Well that's a completely foolish request. All of it should have been killed ages ago, but Obama is still a huge disappointment whether he was convinced these things were good ideas or he was swallowed and stymied by the system. He seems to have enough bad behaviors all his own, though. Thing is, if presidents are ever serious about dismantling bad programs, they shouldn't offer excuses or ignore demands, but should ask for help from the public.
Another part of the problem is presidents hardly control what people think they control, even when they are granted powers to start something, changing or stopping the entrenched unelected parts of government is not easy, particularly in the power-wielding bodies. Screwing up or repurposing beneficial parts seems a fair bit easier.
The bigger problem in particular here is that most people are ok with authoritarian behavior if they think it doesn't directly affect them.
Well, Gates really set a culture that hasn't changed much, and set the foundations of an OS that really hasn't changed much either. But yeah i am not sure why Gates is still invoked. Or Monkey-Boy Ballmer for that matter. Particularly in situations where a general-purpose OS shouldn't be in use anyway.
It's also true that MS does not warrant their products to be used in any critical systems. So networking Windows and critical infrastructure together is against MS advice, and also stupid. Just like connecting critical infrastructure, including SCADA systems, to the internet.
What is even more hilarious is that hospitals being insecure is surely a HIPAA violation. Never mind a threat to the lives and welfare of patients. And as hospitals are generally now parts of mega-system healthcare, it should be easy to hold corporate central accountable.
Well i guess it is easier to make sure our armed forces can malware-attack other countries. That will help, i am sure.
It's kind of funny how everything in hospitals had to be "Y2K Compliant" and what a big deal people made over it in general, but since the rise of serious criminal malware markets people really don't seem to get any of it or give a hoot. And that is nothing new, but the seriousness of it with the spread of IoT and generically networking lots of devices that have been around for ages without such... still seems to go rather more unnoticed.
Maybe because it is real and doesn't have enough doom and conspiracy flavouring? Or the right sort? I just don't understand why people prefer to react to imaginary threats instead of real ones. Even when it is malware and criminal hacking, they have all sorts of weird ideas and fears, but you can't get them to change behavior or harden their devices against real problems.
> The idea that people are just such suckers they believe whatever Facebook puts in front of them is silly.
While i doubt one can remotely blame Facebook for any of this, feel free to replace Facebook in that sentence with a whole host of other things and it's pretty valid. People also disbelieve both true and untrue things very frequently for equally bad "reasons" as they believe things. I am not sure whether for any particular subject it is germane if they are independently stupid, or believe something stupid because they heard it somewhere.
I can only assume WSJ goes off the rails every time a banker is appointed to an office of financial regulation, or entertainment industry lawyers and executives are appointed to relevant offices like the copyright office. Right?
Who the hell knows how Trump is responsible for the Do Not Call law. I can't even imagine. But you'll have to separate that from standard Trump-bashing, for which you can thank only Trump by making it political and increasing the popularity of it.
Clinton is and has been blamed for all sorts of things she has nothing to do with either, for a very long time. Not that i much support her either given actual things that are wrong with her.
But frequently the difference is that bashing a flaming non-stop moron will be fun simply for entertainment value. General stupid corrupt politician bashing will continue as well, with or without merit, and dragged into any conversation on the thinnest pretext. But if that is astroturfing, then i don't know what to call endless months of Hillary-bashing here that have been so far out of alignment with reality as to be hysterical. Emails! Noes! Treason! Hang her! There is always someone with crazed hyperbolic statements and extra exclamation points hanging around. I don't see the above comparison as anything other than a funny and apt connection. I mean, Shiva dude must need some kind of actual job at some point, yeah? Perfect fit, unless he looks to Trump like a terrorist or the kind of fellow who is the sort that should leave rooms in a stretcher. Of course he is equally fitting for a position in a Clinton administration for reasons that are not as concisely humourous.
tl;dr, that is one of the less frothing and agenda-oriented comments i have seen here where someone felt there was an opportunity to 2016-election-Godwin the comment section.
They are certainly meant to interpret, or reinforce proper interpretation, of laws. Instead they find technicalities to address which somehow also let them pass on the question at hand. Procedural and other questions can be important, too, but merely in the name of efficiency, if not protecting rights and enforcing proper criminal sanctions, they should be handing down fully clarifying rulings. But too often they seem to seek one reason to dismiss and done. Here they ruled on the application of one law without wider guidance on whether or when that law and similar laws should be applied at all. That isn't "making law". (Never mind that all three branches can and do make law, as intended.)
This is just out and out tinfoil hat conspiracy theory territory from people who see "Google" behind any policy they dislike.
Tinfoil is always the way to go even when something deserves a ton of legitimate criticism. It think part of the tinfoil has to do with projection; either directly projecting behavior and motive, or picking some weird made up thing to go after because you agree with the behaviors someone or something could be legitimately criticized for. Or i suppose sometimes it is because one won't state directly what the real issue is so one uses dogwhistles and the like which can hilariously take on a life of their own.