered why it's inapplicable in these circumstances, but nice try.

The movie obviously does not cover his trial, since it hasn't happened yet. So anything wrt that is just speculation among the characters.

BTW - nice cherry-picking re. the Pentagon Papers:

and

Government actions can easily lead to a similar situation here. There's an old saying that when you go to court you'd better have clean hands. The government's weren't.

Finally - someone who gets it!!! Problem is, it's not going to happen if we don't push for it, and set examples ourselves. The whole concept of "loser edits" is based on embarrassing people who have secrets they want to keep hidden. If you're open about everything, including just how screwed up your life is, nobody can embarrass you with a "loser edit." And just as importantly, anything that's not true will be easier to see for what it is.

And yet, most of the comments are accusing me of encouraging loser edits, of outing people against their will, etc., and presenting the most ridiculous arguments. It's almost like they have something to hide :-) (joking) (maybe).

And yet your quote STILL doesn't give hard numbers. How many new linux jobs vs how many lost linux jobs (those "cloud" deployments are cheaper for a reason - employers can cut salaries). Also, the survey was self-selected. One that picks a uniform distribution across all employers, or, say, the top 1000, giving the hire/fire ratios, would be more accurate than this PoS "survey".

Think of it - business has 10 linux employees. They will lay off all 10 this year because they're going to hire one new linux employee to move their stuff to VMs in "the cloud." That counts as linux employment going up? Bull. Crap.

Yes, the linux foundation has a hidden agenda - to keep doing busywork like this so they can justify their jobs. Duh. Otherwise, they would use a proper, open, and repeatable methodology, instead of surveys with huge omissions in the questions that give a distorted view of what's happening.

I used to be a big defender of all things linux. Not any more. "Studies" that are borderline lies is only part of it.

I know - makes me feel old too. But somehow, I don't think "since the previous millennium" would be any better. :-)

Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.

Sure, but those VMs don't exactly create a ton of job opportunities (which is why they're so popular - you don't need a huge staff to run a server farm of VMs). Companies go to VMs in "the cloud" because it's cheaper - fewer people on the payroll. So, they lay off most of their linux workers and hire one VM specialist. Sounds like many linux jobs are in danger.

It's because rape victims have spoken out publicly that "loser edits" mentioning such things would be almost universally condemned. You obviously don't get it, just like you don't get that its the stigma that keeps victims silent, and that stigma is removed as more people come forward.

No, you're the one who attempted to change the entire context. Moving the goalposts is a common technique of people who have a poor argument.

What a load of crock. I have never defended outing through "loser edits." The arrogance, and the ignorance, is all yours.