From the article:

The most important thing that would not be much different if The Times had been his outlet would be Manningâ(TM)s legal liability. The law provides First Amendment protection for a free press, but not for those who take an oath to protect government secrets. This administration has a particular, chilling intolerance for leakers â" and digital footprints make them easier to catch these days â" but I canâ(TM)t imagine that any administration would have hesitated to prosecute Manning.

As an American and Global citizen I want to fucking hug Bradley Manning. I want to thank him repeatedly for the great service he has provided the entire world. He is a true hero in my eyes.

However, he's also a fucking traitor and deserves the punishment which is coming to him. People who are true heroes do not think about the potential consequences they face and do not look for a way out when those happen. They do things to save others, bring about change, etc and they do so selflessly. Manning broke laws and oaths he had to this country just like many others practicing civil disobedience before him. They all paid their price and so will he and I will still love every last piece of information he released.

The fact that The Times would not have published everything shows what a bunch garbage the mainstream press in this country has become. Journalists are the lackeys of corporate legal teams, chickenshits and oppressive management.

Let the heroes shine and let them take whatever comes of them once the protections afforded to journalists run out and the source must be provided.

Again, thank you Manning; I personally put your accomplishments far higher than many of those who have received medals before you even though you deserve every punishment that is coming to you.

I am not saying that it's a good or bad idea for Microsoft; I was simply replying in general as to why they were being demonized for this.

re: M/W/F - exactly. I check my USPS mail less than once a week unless I'm expecting something. Why? Because there's nothing in there anyway.

All my billing is online, my paycheck is deposited automatically, and the only thing that appears in my mailbox is garbage anyway.

I only look around the holidays and birthdays or if a package is on the way, otherwise I just let it pile up in there like the GMail spam folder.

If Google comes out with a phone or tablet it's simply fostering adoption and providing some reference for other hardware makers, if Micro$oft does it they're "declaring war" on their hardware partners. Utter stupidity.

While you may be correct, in this case because of Microsoft's nearly 40 year history as not really being a computer hardware vendor (not talking about mice here), they are telling those they partnered with for decades that their products are inferior and Microsoft can do it better.

Google hasn't been around long enough to create that sort of legacy and has both partnered with and created their own hardware along the way.

I just don't see this as an apples to apples comparison for you to make. But hey, your opinion is as good as anyone's.

I think, depending on the culture of the company in which you work, this is changing rapidly. Out are the static MBA types and in are the knowledgeable leaders who can really drive great decision-making and develop resources.

I have worked for both organizations and seen the damage the "MBA model" (over-generalized but we'll leave it that way for simplicity's sake) has done. I currently work for an organization which turns that model on its head and makes work exciting and interesting rather than stagnant.

i had the opportunity to work on three different commercial unix operating system teams and this mindset is consistent with the teams that hit schedule with the appropriate quality.

That's nice; it's still not a management style most people tolerate well. However, coercive leadership is useful when there is a serious issue occurring (emergency, etc) and work needs to be accomplished immediately to correct it. Yet, I think it could have been worded a little differently--they're volunteers after all.

The company I work for uses Google Docs extensively; in fact, we use it so much I wrote SAS scripts to interface with the API so we can easily share datasets in and out of Google Docs. While it's powerful for collaborative work over the Internet, especially with remote resources housed all over the world, it's no replacement for Office.

It doesn't have all the powerful tools Office does, it doesn't format documents the same as Office does (especially importing and exporting--and yes, I realize Office doesn't do all that well version to version), and it doesn't work all that well offline (if at all).

So it's no wonder a corporation dealing with other corporations would require Office knowledge. This is a non-story.

I worked in higher ed for most of my adult life at both non-profit and for-profit institutions and as such I like to pretend I know the good and bad of both models.

Based on the complaints of so many in the public regarding the for-profit/online model, I am blown away by the support for MOOCs outside of higher ed. I get it, free learning is great but what about actually verifying any learning was done? Are you seriously going to tell me that for-profit education should be killed off by a model which has absolutely no verifiable results? Where is the outrage about that? Solely because it's free we can rally around it? Please be serious.

As someone who is 10 weeks from graduating with a masters from a for-profit institution (it was free while I was employed there), I fully understand the challenges I will face in the workplace if I try to leverage that specialized degree. However, as a hiring manager, if someone said they were learning through MOOCs I wouldn't even give them the 1/100th of the consideration I would give to a candidate with a degree from a regionally accredited for-profit educational institution.

Let's stop with the rhetoric about how MOOCs are the savior of our failing higher education models. They're not and they never will be. A wonderful way to learn on your own but certainly not one that can be verifiable.

Shocked? Really? Facebook owns them and does similar stuff with your photos there. Why would this shock you? On top of that, 99.999% of IG's users will never have their shitty photo used in this manner.

But, if you're really all that concerned (and you're not because you probably haven't quit FB for the same things) you'd use http://instaport.me/ to download all of your photos and move to Flickr with their new Marissa Mayer Themed App which does the same things IG did for $24.95/year.

Please note: I am an avid IG user with nearly 700 photos on the service and I have a Flickr Pro account as well.

Just like e-mails I've received in say, oh, the last 5 years? There are just as few e-mails I should really be saving as tweets made but yet I have an archive of every e-mail sent or received since 6/22/2004 and a spotty archive of everything I've sent or received since 1994.

Let me tell you how useful the e-mails goes back to 1994 have been: I once found a deviled egg recipe my (at the time) future wife sent me in college. Man deviled eggs are yummy.

YMMV.

Someone should start a petition to have the US Government force Pizza Hut into paying Americans to eat there because paying for that shit is criminal.

These sorts of events are similar to what I would have expected in countries like China, not the United States. LEOs do not need to taser most people, especially a female who appears much less powerful than the officers holding her down in the video. The tool is used as a second-to-last resort, not as as way to make an arrest easier on the officers.

Sheesh.

Funny, aside from your incorrect assessment about webpage rendering (at least on the tablets I have tried), I don't want any of those things on a tablet. That's why I have a laptop.

When I'm taking transit (plane or bus) or sitting on the couch and I don't want to pull out my laptop, I don't see any problem with these genre of devices at all.

Apparently you're not the target market and that is just fine.

I needed to get a few items this holiday season:

1. LEDTV
2. Digital camera and accessories
3. Kindle (original)
4. Clothes
5. Toys
6. Books
7. Misc

I got 6/7 items on Amazon. Why? A few reasons: I'm already an Amazon Prime member (as a student it was just stupid cheap and I like the streaming options for kids shows) and the very few times I've had a problem with what was shipped to me they have been nothing but spectacular in dealing with it; usually just immediately shipping out a new item without me having to send what I already received back before they'd send a new item.

I also personally believe the shopping experience is far superior to the other online options I looked through (NewEgg, Target and Walmart). Target's site was slow, cumbersome and confusing. Walmart was somewhat similar to Target but at least their site loaded and Amazon's prices were lower for the same or very similar product and next-day option at $3.99 or free at 2 day killed anything I saw elsewhere.

Overall Amazon has been a winner for me for years for bigger purchases and if they keep it up, they'll continue to get my business. While I don't consider myself a HUGE buyer at the holidays, aside from the clothing I bought for my wife where I needed a very specific item that wasn't available anywhere but where I purchased it from.

YMMV.

So the common carriers know I have an encrypted VPN running between work and my house 5 days a week. They know I have an encrypted VPN between my house and my mobile device 24/7/365 the rest of the time.

So they give the police my name, what then?

Q: "What are you doing with that encrypted VPN?"
A: "Hiding from my fantasy football league friends the fact that I'm watching Barbie.com".

Please.