If my boss could find somebody able and willing to do my job for a tenth of my pay, I could hardly blame him for replacing me.
It means I'm expecting too much, compared to what other in the market are willing to settle for.
Now, I come with years of experience at my job, and charming disposition. Plus that new guy doesn't shower. If I want my job back, I'm going to have to lower my demands. I don't necessarily have to go as low as Stinky, but if I offer to take a 30% pay cut, my boss might just be willing to get ME instead of the other guy.
So, I don't really see a problem here aside from complaining about competition.
Your suggestion that his actions were treasonous is ludicrous, laughable on its face. This information was previously published and publicized. There was no leak or release by this guy. To suggest otherwise shows you are in denial of the reality of our times.
1. Yes, broadcast DOES declassify the information. It is now public information. Any member of the public without any clearance at all can freely access it. Therefore, it is public info. Therefore, it is not classified any longer. Just because a file or folder somewhere has a red stamp that says "CLASSIFIED" does not make it true.
2. He did not reveal/publish the info (which I agree would be a punishable offense), he merely linked to what was published elsewhere.
If a classified document was leaked and printed in the NY Times, would it be a similar offense to hand somebody a copy of the paper that day? Ridiculous to suggest.
Righthaven’s mass litigation model now descends upon the Court of which are currently pending. Beyond this case, ... Righthaven mocks the definition of the word and mocks this court by bringing this frivolous motion. Appeals, and it has brought no fewer than five appeals before this Court – all of
Righthaven’s mass litigation model now descends upon the Court of Appeals, and it has brought no fewer than five appeals before this Court – all of which are currently pending. Beyond this case, ... Righthaven mocks the definition of the word and mocks this court by bringing this frivolous motion.
Maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle, but how will this browser work for encrypted/secure pages?
I see two possibilties -- one that's boring, and one that's scary:
1) Silk split browser enhancements do not function for HTTPS pages to preserve the security of the connection. This means theincreasingly large portion of web services only useful with a login will see minimal improvements. Or,
2) Amazon will be injecting themselves as a man in the middle, using the decrypted data to provide performance enhancements to encrypted pages just as well as unencrypted ones. This would mean Amazon could scrape my bank account balance in addition to prices I see while shopping. If its linked to my account, might they try to charge me more if they see a tidy bundle in my chequing account?