The problem IM(not well enough uninformed)HO is that decent leadership was too thin after Nelson Mandela. Desmond Tutu is at least a moral compass calling out some of the unwarranted sidelining of white South Africans, the corruption etc... as well as the Robert Mugabes of this world. The new South African project needed inspired leadership for a generation or two, but it didn't even get one. It did get the best start though given the situation. Hopefully as the electorate becomes more educated the racial politics will get pushed out (either from within the ANC or preferably without so there can be real democratic cut and thrust).

...and the "sellouts" took shelter under the "blowhard" GNU banner in an industry at the time utterly dominated by Microsoft... is it that easy to forget?

He could be a multiple murdering pimping drug dealing meth cook... that's orthagonal to issues hugely more important to the world that have been raised and ADMITTED to. In the age of surveilance it's inevitable all our human failings will be turned against us, and none of us are perfect. I do feel it's possible for us to be better in some small but important ways that make us less vulnerable collectively. The only problem is I'm not sure what those are exactly. ;)

...surprised that wasn't mentioned in the story.

I did some work for the local RSL (Returned Services League of Australia) - they house a small military library which at the time was maintained by a part time librarian on maternity leave. She needed my help with a migration because Koha apparently worked better on a linux platform. Said it was the best software she had used, and that it has an excellent rep in librarian circles. The only other library software I'd previously helped maintain was Dynix, and that used to get plenty of eyerolls from the libarians.

Leadership should be about expecting great things from the electorate - Mandela expected his nation to come together despite human nature, and examples from other nations failures. I believe subsequent problems are largely due to lesser leadership - small thinking and failure to expect much of the electorate.

People often live up to expectations, positive or negative... although there's a negative bais because it's harder going uphill than down. I think negative caracatures get people off side, and help them confirm your worst expectations.

Apparently this statement is from one of Mandelas trials - it's an interesting read. Mandela says although he engaged in violence he was never a terrorist. Yes, the man was defending himself in court, but I had difficulty even parsing the argment. After it sunk in I was ashamed, and shocked/afraid at my own malleability - of course terrorism isn't the catchall defined in the media. The statement follows :

"I do not deny that I planned sabotage. We believed violence by the African people had become inevitable. [T]here would be outbreaks of terrorism. Without violence there would be no way open to the African people to suceed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy.

[Umkhonto] volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledge to fight a Civil War against the whites.

50 years of nonviolence had brought the African people nothing our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

As violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and nonviolence

[In mid-1961] the ANC was prepared to depart from its 50 year old policy of nonviolence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence.

I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it clear that I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC.

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision. Sabotage Offered the best hope for future race relations."

It's a trivial problem solved long ago - you report what's happening, just not specifically who it's happening to. Ubiqitous surveilance is only a problem in that it shouldn't be happening in the first place. This idea that "the people" shouldn't know the real truth, and that a special vanguard should control society isn't new either. The communist movement, the islamist movement (through their founding father Sayyid Qutb) and interestingly enough the neo-conservative movement (specifically their founding philosopher Leo Strauss) expouse this view. It's repugnant and toxic to democracy. Unfortunately the traditional guardians of wide enfranchisement (ie. the political left) seem to have bought into this idea too. It seems to me like the leadership of the western world doesn't believe in democracy anymore.

Part of the value of ubiquitous surveilance is character assassination, and a key part of that vulnerability is in our own oversimplified thinking. Yes, Assange is a limelight whore, but perhaps he's making the best use of that failing. Nelson Mandela was at one time a terrorist expousing violence, could have a quick temper and had a "colourful" personal life. Reagan and Thatcher painted him as a terrorist for years before the saint image became dominant - but BOTH these images are oversimplifications. We MUST work on this "oversimplification" vulnerability in ourselves and those around us even if it seems an impossible task.

Jeri Ellsworth is taking an interesting device to manufacturing in the very near future. It does both VR and AR... and uses quite a novel approach. It can both project images into the real world, or reflect them back into the eye. She raised over 1M (their kickstarter aimed for $600,000). Apparently they've already demoed it at a couple of maker faires and people lined up for hours to give it a try... considering how yawn-worthy most 3d solutions are, that's quite a rap.

I know someone who works for an Australian company. They put in a tender for part of the NBN project but IBM won the contract at almost twice the price. IBM then subcontracted the work back to the Australian company. It's strange - Australians seem to underestimate the abilities of their own technical community, and as slaves to community perception Australian governments are particularly bad for this bias. It seems to be part of the national psyche that we're only about agriculture and mining, and local tech comes a poor second to overseas offerings. It's no wonder we're judged an easy mark and regularly overcharged for software.

After abusing his control of Australian media Murdoch got what he wanted - no NBN to challenge his cable interests.

Well, people are beginning to think about actual political action. OMFG!!! Those ACLU people and other freedom weirdos might get actual support if someone doesn't take charge of the narative.

Well, among my friends it has gone from seven users to one - though granted, perhaps my corner of the world is unrepresentative. Calling Mint "Ubuntu" is like calling the USA "British".