If you can't remove problematic certs by a vendor or penalise them for misdeeds, then they have no constraints. User trust is more important.

2.x and then MATE are the real Gnome.

Are you thinking of Metropolis? If so I can see the resemblance.

Looks a lot like another Lost in Space (which was a few years before this). There were plenty of shows of this sort at the time.

Sometimes the question is more interesting for other C-level executives.

There would need to be a compelling third-party platform led by someone whom we should want to lead the nation. Right now neither the Greens nor the Libertarians manage both.

It's pretty simple - living off the grid, whether as an exercise of vanity and paranoia, or because one actually has something worth hiding, makes people more worthy of surveillance.

I remember it, and it was pretty cool at the time. It had predecessors though - France had a system called Minitel that dates back to the year when I was born (1978).

I'm not sure what "you people" you imagine me to be part of.

As to the "you never call" bit, FISA doesn't apply or do what you think it does if you're seriously suggesting that. Even if we imagine some alternate world where it were entirely different but kept that name, you might want to look into "sovereign immunity" as a doctrine. It does not alone decide the issue (see also the "stripping doctrine"), but there are many hurdles to meet to do as you say even were it basically plausible. Which it is not.

You're going to grumble about how the way used are words nowadays don't fit some ancient definition nobody cares about anymore, while using the word "fascist" that way? That seems a bit odd.

The founding fathers certainly committed treason. The term doesn't necessarily mean something bad in every circumstance.

I accept and believe Snowden performed treason. No doubt in my mind. But I don't think making a movie about it, absent any other strong ties, amounts to support; we have all sorts of movies about criminals as well as current events that happen to be illegal. Without some actual ties, I'd prefer to err on the side of having robust public discussion of these matters rather than worrying about this kind of thing.

I charge those headphones about once a week, using a USB charger. While doing so, the headphones are not on my head, and the other end is in the wall; they're entirely still. I think the much lower frequency and the lack of motion while charging has led this to be entirely reliable.

Do you expect those of us who have been bluetooth-only to go along with this?

I get the DRM reasoning. It makes sense to be worried about that. But I also don't like how physical connectors tend to break. I used to go through a headset every month because I'm pretty rough on devices; the cables always broke. Some years ago I switched to bluetooth headphones and that problem stopped. Entirely. I need to make sure I keep them charged, but it's well worth that hassle.

What this means is for my current and previous phone, I have never plugged anything into the headphone jack for the entire time I've had the devices. Which means I don't need that port. Which makes it feel about as useful as a PS/2 port on a modern computer.

I'm a SRE at a large (non-Google) tech company, and I have a Chromebook Pixel as a secondary system I use all the time, at work and at home. It's incredibly useful and I'm quite happy with it (with ChromeOS in developer mode, which just gives me a shell that's occasionally useful). The idea of high-end Chromebooks makes a lot of sense (for some people) even though I couldn't've guessed it would before I had one. Still, right now to me "Pro" is just a word. It's unclear to me how it'd be different from what I already have.