Fortunately, in this time, the people of Ukraine not only had the will to change their government, they had the ability to organize and export their story to the world via the internet, ubiquitous camera phones, and a citizen press. In other words, twenty years ago, this might not have been possible. Now it's eminently so.
Other nations looking to tamp down on free speech and a free internet may want to take note of the consequences.
That reads like their ability to revolt depended on having free speech and the ability to spread the news. Therefore taking that away from them would make any revolt much more contained.
Of course it would also make revolt much more likely ...
Guess that's the tradeoff in running a dictatorship though - lots of containable revolts (hoping they don't link up) or a few uncontainable revolts?
He certainly is implying that. Think of the following quotes which we've seen various flavours of on Techdirt:
Politician: We need to snoop on all your web browsing to catch paedophiles. Obviously paedophiles won't like this, so you will see some stories trying to cast this program in a sinister light.
NSA: We need to snoop on all your web browsing to catch terrorists. Obviously terrorists won't like this, so you will see some stories trying to cast this program in a sinister light.
Gabe: We need to snoop on all your web browsing to catch cheaters. Obviously cheaters won't like this, so you will see some stories trying to cast this program in a sinister light.
In each case they are pointing out that their objective is to catch bad people, which of course has to be a good thing. After all, bad people! So of course bad people won't like this and will write nasty things about the program. Think about that every time you see someone argue against this program, and think of the children(tm)!
And of course with the NSA this is happening at this moment - with David Miranda and Jesselyn Radack being treated as terrorists for opposing the NSA's anti-terrorist program, and politicians sparing no opportunity to attack Snowden, Greenwald et al.
Now I would reiterate that I think Gabe did the right thing in issuing a prompt response, and in a human manner rather than something tied up in lawyerese and PR-speak. I also trust Steam far more than I trust politicans/NSA and actually believe what he says.
I just think he could have ditched the line where he tried to associate anyone who disagreed with their browsing being spied on with cheaters.
I would point out that I do use Steam and am happy with the service they provide. I'm not going to stop as a result of this disclosure.
"For most cheat developers, social engineering might be a cheaper way to attack the system than continuing the code arms race, which means that there will be more Reddit posts trying to cast VAC in a sinister light."
So, anyone who disagrees with him is obviously a cheater? How about someone who doesn't like finding out that their activity is being spied on outside of a game?
While I applaud Gabe for coming out with a human and straightforward response, he could have done so without trying to denigrate anyone who disagrees with him.
From the NJ AG's "screw you" letter they want information regarding "whether the Bitcoin code was present on websites owned and/or operated in the State or visited by New Jersey consumers."
Presumably the EFF can quote from their earlier letter. The one the AG is responding to: - "Tidbit's code has never been functional and is incapable of mining for bitcoins" - "Tidbit's code is not functional and unable to mine for bitcoins at all"
Nice to know the AG read the EFF's letter before responding.
Makes sense, thanks. Although (or because?) I'm a native english speaker my grip of grammar - adverbs, etc - isn't what it should be
Although I would comment that a burglar is one who burgles, in a similar manner to a fighter is one who fights - I haven't (yet) heard of people fighterizing ;)
Agree that there's no universal "right" way of speaking English - only the right way for a given dialect, such as UK / US / Australian / etc - eg colour / color. Presumably the situation is the same for European / American spanish.
On a similar vein, what's with the word "burglarized"? How does it differ from plain old "burgled"? I've seen it cropping up increasingly frequently in American English and it seems to be a case of inventing a new longer word for no real reason?
Same goes for "terroristic". Surely terroristic threat = terrorist threat. There's no need for the "ic"?
"[The IRA] was known for bombing a shopping center, killing six and injuring 90"
Um, that's probably the least of their activities. Thats like saying "Al Qaeda is known for bombing the US embassy in Kenya".
The Provisional IRA (one part of the various IRA groups) has a much more active history than that. They were responsible for multiple bombings, including assassinating a member of the royal family, an assassination attempt on the British PM (by way of blowing up the hotel where her party's annual conference was held), terrorist attacks on in the UK, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, and were involved with operations in the Americas (eg Columbia) and the middle east.