When Google finally reveals its true name, Skynet, this is the technology that will allow its T-1000s to exterminate most of humanity.

But don't worry, they'll be sure to take an instagram of your death and post it to your Google+ livestream so your friends and family can mourn.

(There will also be ads for bereavement-related products. Neither Google nor Skynet are monopolies, honest.)

I get the whole general protection of the average citizen from crimes, but we really need to shrink the reach and scope of these bastards.

That's the reason for political correctness: to expand the scope of government past immediate risks to ideological risks. It's a power grab.

The correct way to deal with this is not to be anti-politically correct, but to stop being politically correct. That deprives government of its justification for its new powers.

only a fool thinks that the Chinese and Russians couldn't have had equivalent sources of their own already.

They didn't, apparently, as they were eager to get their hands on him.

Either that, or he was their designated source.

I recall something like that being the case for the Manning data.

You're right -- I've confused the two. Snowden was the one who took it and leaked it all to the Russians, in addition to leaking several hundred times more than was necessary to prove his point.

Thus... my point stands, although a minor technical error did occur.

I note none of these fanboys admitted that he leaked all of it to the Russians.

Wonder why they "forgot"?

You're right, this guy is a liar.

I notice he tried to dodge the question of the validity of the survey with "Well we repeated it three times!" ...blatant dishonesty, or mental retardation, I can't tell.

Actually, the survey was repeated, three times over 18 months, with similar results.

Repeated survey isn't the same as a followup.

Are you going to post any more deceptive evasions?

It was released to the press and only to the press, notably The Guardian and the Washington Post.

You're denying he handed it over to the Russians? You lie.

And you blame Snowden for this?

You steal the docs, you're responsible for their provenance afterward. Not a hard concept.

Further: we all agree he handed them over to the Russians, right?

Not making shit up

I see I'm arguing with subhumans.

Debate over -- I win.

It was released to the press and only to the press

Archives of the document were on Guardian public servers when the password was mysteriously "leaked."

Seems you should educate yourself

When people speak like this, debate is dead and we're into monkeys flinging poo at each other.

It was a random survey, conducted via Google Consumer Surveys.

You evade, which does you no credit. Offering a survey that you know will be answered by fanboys inevitably produces bad results. The rest of the audience isn't bothering to answer this.

You'd also need to ask them at a longer duration from the download to see if they kept using it. There are many ways to cherry-pick data, and the first is to be careful about who you ask.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower, he was a spy for the other side.

If he were a whistleblower, we would have seen revelations in the press, not a document dump to the public.

Not to mention a lack of taking several hard drives full of data to the Russians, who as events in Crimea show, haven't changed since the Soviet Era.

I never understand why the most insightful comments about the topic at hand, the one that actually sheds some light on the topic by someone who might know a little about it, is always at the bottom of a thread on /.

Democracy is about popular opinions, not correct ones.

Socializing is about popular opinions and flattery, not reality.

Product sales are about trends, not technical best solutions.

Everywhere we humans go, it's quantity over quality. That's because of how we choose. We pick what lots of people want to believe is true, not what is true.

In defense of Slashdot, it's better here than most places, including off the net. About 5% of the posters here are insightful and will actually consider an opinion other than what their TV says, or friends in the local watering hole think is important.

If anything, it's the fanboys that make it difficult here. Apple, Ron Paul, Google, Obama, gays, Open Office, AR-15s, etc. They form little organized voting blocs who try to destroy any opinion that isn't fawning like their own on their topic of choice.

According to our survey data

According to real life experience, you've cherry-picked your audience as usual.

Overly paranoid original poste

NSA isn't spying on Americans. You disagree? You're overly paranoid.

That's a common tactic used by Communists and other totalitarians to silence dissent.

Oh wait, I see:

It's not about what you think, it's about how you treat other people and how you deal with being, quite legitimately, associated with a set of actions (whatever the motive) that many find offensive.

That's from your journal where you as an apologist for censorship endorse the idea of firing people for having "offensive" opinions.

I think you have mental health problems in addition to a serious lack of moral fortitude.

Police say Canadian man used Heartbleed virus to steal personal info

Other than the fact that they misidentify an exploit as a virus, you're telling me that Fox News has a better headline?

Fox News, that I'm told like the Daily Mail in UK is nothing but a tabloid that no one serious reads? And that's supposed to be completely unrelated to it being one of only a few media sources that are right-wing?

Do tell.