...management stop seeing IT as a cost to be cut at every opportunity and are made to take responsibility for the subsequent failures, nothing will change.

...I should have included this.

You're technically correct - the best kind of correct.

...how's the pig?

Nah, in that context it's all about projecting a macho, alpha-status image, which they have to do to maintain dominance and position. It's the hubris that prevents them realising they've no chance of actually deploying their symbol of authority AK/PK before they get a pesh-kabz in the kidney.

Well, in Putin's Russia, involuntary defenestration counts as "natural causes."

Well, it's a good job that they're not both megalomaniacal dictators with the entire resources of their respective nations at their beck and call, and a brutal security apparatus to enforce their whims and desires irrespective of their grounding in objective reality.

Oh, wait...

...use the "small claims court" process to recover your legal fees - one claim for each successful defence.

IMNAL, but how about filing counter-suits for each failed DMCA take-down attempt, citing "tortious interference" or "restraint of trade"?

At the very least, it should be possible to question their adherence to the "good faith" requirement, especially if discovery reveals the degree of automation in their DMCA process.

Hell, having "...successfully fought thousands of these" suggests there's no good faith in the process whatsoever (quelle surprise!).

...that otherwise-identical content is being treated differently just based on the sender?

I suspect not...

By adding a proximity/range sensor to stop inattentive drivers rear-ending a slowing/stopped car ahead.

Mercedes added "RADAR-controlled cruise control" to some cars years ago, and it worked very well, because they did what it took - time/money/people - to get it right.

I suspect that other implementations suffer from cheapest-possible components and inept implementation, perhaps even using the parking sensors to double as long-distance range-finders.

Forgive the pedantry, but GPS does not know speed limits, it just provides location - to varying degrees of accuracy.

Speed limits are part of the mapping data loaded into the SatNav/in-car computer/etc, and can be inaccurate, incomplete or just out-of-date - sometimes all three.

GPS is sufficiently accurate to determine which country you're in, and so whether the signage is in mph or kph.

It is sometimes insufficiently accurate to determine whether you're on a 70mph road or the 20mph road than runs parallel to it, which can be mildly irritating when your SatNav routing keeps recalculating as it switches between the two, but is massively dangerous if it's connected to your brakes.

Map-based speed limits are also problematic if, for example, a municipality drops a limit from 30mph to 20mph between updates.

Ultimately, all this shit should be advisory in nature. It should not take control away from the driver, as it is not - and can never be sufficiently reliable.

And yes, I know some will say "Well, people are not sufficiently reliable either!" which is true enough, but people are also required to take responsibility for their actions (or inactions). Abrogating responsibility for control of a vehicle in favour of flaky pseudo-automation is not a good idea.

"I want to be part of the peer review!"

"OK, you need to go to Kansas City."

"Is that where they're doing the review?"

"No, that's the back of the line..."

I'm in the wrong job...

...America failed to realise that other people could follow their Stuxnet playbook, and so failed to ensure that the country's critical infrastructure was properly hardened against attack.

Of course, most of that infrastructure is in private hands, and shareholder dividends always trump investment.