I'm in two minds regarding this. This reminds me of the clampdown in many of the middle-eastern countries during the Arab spring. On Principle I don't believe that the state should be allowed to place such restrictions on civilian freedom. However, I can't deny that the measures worked. The protest had become extremely violent and needed to be defused instantly. This measure possibly saved lives.
Could the revolt have been defused by Britain granting more voting power to American colonial authorities? Or would they continue to demand placing their community above the rest by being completely autonomous?
Poland is the prime example of getting rid of unwanted government(communist in this case) without resorting to violence, and that's despite the entire country being under martial law with severe restrictions on travel and trade for a few years. It can be done.
Indians made this (see Gandhi & Indian independence movement), but I don't sure "americans"(mostly english people living overseas those days) were capable for that(especially with taking natives genocide & slavery into account).
In India's case Britain was already in a situation where it half-wanted to leave (due to the war, etc). This was not the case with the US.
I'm pretty sure India would have had a violent movement too if WW2 hadn't happened and Indians had better access to firearms and stuff. Violence was less of an option because the British government deliberately ensured that the locals were suppressed. Whereas in the U.S. the British were exploitative of the colonies, but they did not suppress the people (until the movement started); after all, those were their own people.
We did, in fact, have a violent movement, in 1857, just that it didn't work out too well.
I don't think that "Indians are less violent" is really an argument to be made here.
Born and brought up in the US, been in India for the last ... 8 years. (Indian origin).
That's quite anecdotal at best. My experience has not been the same, I've seen ample violent elements in both places. Indians are generally subtler in our social cues, and that might make Americans "louder" (which feels like aggression), but certainly not more violent.
It also might matter which area of either country you've lived in. Boston(-ish) and Mumbai here.
An acceptable argument for India being more nonviolent would be the entire NAM movement among other initiatives, but there are still many, many other reasons why India's nonviolent independence movement worked -- Indians being nonviolent, if true, would be a small contributor to it, not the main reason. Besides, like I said, we had a violent independence movement and failed. Technically, two, if you count the INA, which actually managed to liberate many areas.
In general, freedom of expression, communication should not be curbed but that freedom also brings in misinformation, rumour, and anti-social activities. When panic can cause unnecessary destruction, government should be able to control communication channels for a short period of time. Remember, if government is wrong, it will not be able to hide the truth for a long.
As far as I know, this is the first time Snowden is directly penning an article. He even has a staff page  now on The Intercept. This is interesting because to me because "At the NSA I routinely came across the communications of New Zealanders in my work" is much more impactful than "Snowden stated that he routinely came across the communications of New Zealanders in his work as an NSA Analyst".
I agree with the conclusions in general, but it always makes sense to judge headphones by model than brand. My fav earphone is Sony MH1C. It used to be available in eBay for $30 and was the best you could buy the sub $100 category.
It's not just the raw numbers. I would love to move onto Telegram, which is more secure, has an API, and works from a desktop. But, I can't.
There are about five or six odd people in my life (professional or private) that I message frequently. Even if 1 out of them isn't on a particular messaging platform, I can't adopt that platform wholeheartedly. With Fb Messages, Hangouts and every other popular smartphone oriented messaging platform there would always be that one or two contacts that you regularly communicate with, who would be left out due to having an incompatible device. Whatsapp on the other hand works on pretty much every phone. When you want to replace something as prevalent as SMS, the long tail matters.
There's another tangible benefit of focusing on so many platforms. Whatsapp, which doesn't spend much (if anything at all) on promotion, is prominently featured in the advertisements of many budget phones, as manufacturers see Whatsapp support as a strong selling point.
Exactly. It just seems to be fashionable to write a blog post bashing W3Schools, PHP etc. Yes, some of their content might have technical inaccuracies. Yes, the design is dreadful. But, when you're quickly looking to find out what are the different properties that text-decoration supports, W3Schools is pretty damn useful. It's very good both as a quick reference or for quickly learning the basics before diving into actual development.