Their github account has 3 pages worth of stuff and they put a lot back into FreeBSD, too.

Well, apparently he did score a perfect 800 on the maths section of the SAT, graduated Harvard magna cum laude with a degree in applied mathematics economics, and won some maths related awards in university. But yeah, go on hating him to hate him. That's very mature of you. That said, he did drop out of Stanford's MBA program to join Microsoft and having the MBA himself would seem like a necessary part of being able to teach in an MBA program. However, 34 years of experience at one of the largest, most profitable companies ever, including many years as President before becoming CEO would certainly seem to be more than enough field experience during which to have gained wisdom (that is, knowing what not to do just as much as what to do) with regards to organizational leadership.

Nothing I have read about Snowden indicates that he is actually some sort of uber-hacker or capable of the type of software engineering that this proposal would entail. Is his plan just to use his name to fundraise (In bit coin, I guess. I doubt many people are stupid/brave enough to attach their name to a donation towards anything to do with this guy) and attract talent, or is he honestly going to try and release code himself, which will probably be of poor-to-average quality and expect the world to adopt it?

I mean, let's be honest: Either way, whether he's going to just try and brand the stack or contribute, we have technologies that are perfectly good (that is, however, not to say perfect) already -- its just they aren't particularly widely deployed. How many organizations are running IPSec internally, other than just for site-to-site VPN tunnels? How many organizations are deploying DNSSec outside of governments and the military? How many organizations are using PGP or similar asymmetric encryption between employees? Making it easier might help, but chances are that the vast, vast majority of individuals aren't going to jump on any of these technologies in any great numbers unless they are mandated to (like at work, where they don't have a choice), but it isn't as if the government is going to make it a requirement that you try and "spy proof" your computer and communications.

Wireshark... unfortunately, no iOS port yet.

Is that non-networked PC in a TEMPEST-compliant location? How sure are you of that?

SIGINT is some fascinating stuff.

I understand that. However, I am more concerned with seeing that the underlying principles and processes are upheld with integrity than I am in the outcome being favorable to me. My job is to make sure that I have representation that I agree with, not to spend all my time and money sticking my dick in everyone else's pudding. The members of the legislative bodies are then supposed to (*ghasp*) work together and compromise with each other to address issues that need addressing. I know that's a lost art these days, but still.

I met him, too. I just had significantly less interaction with him. Several of my friends speak highly of him. In my experience with other Sociology professors though, I must say that the department harbored some of the most willful ignorance I have ever encountered in my life and while I'm sure he's a nice guy, I expect nothing more from him than I observed in the rest of the department.

I don't immediately write someone off because of their party affiliation. Despite the trend towards "national" parties, I would still say I generally prefer a Virginia Democrat to a New York Republican. In this case, I doubt I can be so certain though.

But, once again we are going to find a choice between a qualified embarrassment and an feel-good disaster. Either way, the people of the district are going to be gyped in ways that they don't see until it is too late.

So would George Soros and any number of rich progressives and socialists. You don't need to single out the Koch Brothers.

That said, my issue isn't with money in politics, it is with the demise of Federalism as a governing principle. As a Virginian (and now as a Marylander), I don't consider it any of my business who represents people in say, California. I would never give money to a race in a state in which I don't live in, and have never really bothered with a district other than my own either. I can't vote in California (although they probably wouldn't bother to stop me), and I don't need representation from California.

When I worked in the political world, I used to have that argument all the time -- people wondering why I refused to get mad at, say, Nanci Pelosi for doing what she does. It doesn't matter if I like her or not, so long as she accurately reflects the will of her constituents. If she doesn't, then that's a problem for them -- not me over here on the east coast.

However, I also have an issue with people using the tactic of injecting themselves into their opponents primary in order to try and cause them to choose the worst candidate rather than trying to select the best candidate that their party can themselves. It's that kind of bullshit tactic that leads to polarization and animosity. Unfortunately, it seems as if that's the type of thing you need to do in order to have your voice heard, because if enough people are doing it then being honest becomes a liability. (And that, right there, is what is wrong with America today).

It's also possible that he had a switch flipped in the last 8 years, too. A lot has happened during that time and people change.

True, however you can only vote in one, iirc -- I left VA a few years ago for MD, where we have party registration and closed primaries, so I don't remember whether they took names down and compared who voted in which on what day, or ran the primaries on the same day and gave you the party ballot you asked for. I only voted in one primary while I lived in VA (where I lived for most of my life, but primaries were never a huge deal where I lived)

They have a candidate on the ballot in the general election. No one was willing to sign up to run because the assumed Cantor would be the nominee and they would stand no chance. However, they picked a candidate via convention rather than primary. If you're going to try to be dismissive, at least be dismissing the right things.

Correct. Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair. This is why party registration and closed primaries make sense. That's at least ore fair than doing the entire nomination via convention and forgoing primaries all together.

I went to RMC ('06), so I've met Brat before. I've also done political work (07-08) and had many interactions with Cantor. Frankly, I think that Brat is a better person one-on-one, but that Cantor is probably better to have been the nominee and retained the seat. Frankly, I'm surprised by Brat's immigration stance -- he never seemed the type to me when I was in school, but I never took any of his classes. Pretty sure I remember him from College Republican meetings and don't recall that topic ever being addressed though.

That sociology professor running against him can suck it though. I don't like that guy at all.

Anyone who can afford a smart gun can afford to not live in Detroit. Therefore, I doubt either of those headlines would ever be written with "Detroit" in them for real.

A key buried far away from the lock to which it goes is probably perfectly safe. It is, however, ridiculous, but I wouldn't trot out "security through obscurity" for it. However, numbers in the cell phone would likely be able to tie the key to a lock, and that's the most glaring vulnerability right there. (Also the stupidest part of the plan).

Additionally: since the fact that the key exists has been announced, security through obscurity isn't really applicable. To wit: I know you have an account, and I know you have a password. I do not, however, know your password. The password is secret, but the fact that it exists is known and is therefor not obscure. Likewise, one can assume the existence of a private key in a public/private key pair. The secrecy of the key is necessary for the encryption scheme to work as intended, but existence of key isn't denied, therefor not obscure.

At the time the Internet was the (D)ARPANET and export to other countries wasn't really on the horizon anyway. I think had this gone into place, the headline would be "Internet may have been commercially adapted decades sooner, if not for built-in security mechanisms."