Article body doesn't answer the question posed by the title. Here's as close as you'll get:
Citing “security reasons,” she won’t provide
specific details about where they stayed during
the days that ensued, saying only that they
shared a single, windowless room, did their
laundry in the sink, watched movies on their
laptops, and quickly grew tired of airport food.
I think WikiLeaks helped Snowden a bit more than getting him out of Hong Kong/Moscow airport. When Assange was asked a question about how they helped Snowden get out of the US things got interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=johT3i6XFfc#t=1778
The traitors are the ones who are spying on you,violating all your rights all the time.The traitors are those you accept as your masters.
If Snowden was a traitor,a spy he wouldn't have leaked PRISM to a journalist, he would have flied directly to Russia,he didn't, he was forced to go to Russia,because the real traitors,your masters, wanted his head.
Actually, I think it's a linux package - libtard. Most people only ever hear of it because other packages depend on libtard-dev (like freespeechtype, damnsmallgoverment, and law-common).
Visual director of U2 and Depeche Mode. The guy is kind of a legend in the field. The website of course is "Vogue", the most widely known fashion magazine worldwide.
The JavaScript on that site was really irritating to the point that I couldn't finish reading it. Interfering with srolling makes for a horrible experience if the user is on a touchscreen.
I only whitelist scripts per site (I use ScriptBlock when I'm on Chrome, and NoScript in Firefox). It's not as annoying as you'd think, and makes most websites significantly better in ways you might never have imagined possible.
Scrolljacking is mostly not an issue, timed advertisements simply don't pop up in front of you, you don't get those annoying survey popovers. Also, if you use it correctly, you can avoid the need for an ad blocker(in conjunction with a /etc/hosts file which excludes advertising domains, such as the one provided at http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/), which means that you don't have all of that adblock overhead, which is tens of megabytes per tab in chrome, in addition to a pile of CSS rules which make layout also slower.
I use these two on my Acer C720P and it really helps the web not suck as much, enjoy.
I noticed it's changed now, so for histories sake the title I was responding to was "How a Snowdenista hid the leaker in a Russian airport" or something very close to that.
For some reason it connotes comparison to a militant leftist activist, like a Sandinista. That doesn't seem like such an inaccurate connotation with respect to Snowden's supporters.
Most supporters of Snowden, as well as he, present him as a patriot, a defender of the constitution in the face of a spying apparatus which has lost its way. So I would think the last thing they'd want to do is present him and his associations as militant leftists. Therefore, if the assertion to add "a" is a kind of nod to leftist activism, that would seem to betray Snowden's expressed intent.
His opponents usually take issue with his methods, and believe that his actions speak louder than words. They see his methods as anti-government rather than pro-Constitution.
It's a pretty rich comparison which doesn't have to be interpreted negatively (that is dependent on the observer).
For example, the Sandinistas would likely see themselves as fighting Yankee imperialism and domestic supporters of the Sandinistas might have an angle of opposing CIA activity. Especially if you bring Assange into this, you really are at most a few hops of association away from the literal Sandinistas.
Fitting the "Patriot / Constitution" image in there is a little awkward because of how those words have been appropriated by the far right wing, invoking patriotism is also a little awkward with respect to how much patronage from Russia et al. is involved here.
I don't really care what the word ends up being but it would be convenient to have a compact word like "Snowdenista" and I'd appreciate it if the term isn't something pompous and not really indicative like "Patriotic Constitution-Supporter"
I would have to argue against the thought that only people on the right can be 'patriots' Maybe it seems like they are more facile with the word, but people on the regular left aren't any less patriotic, at least in their minds, than people on the regular right. The far right, and perhaps far left, might misappropriate the word, but who cares, it does not take away from other people's patriotism.
In my mind, the only viable defense for Snowden is a constitutional defense, else, it would enter treacherous territory, ie. he'd not then be defending citizen's rights, etc. but rather be exposing state secrets, as it were.
it's very exciting to live in a world where "i don't want every action i perform to be logged by government agencies" to be translated to "leftist activist", thanks for participating in that framework
But pekk isn't making that allegation. He's just pointing out the connotation of adding an "a" to the regular "-ist" suffix. So, it's more that Vice is the one you might be upset with. And not quite tongue-in-cheek, but they could very well be doing that knowingly, subversively.
During the Reagan administration, the University of Maryland "Commie Co-Op" sold a delicious crispy triangular mince, potato, onion and pea filled pastry called a "Sandinista", which was the left-wing successor to the Samosa, a pun on Anastasio Somoza Debayle, the dictator of Nicaragua before the Sandinistas overthrew him.
(Mr. Bane can verify that they were very yummy indeed! ;)
