Maybe 10 years ago I would have agreed but nowadays not so much, the latest Ubuntu is very polished and I had a lot of success with it with completely non-technical users.
Personally it's not the UX that I'm afraid of but when random drivers don't work or updates break things. Once upon a time I enjoyed learning and doing that kind of thing but nowadays I just don't have the time.
Admittedly I haven't installed Linux for a few years and don't even have my own computer now so maybe the situation has improved.
Yeah, if the free media is told something is classified, they will do the responsible thing and not pursue the matter any further. They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good.
Then why bother with the term at all? What does the "free" in "free press" mean?
The First Amendment of the US constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Although the term "free press" isn't specifically mentioned, if one cannot decide what does and does not qualify as "the press" then everything from espionage to outright falsehood can equally be considered an expression of "the press."
As this is not the case, then "the press" and "the free press" must have some established definition, which means some qualifiers must have been decided upon. And yet it doesn't seem as if the US has fallen prey to wholesale government silencing of critics or censorship of criticism either in the mainstream or alternative press, as a result of such definition.
So while it may be possible that defining "the press" could result in abusing that definition to silence critics, it doesn't appear to be inevitable.
Therefore, it can safely be argued whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as the "free press" without fear of a slippery slope to press censorship in general.
You might need a refresher of US history. It can and has been abused in the past and only through fighting back hard have we gotten the status quo of today.
If the spooks of weren't so damn aggeessive that they spoiled a can't lose trial Ellswood would have been fucked for the Pentagon Papers as there is no public interest defense against the Espionage Act.
To be frank the Espionage act is an unconstitutional relic of past mistakes that should have a stake driven through its heart, head chopped off and stuffed with garlic and the body burned outside in and left in sunlight.
Falsehood /is/ protected. It is a civil matter at very worst. Because if it isn't then you can have prosecutions for "lies" that are really inconvenient facts.
The current jurisprudence /as it should be/ is that the press is an activity and not a position.
We regulate most professions e.g. builders, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists etc. Why can't we regulate journalists ?
If you did a college/university degree, if you are a member of some association, if you follow some code of practice and abide by some definition of ethics and values then you are a journalist and a protected entity.
Because they are a check on the powers of the state is an obvious reason why not. It would be like saying wolves should have the power to regulate sheepdog usage and pasture fencing.
Communication skills are necessary for all job positions.
Remote working is quite new to us though. People have worked on site for thousands of years, while remote working just appeared in the last century or so and it has different communication needs.
My guess it will take 10+ years from now to cultivate remote communication skills so that they work intuitively for the majority of software developers.
IMO, these collection of links type resources would be much more useful if the author curated the list down to something like "Read This_Article for This_Topic" and let people then just google for more information if they need it. Just googling and inserting the top 10 links into a list isn't adding much value.
Indeed. I guess the best practical argument is sharing them securely is hard. Which is very true. However if it's not possible for two security researchers to exchange data then what hope is there for the rest of us?
I get he doesn't want to do that and that is his prerogative. However, it does feel like we're so scared of things falling into the wrong hands that we hobble our ability to defend against hacks in the first place.
I would imagine if there are any security researchers he trusts sharing the data with, they wouldn't need to email him out of the blue for it, nor need to discuss it with the rest of us.
