Could it be they are now going to (as often suggested on here) deliberately leak something pretty serious (possibly about some past actual harm, with a nicely polished backstory) and attribute it to Snowden? Effectively, by saying "we don't know what he's got" , it leaves the door open for them to attribute *anything they like* to him.
Absolutely; for large, fast (and short-term) storage we use servers with 6 fast disks in RAID 0, and when that's not enough we use big RAM disks. SSD's have been played with (without any problems) but don't seem to add anything to our particular (admittedly unusual) set-up.
Oh, I see, a ramping-up of press releases about 'exploits' against XP prior to the cut-off date.
Didn't see that coming.
One of the best comments, deserves to be modded up.
Let's face it, linux isn't easy to hack now; the corporates are winning (complexity is their friend, if it was simple no-one would need a support contract). Why release a simple system, when you can bloat it with a zillion tweaks of dubious value and then charge money to keep the whole mess working?
Mind you, it's a strategy that's worked well for Microsoft (well, up till now anyway).
Far too coherent to be Ballmer.
Outlived his usefulness, and being allowed to hang himself in the court of public opinion.
Check the like vs dislike counts on youtube (157 vs 9,993 at the time of writing).
Look at the tense of the language.
Translates as "We are not doing it at this precise instant" (as widely reported, it seems very likely they did so in the past - and, no doubt, will do so again in the future, if they think they won't get caught).
So true; Glenn Greenwald immediately outed a disputed business deal in his past (a hotel TV business, which had a hand in providing porn for corporate man) because he knew otherwise it would be used against him. The rest of them must be frighteningly clean-living (or figure this story is more important than their past indiscretions).
They almost certainly already knew anything a random sys admin could download (despite my respect for them, I still imagine more of them can be bought than risk their lives blowing whistles).
It was 2005 when it became clear to me that the terrorism legislation would be mis-used; specifically when the UK's Labour party used the Terrorism Act to detain an 82-year old pensioner for shouting "Nonsense" during a speech by the (then) Home Secretary.
n.b. the link is to the apology - the original story seems to have disappeared.
Plenty of people knew about Madoff; it seems their decisions were whether to take the silver dollar or just give it a miss (admittedly some people did ring alarm bells).
Yes, but these sites aren't confidential (e.g. news.ycombinator.com) - it seems mad they don't support plain HTTP.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
