The developers still leave assertions in the code, which is a good sign that they don't consider it to be ready for production. However, after I patched a few of the worst offenses out, it's worked fine for me for almost a year now.

>Your logic is odd, to say the least. Nearly everybody that this 140 year protection would benefit are Democrats or Progressives. If anything, electing more Democrats might result in copyright protection for an even longer time.

Citation, or it didn't happen.

> You do realize, that there is no better, EVER, if there are no content makers, and nobody wants to be one because there is no motivation to do so, so congrats, you've destroyed an industry. What's next?

Hate to break it to you, kid, but there has always been, and will always be, content. It's only in the past century that content was overly monetized and turned into an (arguably criminal) enterprise making billions for a few wealthy individuals and pennies for most creators.

People have always made music, though it wasn't as lucrative for a few lucky individuals as it is now, and although the film industry was born at a bad time, people will continue to make films. If you honestly think that any of the hollywood blockbusters lately are better than something a film student could come up with, let me suggest that you're giving special effects too much weight.

The problem in nearly every system that was affected by an attack comes down to greed (and not just on the malware maker's part). Hospitals are either businesses, expected to make ever greater profits, or government entities expected to save tax dollars (or some combination). They balance the good they do against the money it costs and unfortunately, sick people tend to be on the losing end.

Medical equipment manufacturers are almost universally corporations. If the money is there, they'll keep upgrading equipment forever, but it's usually more profitable to sell something new.

The people responsible for the equipment knew that it was old and out of date. They decided that the money they had should go elsewhere. You're not blaming the victim when someone deliberately stops maintaining his car and gets killed when his brakes fail, even if he didn't have the money to fix them. In fact, I'd say that he's responsible for any injuries to the people in the other car.

There comes a point where hacking has to be considered a force of nature, and the wind does not respect a fool.

For the same reason people have trouble with the difference between "passed" and "past." When written communication is quick and cheap, people don't spend much time on grammatical niceties, assuming that the reader will interpret their meaning.