He didn't share anything with enemies. He shared with a UK journalist, but the UK is an ally of the USA. It was that journalist that published, allowing "enemies" to read it.

Having said that, someone else posted that countries nowadays are rivals, not enemies, barring the occasional nutjob run state like North Korea. I tend to agree.
Those nutjob states, though, that could actually be classifed as "enemies," have leaders that are so mind numbingly paranoid, that they probably wouldn't believe anything that came from the media regarding the NSA, as they'd think it was planted propaganda.
So, basically, the only thing this has done is embarrass the bureaucracy, and convinced those nutjob leaders that the released documents are definitely not describing what is actually happening.

There has been one court ruling that I know of, which stated the NSA was not breaking the law. This ruling was full of "this is a useful program to the government" bullshit, with virtually no references to the law itself. In other words, possibly came from a corrupt judge, and is almost certain to be overturned on appeal, barring more corrupt judiciary.
There has been at least one court ruling stating the NSA did, in fact, break the law, as well as several government committees that came to the same conclusion. The number of rulings from courts and other sources stating that they did break the law is much greater than the number stating they didn't break the law.

Maybe you should remove your nose from the NSAs collective ass, and pay attention to what's being said.

Then you haven't been paying attention.
Oh, but you're cold fjord, so you've probably had your nose so far up Clapper's ass that you haven't been able to see what's going on around you. Come to think of it, how do you manage to type to post on /. when you're too busy licking boots and buttholes to be able to see the screen?

Believed by whom? Anonymous Crackpots on the Internet? Sure. They're completely trustworthy.
The only people who say Snowden was working with the Russians are the various lawbreaking members of the US government, who are actively running a smear campaign against Snowden. The FBI, however, has maintained for some time that Snowden acted alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25806855
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/26/usa-security-snowden-idUSL2N0L00BR20140126

If "everybody does it, it's just that the USA got caught" as has been claimed by various pro-government trolls on /., then the USA's reputation has suffered no damage, because everybody already knew they did it, just as their own countries also do it.
If everybody else *doesn't* do it, then the USA deserves their damaged reputation, and they deserve it.

Do you think Rob Ford's reputation as a crack smoker was caused by Gawker, or by Rob Ford?
If the USA's reputation has been damaged by this, it is entirely the US government's fault, rather than Snowden's.

You're trying to blame Snowden for the US government's failures. That's why you were downvoted.

Straw man much?

Because if I decide to move that backup machine to a different piece of hardware, it means copying a folder of files, and moving a single drive. Were it a background process, I'd need to do a bunch of configuring and testing on the new machine to get things working and verified. VMs are easy. Background processes aren't, necessarily.

Something breaks on a 13 year old car, and it gets fixed under warranty? Really?
What auto manufacturer, anywhere, worldwide, at any price point, offers a warranty that long?

Hint: None of them.

It was a safety defect that was found, and remedied, free of charge. Which, incidentally, " increased its security and resilience to accidents." For free. On my 13 year old car.

Great horny toads! What are ya doin' down there upside-downy?

A mirror 2.5 light years away!

I got warranty work done on my first car when it was 13 years old. Completely free, as it was paid for by the manufacturer.

Yes. You read that correctly.

Bullshit. I've got a VB2005 app that I wrote, that, if compiled on Win7, works fine on Win7, but crashes on XP. If the exact same source code is compiled on XP, I'm pretty sure it didn't work on 7. This is due to differences in the way .NET versions some components between XP and 7. I had to do some weird conditional bullshit just to deal with it, so that it would work on both Windows versions, without compiling a different version on each one.
And this is just a simple little program that downloads a file from a remote webserver and unzips it, along with ensuring to delete old versions of the file, and some other security checks. Hardly a hundred lines of code, and it won't "just run."

Why is that so hard to believe? I have a Linux VM running on mine that backs up important stuff from a server to a 3TB hard drive in my desktop. It's got a couple of GB dedicated to that VM, plus I can leave web browsers and other stuff running, which can take a lot of memory at times, and still have enough left to play my game.

I got warranty work done on my first car, a 1981 Chevy Malibu wagon, when it was 13 years old. I think the most amusing part was that the warranty work cost GM more than I originally paid for the car.

Really? I've got 2 desktop machines, one with 16 GB, and one with 32 GB. The first, I've had for over 3 years, so it's hardly "current," and the other one is about 7-8 months old.
Where are you getting a "current" machine that'll only hold 8GB?