The US wouldn't survive it. Socially internally lots more division and strife than Vietnam, lots more. Being a pariah internationally mainly economically and politically.

The US is a lot less capable economically and needs a lot more support from others to actually survive than they did 40 years ago when Vietnam happened where there still was a Cold War going on. The US is already in a economic and social mess with no way out in sight, but right now this is a slow decline. With a war like this it would be a unmitigated disaster economically and socially with the decline being a falling from a cliff. In short: the US doesn't have the money or will to fight even another Iraq or Afghanistan, forget about Iran. Iran precisely can pursue its nuclear program so easily cause the US fucked up their last two wars and can't afford to wage a third. Israel can and does snub the US everytime they need or want cause the US desperately doesn't want them to bomb the iranian nuclear program.

Lastly, effective campaign from the air costs a lot less lives than an occupation, but its comparatively much more expensive. Smart Bombs are expensive compared to .50 cal bullets and jet maintenance is pricier than an oil change on a HMMV.

You cannot hide genocide. That's what the "smoking-ruins victory" actually means. Even the Israelis aren't capable of that as seen with the palestinians and Lebanon cause that would deprive them of their "We are persecuted by you evil Nazis who don't agree with our politics against Lebanon/Palestine! Holocaust! Shoa! Hater!" defense.
While the US killed tens or hundreds of enemies/civilians for every dead GI in each of their last wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), they still lost every one of these wars in reality: lots of money and people spent but being lot worse off afterwards. Classical pyrrhic victory.

Another corporation similar to Rambus which invents stuff and then demands royalties for licenses and patents. Just what we needed for economic growth!

Dear Youtube/Google,

UMG clearly violated other people's copyright, acted in bad faith, and committed countles crimes against innocent kittens. All water under the bridge right now.
However, what measures do you, Google, enact immediately so UMG cannot commit such an unlawful act again? This time, UMG is the only culprit and you only a stupid patsy who wasn't very clever when you made a contract. Now you and the public at large see how there is a problem with this contract, so how do you propose to fix it? Will you revoke UMGs direct access? Will you make another contract with fines for unlawful censoring? Will you protect your lawful users from companies like UMG at all?

I hope you filter your incoming mail manually as well, just to be consistent.
Hint: there was no "take down notice". It's an automated system just like your spamfilter. Not randomness involved.

Has the MPAA sued Tech News yet? Sent them a costly legal notice? No? Then it's not like your torrent example.

So you think it's worth spending the man hours to ensure your spam block is done right too? Cause with thousands of video submits per second on youtube it's the same problem only that videos are up to ten minutes long which you have to check all while a spam mail is about 2 pages tops and a lot faster to scan.

It obviously doesn't have the right. It's fair use for the purpose of reporting news.

This is simple collateral damage when you use software to automatically flag copyright violations and then act on that software's flagging automatically too cause humans are simply too expensive to police it all manually. Happens all the time. All the usual slashdot tropes of printers which do torrents, grandmas that get notices, openoffice that gets removed from ftp servers, etc.

Youtube and your mail client's spamfilter have the same problem: false positives. Both use an automated system to flag violations of policy and in both cases it mostly works but never 100%. You cannot demand from youtube or the RIAA to flag it all manually, just like you can't really flag all your spam manually: if you do, either Youtube goes out of business cause their business model does not allow that many employees and still serve you videos for "free". Or the major labels go out of business since they have to hire people to police youtube and demand even more per song. I'm sure many /.ers would like this 2nd outcome but it's not really realistic or actually desirable either.

So Tech News should alert youtube to unblock their video and move on. Oh I forgot: better to post it to slashdot frontpage so Tech News can get a few thousand more hits! Genius! The RIAA is evil after all.

The best selling authors on the Kindle like Amanda Hock weren't known before either but they still proved: you can become famous AND financially succesful over the Internet. She had no marketing money behind here as you allege. However, because there is no billlion dollar publishing house or major record label which does an expensive marketing campaign, there are no more "one hit wonders" which sell millions of copies of their first opus, the 2nd one flops horribly and you never hear from them again. Instead the artist has to consistently produce quality over a longer time.

If it's really a Botnet, then Twitter can't be inactive, or they risk botwars for all kinds of controversial topics in the future. Twitter will then very soon become a wasteland of botnet #topic wars and real humans will leave in droves since they can't get any useful info anymore and Twitter, the company, will crater.
As long as this presumable russian government botnet was not widely known, Twitter could have ignored it since the public didn't know that Twitter was gamed by special interests. Now however, they have to act or rather give the impression of acting. Acting in this case means to stop the Botnet of course, the other still existing botnets won't be affected since they've not been exposed (yet).

It's not a technical problem. The problem is facebook, google+, reddit, etc behaviour. That means it's a social or economic thing, and laws are the thing to regulate those. It won't solve the issue, but it's the normal way to mitigate it. Just like we put laws around the behaviour of murder, theft and fraud, so we can put laws around the behaviour of user tracking.

What you are suggesting is a technical solution to a social problem. Ask about DRM creators about that one.

That's not what's needed for Peak Oil. Peak Oil means even with higher demand, as we have now, there won't be more Oil on the market. And that's exactly what happens since around 2005/2006: the absolute amount of oil extracted and sold sinks slowly every year, while before that it increased always except in times of severe crisis, economic or price hikes (1970s).
That 20.000 leagues under the Sea oil is more and more expensive to extract and therefore less and less is sold. In 2005 to 2008 we had a very much expanding economy and still there was less oil extracted.

Easy: either they consistently have the data from the decrypted drives and use it to prosecute you or they don't. If they lie to the courts about having the data, ie they have it and use it secretly but don't tell the judge and defense, then you have bigger problems: a corrupt justice system. Then encrypted data won't help you to avoid a guilty verdict.

Companies have the rights to passwords to company data and property.
And courts cannot order the defendant to give a password if this would incriminate the defendant: 5th amendment.