Because last time I checked, they had the best Search engine, the best webmail, the best web maps and the best web office suite. Oh, and the 2nd best mobile platform. And a very good browser.
Any better alternatives to support your sweeping generalisation? Preferably ones that other people agree that are better too.
Please forgive my original post if it sounded like there was any snark.
Some people may not want all of their sites stored forever. Some people are cool with it. It was really just an honest question, and no snark was intended.
"Can we talk about making sure your sites get pulled into the Internet Archive" could mean "make sure your site is indexed and archived properly" or could mean "make sure that your site dies and is relegated to the archives".
"Text of a July 2, 2013, letter to Edward Snowden from his father and
father’s attorney
Here is the text of the open letter Lon Snowden, along with his attorney,
Bruce Fein, wrote to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. The letter was provided
to The Associated Press."
The inclusion of Mr. Snowden's letter to the Associated Press's original title and introduction makes this a derivative work for which copyright protection is available[0].
Even without that (or if my understanding of a derivative work is incorrect) you are construing mechanical output of boilerplate CMS content as a specific intent to claim copyright, an assertion which lacks supporting evidence.
It's a matter of intent. Looking at a few other articles, it seems it's a stock copyright notice added to the end of every article with 'Associated Press' given as the author.
"Changing the facts?" - I don't follow. The data is there in front of you, nothing has been changed. Most likely article authors have no capacity to remove that statement from their posts and that it's just boilerplate CMS content.
We should not necessarily ascribe to malice what can be explained through lack of functionality.
It's ironic that Snowden has no fear in blabbing about Top Secret information, and no fear in claiming the moral high ground, but is fearful and scared of getting apprehended at this point in time.
Sounds like his so-called fearlessness has worn off? Nah, he's just a troublemaker who is now on the run.
What do you mean "no fear" and "fearlessness?" Yes, he "blabbed" information, and yes he may claim the moral high ground, but he has clearly been quite afraid of what the government could do to him in the US. And with good reason, IMO.
I just don't get this argument, that he's a coward or a traitor for leaving. Are you required to martyr yourself for your cause to be worthy? He wanted to get this information out, and he also felt like he shouldn't have the rest of his life ruined for it (which is a reasonable prediction if he had stayed).
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether he was fearless or a troublemaker or anything else, this shouldn't be about him as a person.
He has already martyred himself.
The question is why? Why did he feel he had to attach his personality to the leak? It's actually become an immense distraction from the core issue: PRISM
Well Manning did things your way, and he was discovered and locked away, tortured. Maybe Snowden knew there was no way to hide that it was him that leaked the data.
Rather than just disappear (thereby letting the NSA control the story and write his motives), he chose to make the first move.
In my opinion, he couldn't have done it better.
> Why did he feel he had to attach his personality to the leak?
Don't be obtuse. He chose to speak out, and still the NSA managed to tar him as an enemy spy. Had he simply disappeared, he would have made their work even easier.
Because it's not possible to keep who you are secret from the US government indefinitely. Better to go out into the open before they have the chance to smear you as a terrorist.
The media would write articles about who they thought you were - a chinese spy, etc.
(I like troublemakers. Someone described as a "troublemaker" is typically someone who won't accept the status quo just because that's the expedient thing to do.)
Yea, he should have kept licking the jack boots like a good little nazi. He's clearly afraid of a country that has no problem assassinating US citizens, detaining people indefinitely, torturing people, etc.
No. Stalking is a specific thing (for one, it has a specific subject) that is not what we're talking about here (generic behavior, amongst other differences). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking
I think a fair question to ask is, "If you do not understand the internet, should it be easy to disable javascript in your browser?"
As a person who uses noscript every day in FF, at first I thought this was a bad idea, but the more I think about the support aspect of this, the only time I think you really should turn off JS is when you understand enough to find the advanced options.
I hate javascript with a fiery passion. But I'm sensitive to (possibly real) arguments that people are accidentally disabling it because they start clicking random stuff in the 'content' tab of preferences. So move it to 'advanced' and call it a day.
