gonmf

We do nothing of the sort. We wait for the sea levels to rise and we build dams and walls. And we reinforce our buildings against natural disasters. And slowly the public demands changes on greenhouse gas emissions, recycling, etc, and it slowly will slow down the worsening effects.

That's the most likely scenario, nothing will change because the HackerNews netizens change cloud providers and start recycling more.

Current copyright laws, of course. Or else no one would write a book, sell software, make movies, write music.

No sharing wouldn't be possible, unless in a very controlled environment like watching a movie in the cinema or using software that only connects to a 3rd party service, that does all the computing.

And the next time there is a large scale conflict, some neighbour country may feel tempted to use that opportunity to send a single division to your country and absorb it.

Then you can say how wonderful it is to save a fraction of a percentage point of your GDP on defence and how it worked so well until the day it was needed.

I think platforms like Facebook depend on being "cool" over some demographic. Then other demographics adopt it, time passes, other demographics grow tired of the same old Facebook look their parents also used, and Facebook starts to die. We've seen this as well with other social networks like hi5, myspace, that once dominated entire continents as the preferred social website. Of course they are smart and competent people so they will try to prevent it, and it seems to have lasted longer and left a bigger mark already, but still; I'm sure a lot of people around the world already share the sentiment of "not doing anything on FB", and just keeping it open for messenger chat.

My point is not that everyone is bad. My point is that this is par for the course. We don't live in a world of law. We live in a world of civilian law separated and insulated mostly in countries, and over that, anything goes. We are not at war because our wars are financial now but it is very normal for the kidnapping and murder of people that a security threat to a country.

My point was that, if you switched and the murdered was a nuclear scientist and the assassins were Mossad agents (like it happened at least once), no one was surprised or made sanctions because of it.

Are you upset about the droning of civilians with very little oversight? Are you upset about the kidnapping of civilians into cargo ships to act as prisons without jurisdiction?

This attack killed four people, let's say there have been 20 times as many, so 80 deaths overall. do you believe the CIA, Mossad, Iran secret services, China secret services, didn't kill more?

This is interesting as an investigative work, but what of it?

Are we to believe only Russia conducts extra-judicial assassinations of people of interest? And do we expect the governments responsible to come out and admit it?

To me this circus around this particular assassination just appears to stem from having to justify sanctions against Russia by the UK. But then again, I don't expect a country to come out and admit that they'll sanction a country just to weaken it's economy and provoke social instability until they get a more favorable government.

Ah poor DuPont, who will think of the little and weak most powerful chemical company in the world. Oh the humanity.

That's not the point at all, because you don't know how significant was the result when changing the question, because this article conveniently doesn't mention it's sources and if you search a bit you find the probable source article is not online (to the best of my knowledge).

So this article seems to be just about spreading division among racial lines.

In this case the author is happy, but the point stands that he wasn't asked. And most people would be angry at receiving no attribution or warning.

But it won't, there's too much money involved to demonize China. And there are many other such examples of mass surveillance from the five eyes, CCTVs in major cities, less and less "freedom" in the web. Just this week in my country (western European) the whole database of everyone that enters and leaves the country was moved from the police to the secret services, to avoid any kind of scrutiny.

I disagree. I think that companies have such a vast and strong grasp on public discourse, opinion, and even whole countries, that it will only get worse and worse. I'm sure some companies will sell "privacy" at a premium for the few that can afford it, but I don't see any future where there will be actual riots in the streets for privacy.

Because some people have feelings and get very offended and don't process some things as logically as others.

The attack on "fake news", by any other name...