The text editor ate up my annotation of the above post:

[Sarcasm]This video shows that he's making use of the channels of free speech there.[/Sarcasm]

...apparently it inferred that
< sarcasm > was an HTML tag.

There's something amusing about Snowden fleeing from the US and ending up in Russia, of all the places. This video shows that he's making use of the channels of free speech there.

Even more amusing was the beginning of Putin's response "You've worked for a spy agency [NSA]. I previously worked for a spy agency [KGB]. We understand each other - we can have a professional dialog." There could have been a suppressed snicker there... and he might as well have followed by saying "you know how the real world operates. so let's not be naive here..."

More seriously:
1) Would it be bad, from Snowden's standapoint, to come back to the US after all the publicity he's got. The possibility that he might get locked up silently and they key thrown away seems remote, given the vast amount of public support he has. And if he was committed to bringing about positive change, then one would see that returning and standing trial would further that mission.
2) Would it be bad, from the US government's standpoint for him to come back? For now he and the can of problems he opened seem conveniently stashed away in Russia. So if he came back, what then?

"I worked day and night on my taxes. Now that they're done I'm going to give myself the gift of Google Glasses. I deserve it."

Why wouldn't you fly with pilots you know, who are presumably qualified and licensed?

Facebook could have bought them instead of buying WhatsApp and Ocular, and spending just a little bit more.

First the idea of "Suspending" a kernel developer is inane. Kernel developers don't work for Linus. Anyone can fork the kernel and work on his own version of it. Furthermore, Kay can write code that other people audit, modify and submit further.

Secondly, it's not an 'indefinite, unconditional ban' as suggested by the summary. Here's the specific line from Linus' email:

Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be merging any code
from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed.

In other words he might start accepting patches from him if he changed his style of operating.

Facebook is coming after your ass with fashionable headsets to make your nerdy looking glasses look even nerdier. What's more.. they're DEPLOYING BTRFS!!! Be afraid.

I thought of the same thing when I saw the 2 billion figure. We know that these deals involve pay offs mainly in stock. I wonder then what the valuation is - is it current stock value, or is it projected value at the time that the stock will have fully vested i.e. 5 years down the line. I bet it's the latter - and the big billion dollar figures are a publicity stunt that ensures that everyone comes to know of the purchase event.

"Someone" :-)

If it's their 'road' then Netflix is a bright, shiny city in the distance. It (and others like it) ARE THE REASON that people are on the road in the first place. Asking them to pay is like charging a city to pay for road usage just because it is a source of traffic. It is inevitable for companies that thrive at one time to decline and give way to others at another. For the system to continue to function, small, new destinations (startups, duh) that are detours from the main road need to be given a fair chance to succeed in an environment in which they can compete with the big players.

Without this process of constant replenishment, when the bright cities become old, dilapidated and defunct, people no longer have the reason to use the road. Everyone loses, except for selfish executive ass-holes who screwed everyone, all but knowing what was going to happen and sailed away with the money on their yachts laughing.

Exactly. But now could you phrase this in a way that blames someone, rubbishes something someone else says, and most importantly appeals to the vested interests of someone influential. Then you might have chance of being heard.

It seems that the missing link between blogging and conventional journalism could be a marketplace that enables bloggers to publish content in the mainstream media. Major media sites commonly link to blogs, and some bloggers do op-eds from time to time, but this cross-pollination seems to be the exception, not the rule. A Google Play-like marketplace in which bloggers sell their written pieces (or make them available for free), and from which news service purchases such pieces would eliminate the distinction between 'freelance journalist' and 'blogger.'

On an unrelated note, the article (outside of the title) doesn't waste much time comparing blogging and conventional journalism.

Using an unknown encoding scheme is obfuscation, not encryption. So you're suggesting using obfuscation as a cheap substitute for encryption. That might be fine in some situations but 1) It really is very, very easy to crack - you don't need human intervention - there are tools that let you compute polynomial mappings between two data sets. 2) You can encrypt the data using a powerful algorithm using off the shelf free tools, so why not just go one baby step further and do it so that even in the unlikely case that one day the stakes to get to your data are high, there's no way to get it.

All good points. Just a quick note about (1): you can encrypt all your email by using a passthrough email address in a domain that you trust. So me@myname.com received all your email, encrypts it and forwards it to gmail or wherever.

While this story is crazy, and MS should be spitballed for it... I don't buy that other companies that let your store your data online don't give access to your data to their employee, if only for "debugging and administrative purposes." If you want to store your data online encrypt it.