You're missing the distinction between an online attack and an offline attack. In an online attack, where the attacker goes to the website and starts typing in passwords, then lockout will do just fine. But when the attacker has stolen the password file, he gets as many guesses as he wants, bounded only by computing power. And in that case, the hashing speed will be a limiting factor in how long it takes him to break the passwords.

Advertising companies make a big deal about "notice" and "choice." Unfortunately, while they claim to give users the ability to "opt out" of Online Behavioral Advertising (OBA), all they really do is give users the ability not to see ads. They don't necessarily give users the ability not to be tracked. Here's an entire paper about it. http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2011/tr_cylab11005.html

There are two types of attacks one can make against passwords: online and offline. In an online attack, the attacker just goes to the website itself and starts entering passwords.The website can just lock him out after several failed attempts; even if there is a password-reset option, this can still be very time-consuming. However, if more pernicious attack that is an offline attack. In this attack, the attacker has stolen the hashed password file, and he can spend an arbitrary amount of time breaking its passwords, limited only by the number of cycles on his computer.

What makes a change in policy to a maximum of 16 characters absurd is that the strength of passwords really does matter when it comes to how long they will endure these offline attacks. In fact, there is evidence that using a password of at least 16 characters leads to a password that is more difficult for attackers to break.

http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2011/tr_cylab11008.html

Taiwan uses Traditional Chinese. Mainland China uses Simplified Chinese. So, that wouldn't work. Mao changed the written form of the language some years back.

If I were caught speeding, could I justify that by telling the officer who pulled me over that I was stressed?

Now, imagine that instead of speeding, I were instead violating the Constitution of the United States. For a period of several years.

We have rules and laws to prevent this from happening. But if there are no consequences for the people and agencies who violate our rights, then those rights have no teeth. The people who have done this to us should be prosecuted.

The government is forcing the change. It wasn't that the TV stations, of their own accord, decided to switch. Instead, it is being forced by the government. So, before you get all upset that the government is helping people switch over, just remember that it is the government that is demanding the process in the first place.