Well then, it's like a traffic jam when you're already late.

Yeah, but malicious intent is only a part of the threat equation. I'd rather have one completely incompetent malicious guy trying to kill me, specifically, than a thousand incompetent but well-meaning drivers around me.

Just because malice feels more dangerous doesn't make it so. It may well be more reprehensible, but decisions affecting foreign policy and national security shouldn't be made based on feelings.

I think the general point is that the OP confused the National Mall with a retail mall, and the GP was mocking his ignorance.

Work harder! Millions of Americans depend on YOU!

Sure... in exactly the same way, and to the same degree, that I depend on them. Actually, I may depend on them slightly more, since they provide a disincentive against foreign countries just laying claim to my home. But otherwise, great point.

Regression? What the hell is that??? Everybody attack!!!

The problem with voting is the same as the problem with Facebook: It doesn't capture dislikes. The majority of voters who liked a candidate in 2004 may have liked Bush, but maybe more people disliked him than liked him. Capturing dislike would allow people to go to the polls and register their displeasure with the candidate(s) offered, even if they don't like either of the choices. If someone can't exceed the number of dislikes with likes, then they probably shouldn't hold office, regardless of whether or not they have the most likes in absolute terms.

It's how we operate. We all know that overeating is bad for us -- down the road, but does that stop us? No. It takes a heart attack that we (hopefully) survive, or that of a loved one to make us change. We don't change behaviors just because we know we should, or demand change that we know is good for us. It takes a crisis.

Once these technologies are abused wholesale, then we'll see change. Until then, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Because we affect what they want. There is no a-priori desire for Happy Meals. Surprise! -- after genetics, we're all an effect of our environments.

"fathers encourage young women to study CS more than mothers"

In other words, *women* don't want to be programmers. But we already knew that because there is no grand conspiracy keeping them out of the field. The reason this is a "problem" is because there's money on the table. Nobody cares that garbage collectors are almost entirely men, or that daycare providers are almost entirely women. Nobody is shocked that most men would -- quite literally -- rather pick up other people's dirty diapers than deal with children all day, or vice versa. It's not a crisis that men don't want to go shoe shopping. But somehow it's a crisis that women don't want to stare at screens making sure implementations conform to interfaces and creating custom data structures.

It's probably safe to assume that the CIA doesn't have an interest in furthering China's political agenda.

You'll shut me down with a push of your button?

And once they do this, roads won't fall into disrepair anymore!

If by "millions" you mean "one or two with computer names longer than 64 characters." At least for external threats. For internal threats on public WiFi, the networks should always be presumed to be insecure. For private networks, you already control the devices that connect because you have a secure passphrase, right? Right?

Companies don't "come and go" quite as rapidly as they did in the early days. Facebook has already been around for over a decade, and Twitter is going on 9 years. That's ancient compared to the lifespan of Pets.com or other dot bombs, and the userbases are orders of magnitude larger.

Google isn't legitimizing Twitter -- in fact, they returned Twitter results for a while a few years ago until Twitter cut them off. This isn't a new feature, it's a return of an old feature (or bug).

Zoom in. Enhance.