That's not quite sufficient. Take Weird Al's advice and:

Turn off your computer and make sure it powers down
Drop it in a forty-three-foot hole in the ground
Bury it completely, rocks and boulders should be fine
Then burn all the clothes you may have worn any time you were online!

Do it now "before it emails your grandmother all of your porn."

The nice thing about history is that there's more of it each day. Let's say that 40 years from now they've exhausted the list of obvious candidates from 2016 and before. Some worthy candidates will have been released in the intervening 40 years.

Nintendo tried VR or something like it first or close to first among game companies. It didn't sell very well, but with 30 years of technological improvement maybe a second try would go better.

Are you sure about that? Seems to me people who are so inattentive to the outside world because they're glued to their smart phones that they need traffic lights in the sidewalk to keep them from wandering into traffic and getting killed might as well take the next step and strap something on their faces to make it clear to everyone that they're not paying attention to what's going on around them.

Yes, but the collateral damage (both to drivers in other cars and to property) caused by drivers trying to avoid these idiots would be unfortunate.

"'Abort, Retry, Fail?' was the phrase some wormdog scrawled next to the door of the Edit Universe project room. And when the new dataspinners started working, fabricating their worlds on the huge organic comp systems, we'd remind them: if you see this message, always choose 'Retry." from the entry for Matter Editation in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

So ... what if I suspect YOU have knowledge of an imminent attack? Are you okay with me chopping off your fingers, one joint at a time, until you tell me what you know? Sure, at first you'll protest that you don't know anything about any attack, that you're a loyal citizen, but I know that's a lie. Snip snip snip ... why won't you tell me where the attack is going to take place? I'm running out of fingers, soon I'll have to start on your toes.

And as for "Fighting the enemy with all means necessary is the ONLY way to win a war." -- okay. Let's say you're in charge. Here's a document authorizing bombers to nuke the Middle East, North Korea, Libya, and anywhere else considered to be part of the extended "Axis of Evil" until the ground has all turned into glass. Please sign it. That's guaranteed to kill all our enemies in the regions and nuclear weapons are part of "all means necessary" -- are you okay with ordering the deaths of millions of people, many of whom are innocent, to defeat the enemy? If so, please report to the nearest mental hospital and check yourself in as a psychopath. If not, then we agree that there are lines we should not cross -- now we just need to negotiate where they are.

Since I suspect you're going to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, remember that the US Congress had formally declared war on Japan and Truman specifically instructed the Secretary of War to select military targets for the weapons according to his diary. It was not indiscriminate bombing but carefully planned and targeted attacks.

In the United States code, 18 USC 2340 defines torture as:

As used in this chapter-

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from-

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

Does waterboarding satisfy this definition? I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion and based on what I've heard about its effects, yes it does because it makes the person feel like they're drowning.

Does this mean that our military personnel are being tortured when they volunteer to be waterboarded to try to prepare for its effects? The key, I think, is "within his custody or physical control." If a soldier who volunteered to be waterboarded as part of training makes a distress signal I assume / hope that the procedure will be stopped immediately and they're not forced to continue. In that case, because they volunteered and can stop the process, I'd say that's not torture.

I'd be more worried about them heeding the call to "Transform and roll out!"

As a side bonus your comment prompted them to give you a free prostate exam as well as a regular TSA screening, right? Who needs to go to the doctor's office to have the procedure done?

To be fair, the new article I hope they write about this scenario will only need to be two sentences long: DO NOT GIVE YOUR PASSWORDS TO ANYONE. DO NOT USE THE SAME PASSWORD FOR MULTIPLE SITES.

But if they wanted to make it more informative / memorable, they could describe how they may be able to impersonate someone if they can associate one of the entered passwords with one of their registered users (via IP address; not perfect but perhaps good enough) and if that the user used that same password on other sites, like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, etc.

So if the guy who Kickstarted a movie about paint drying applied to have it shown at Tribeca and they decline to show it, they're censoring him? I wouldn't call it that -- I would call it choosing to show movies they believe are of greater entertainment, educational, or artistic value.

If this film had been shown, the quack who lost his medical license and directed this "documentary" would have been able to say "See the documentary shown at the Tribeca Film Festival about how vaccines cause autism!" and use that implicit endorsement to gain more attention for his cause.

It's in the spirit of "We are prepared to bring this to court. However, if you're willing to settle for $100 per file we are accusing you of sharing, we are willing to consider this matter resolved."

As an attacker, it makes sense that you would want to ask for a large enough amount of money that you actually make money, but not enough that it's worth it for your target to fight back. In this case, it seems like that "sweet spot" is 4 bitcoin (or about $1600 dollars) probably precisely because it's "petty cash" to the hospital.

Would it cost more than a lawsuit filed against the hospital by the next of kin of a patient that died because the equipment needed to keep them alive was disabled by an attack like this?